zeke5123
3mo ago
DeSantis proved to be a very effective governor. I suspect that if you really wanted to roll back the admin state, he’s your man.
zeke5123
4mo ago
So basically Hunter did something that any normal American would’ve gone to prison for a long ass time, the DOJ tried its best to prevent charges from ever being filed, they even seemed to conspire with Hunter in Delaware to slap him on the wrist, but now because of public pressure they are forced to indict him in California.
But of course that now will prevent Hunter from testifying before Congress and will anyone be surprised if when no longer useful the DOJ enters a plea deal (more painful than Delaware but only marginally so)?
Trying to say “it works for both sides” ignores the massive purposeful missteps re Hunter Biden. His lawyers were willing to extend the SOL but DOJ let them expire!
zeke5123
2mo ago
No the democrats are not the government. Biden is the executive. He is arguably (weasel word) failing his oath of office.
Inaction is almost certainly not justiciable but there is a real political argument that Biden’s policy is ultra vires and therefore not an action by the government.
zeke5123
3mo ago
Assuming counseling is highly effective. I’ve never seen someone start therapy graduate from therapy. I have seen people with illness stop going to see the specialist once cured.
I think therapy is a racket.
zeke5123
5mo ago
Follow up post time.
There was a discussion awhile back about whether Jamaal Bowman pulled a fire alarm to help delay a bill relating to the government shutdown.
New footage is out. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rep-bowman-issued-criminal-summons-pulling-fire-alarm
It seems:
-
Bowman doesn’t try to open the door.
-
Bowman takes down signs.
-
Bowman pulls the alarm and walks away without changing how he walks (ie no indication he then tried to use the door).
To me, this seems like very strong evidence he pulled the alarm to cause a disruption.
zeke5123
4mo ago
District court judge making a grand political conclusion antithetical to the law isn’t exactly uncommon. See for example the Republican judge in Texas and the abortion in the mail ruling.
It is and remains a joke of an opinion.
zeke5123
4mo ago
Care to wager? SCOTUS need only say “the law is not self executing; congress passed a law saying what insurrection is, Trump wasn’t found guilty, therefore he is eligible.”
That is of course the prudential thing to do. The Baude argument is and remains silly.
zeke5123
3mo ago
More importantly it kills the ability to trade. You want X; I want Y. I prefer X to not Y and you prefer Y to not X.
So we agree to X and Y. But now the governor can strike X and keep Y. Outside of comity, why would you support X to override the veto?
Given that I can’t count on you to override the veto, I’m never going to give you Y in the first place.
zeke5123
3mo ago
I doubt Haley with full exposure would win. She would get some points with independents but lose more with the base. Her unfavorables amongst republicans are getting higher and higher.
zeke5123
5mo ago
Why use minor attracted person? First it is three words instead of pedophile. Like all woke language it is ugly. Second, it is often used to try to legitimize something we should keep highly hated.
zeke5123
2mo ago
And honestly it doesn’t matter — the imported voter base already happened.
zeke5123
2mo ago
The below may be dated (my understand of this doesn’t really include the latest week)
-
Wade isn’t a criminal law expert nor is he a staff attorney. The city is paying him as an “expert” to help with this case.
-
Fani therefore is using the Trump case to funnel a lot of state money to her new boyfriend who in turn has taken Fani on lavish vacations. Fani has claimed without evidence she reimbursed Wade for these expenses.
Putting those together Fani is arguably using the Trump case to funnel state money to her new beau and herself.
zeke5123
4mo ago
It seems oddly kids fifty years ago had both more freedom and more specific rules. Modern liberal parents are both deeply involved but have a weird “well they are going to do it anyway attitude” to many things they shouldn’t.
zeke5123
4mo ago
The legal arguments seem incredibly weak.
First, you need to define “what is an insurrection.” The amendment is silent on that. Next, you need to determine whether the proposed candidate in fact engaged in an “insurrection.” The amendment doesn’t specify the process, standard, or who gets to answer that question.
It would be an incredibly weird provision that takes away both the right of voters and the right of a candidate to seek office yet doesn’t answer these very basic questions.
Indeed, it is hard to square with the 14th amendment’s own guarantee of due process (ie we acknowledge the importance of due process except here where we will let a county clerk decide unilaterally based on whatever standard he or she likes that someone is an insurrectionist). All the more so in the context when the 14th amendment was adopted — do you really think the north wanted to give the southern states carte blanche to strike whomever they wanted from the ballot without due process of law?
Those are the infirmities before the question is even answered whether the article even applies to the presidency (there is a strong argument it doesn’t since the provision specifies, inter alia, electors but is silent on the presidency). And then there is the still procedural question of even if the amendment is self executing absent congressional action did congress act and therefore occupy field (which again arguably yes since it defined insurrection and provided a process / penalty for the crime).
All of those questions are before you get to the merits (ie did Trump engage in an insurrection, were Trump’s statements protected by the first amendment).
That is, the argument advanced in toto is betting on hitting an inside straight flush (ie it has to win on numerous arguments; rebuttal on one). The infirmity of that legal position heavily suggests the argument is bogus and prudentially SCOTUS needs to nip this in the proverbial bud on procedural grounds.
zeke5123
4mo ago
It is such a strange belief.
-
It is saying in effect society writ large matters but micro cultures don’t matter. That is, the overall structure of society causes some groups to fail but an individual group culture is at best orthogonal to success. That is an extraordinary claim.
-
It assumes that genetics apply for individuals but not groups despite clearly there being a genetic difference between groups (eg whites and Asians look different). Again this is an extraordinary claim.
So to believe that difference in group outcome is proof of discrimination relies upon two extraordinary claims.
zeke5123
3mo ago
One question for vegans is that pretty much any industrial sized farming (needed to support our population) will involve killing a lot of animals in collecting farm products. That is, killing a cow and eating it may involve less animal death compared to eating bread.
This can be solved via two ways: (1) is that animals killed during farm are less advanced and therefore their death is less morally wrong or (2) intent matters.
The problem with (1) is it undermines the entire vegan argument. The problem with (2) is that at a certain level of recklessness the moral consequences are similar.
Therefore, to live means other animals will die. I am on board with not torturing other animals (eg I wont eat veal, I buy pasture raised eggs) as that seems just unnecessary. But at the same time I don’t have qualms with eating meat.
zeke5123
3mo ago
Genocide is now like fascist— a slur that doesn’t really mean anything outside of “I don’t like X.” By any reasonable standard, Russia is not committing genocide. Ditto Israel.
Now that doesn’t mean complaints about civilian causalities are necessarily wrong. But seems to me the real complaint is about war per se.
zeke5123
7mo ago
I am a tennis fan. On the tennis Reddit page, they are discussing Novak’s comment that he isn’t anti-vax but stood for the proposition that bodily integrity meant he shouldnt be forced to take the vax.
The five bullets you list explain perfectly how the propaganda affected the main heavily upvoted response on Reddit.
The highly upvoted poster makes the claim taking the vax isn’t about freedom but that Novak was selfish putting others at risk by refusing the jab and thereby not getting to herd immunity.
This was a common refrain during the pandemic. It appealed to people’s emotions, it repeated a simple idea, it didn’t wrestle with other arguments, and it vilified a small subset (the selfish people refusing to take a safe jab to protect everyone else).
The poster never seemed to stop and think about the particulars. For example, Novak already had covid. Why did he need a vaccine? Why would a vaccinated person need protection from non-vax? How far did this principle go (ie should fat people be required to have medical surgery to lose weight given that their fatness imposes a strain on the health system)? How effective were the vaccines at creating herd immunity compared to a prior infection? How deadly was covid? If someone was very scared of covid, what protections could they take themselves instead of demanding everyone else take precautions? Did susceptible people have the right to force medical interventions onto others so that susceptible people could live their lives more normally? What amount of risk is appropriate to impose on someone for the good of the collective? Who gets to determine what is the appropriate risk? What process should be used?
There are a ton of meaty issues there. Maybe you determine on net you are still pro socially sanctioned vaccine taking but it isn’t obvious and it isn’t obviously selfish to oppose it. Indeed, in Novak’s case he sacrificed a lot for his principle (skipped numerous tournaments which could’ve cost him the all time slams lead) so kind of weird to even call him selfish — seems a lot more selfless compared to the redditor smugly denouncing him with no cost to the redditor. But I think it’s because propaganda worked. The pro vax redditor repeated the simple talking points drilled into his or her head during an emotional time and identified Novak as a villain.
What’s really odd is that the propaganda still works on vaxes! The redditor continues to make these claims in light of the severe underperformance of the vaccine in stopping the spread. You would think that would cause him or her to say “did I make a mistake somewhere in my thought process” but nope.
Makes me think “where do I have these blinders.”
zeke5123
3mo ago
DJT Jr recently mentioned RDS as a VP pick. If the Trump folks think RDS dropping out today helps Trump in NH (and SC), then VP slot may have been the consideration.
Harris called Biden a racist. Memories can be short in politics.
I think RDS made a political mistake. He should’ve just been himself the entire time. He listened to consultants too much.
But at the end of the day, I look at his record as a governor and the at record can’t be described as spineless.
Edit: I don’t know if you watched the debates but there seems to be an emerging alliance between Vivek and DeSantis. They aren’t that different on policy. A couple of times they agreed. They were occasionally joking with each other during TV timeouts.
zeke5123
4mo ago
You do realize that’s not a quibble? It goes to the very heart of your argument.
zeke5123
3mo ago
You’d probably need an effective date say ten years in the future to get support of current older politicians. Perhaps pair with a better pension for any politician that ages out under the amendment
I have some for your reading pleasure.
Biden supported and gave encouragement to BLM riots which among other things included CHAZ.
Biden knew the renter moratorium was unconstitutional. His advisors told him as such. The SCOTUS said this is illegal but since you told us you are ending it we will let you end it in an orderly fashion. He then said “fuck it — I will extend it and hope it will take months or years to overturn what I knew was against the constitutional Order.
Biden conspired with others in the Obama administration to frustrate the peaceful transmission of power to the Trump administration from by trying to sabotage that admin via the bureaucracy including Biden suggesting trying to trap Flynn using the laughable Logan act (has some similarity to Trump — sure in theory he was exercising what is facially a legal authority but the local authority could say that was pretext).
More options
Context Copy link