Ohio
If Trump actually accused Kamala of helping Haitians eat cats what the heck happens?
"You, and Joe Biden brought in millions of illegal immigrants, and now. Did you see this folks? They are stealing and eating cats in Ohio. True story, I couldn't believe it myself."
I don’t think that’s necessarily true.
First of all, like or hate Trump, he has political views and ideas and he’s been talking about them. She has said very little about what she wants to do. And I think unless she has something she wants to do, is just going to come off as weak. He wants to round up millions of illegal immigrants. What does she want to do here? If he talks about his plan and adds in the crazier stories about what immigrants are doing (for example killing ducks in Ohio parks) and it’s going to be hard to just vibe it. Likewise inflation. Talking in vague generalities isn’t going to make groceries or gas cheaper. Again, if he can point out those stories where this hurts ordinary Americans, she can’t exactly get away with not having a plan.
As far as the bad performance being recoverable, I’m not so sure just because of how close the election is. We vote November 5, two months from now. That’s a pretty small window and probably not enough time for memory to fade. People were talking about Biden’s bad debate for a month or more. I grant that his obvious Sun-downing is probably worse than anything she would ever do, but still it’s not easy to just forget an obviously bad debate. So she kinda has to go for broke here. If she can’t convince people t9 even consider her as anything other than an empty head, she’s not only not going to close the deal, but might lose some Never Trumps.
Harris will give bizarre word salad non answers to half the questions, but the other half she'll have a nearly flawless rehearsed answers for.
Trump will mostly ignore the questions and just go on about whatever topics he feels he's strongest in. His answers will also be too online, and assume you know what he's talking about. At some point he'll bring up the 20,000 Hattians in Ohio, but it will be in the most confusing way possible. You'll either know what he's gesturing at and nod along, or think he's an absolute crazy person.
Despite the mics being muted while the other person is talking, at some point Kamala will try to shoehorn in "I'm talking now", because the "vote blue no matter who" crowd loves it when she says that and it gets them all fired up. But in context it will make almost zero sense.
If the debate rules break down at some point like they did with Biden, and they stop muting the mics, I have no fucking clue what sort of chaos will break loose. Pretty sure Harris' entire strategy is to just bully Trump into shutting up with girlboss energy, but I'll be extremely disappointed if he lets her. But I wouldn't be shocked if the moderators put their finger on the scale and start selectively muting Trump so Harris can speak in that situation, even if it's supposed to be his time to speak, like for his 2 minute rebuttal or however they structure it.
For the US senate, you should vote Moreno. Here's why: if the Republicans win the Presidential election, they're basically guaranteed to have the Senate, as the vice president keeps tiebreaks, and so if they win tiebreaks, to lose the Senate, they'd have to lose in all of: (fairly likely) Pennsylvania, Maryland, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, (even) Ohio, (30% chance) Montana, and (fairly unlikely) one of Florida or Texas. So whether or not Moreno is elected shouldn't lead to a Republican trifecta, at least, in the next two years.
But if the Democrats win the election, then they win tiebreaks, and so don't need to win Florida or Texas. This makes Sherrod Brown likely to be the critical vote for whatever problematic things they try to pass. So if there are things you don't want them passing (e.g. the supreme court "reforms", bad economic policies, whatever else), it makes sense to vote Moreno.
That is, Ohio's Senate seat disproportionately matters if the Democrats win. Accordingly, if you dislike both agendas, it makes more sense to pick the candidate that will prevent party-line votes should the Democrats win the presidency.
I don't care for either candidate, but I'm leaning towards Harris. I despise the Ohio Republican Party, so I'm for voting blue no matter who for anything state-related.
JD Vance shows with his own exotic import wife
San Diego is right next to Mexico and might feel exotic to someone from Ohio, but is still an American city. I need more time to address the rest of your reply.
You're spot on. It's $8.6 billion. Like any good student, you guessed the teacher's password!
The point I was making is that despite this company being "essential" to the U.S. economy, it's worth 1/5th as much as an energy drink company. In fact, the energy drink and burrito sectors of the economy are 10x the value of the steel sector.
The U.S. economy has been so hollowed out that these remaining old economy companies linger on like zombies and political footballs, basically forbidden from ever making a dollar of profit for their investors.
But I think there is a genuine difference between Trump and Harris here. In the Trump world, tariffs go up, regulation goes down, and U.S. steel might actually reward its patient investors. In the Harris world, regulation goes up, and maybe the steel industry gets a bail out or something, but 100% of the value is captured by unions so the company continues to exist as a zombie like it has for half a century. In the Harris economy, nobody in their right mind invests in steel, or autos, or any heavy industries. Detroit, Ohio, and western PA exist as pitiable charity cases while the smart money starts another energy drink company such as Celsius (market cap $8.7 billion).
I'm not sure Trump's tariff plan will work. It might not. But it's at least trying to let the industrial regions stand on their own two feet again.
What kind of law do you practice? I'm currently in litigation but I've done oil and gas law in the past and dabbled in bankruptcy and simple estate planning along the way, and I have a hard time thinking of any obvious uses for AI. It may make legal research easier, but I do legal research maybe a few times a year, and clients don't like paying for it so we usually only do it at their request, and they only seem to request it whenever I'm already pretty busy, so cutting my research billables by a couple hours wouldn't make much of a dent in the overall amount of work I have. The thing about most litigation is that few issues arise where there's any real fuzzy question that needs research. If you practice in one area the relevant appellate decisions are well-known and new ones are rare enough that it's news when they're handed down. This was even true when I was in oil and gas, and a relatively large number of decisions were being handed down during the boom, covering the three states I worked in.
Anyway, in litigation at least, I'm rarely ever doing the typical lawyer thing of applying the law to the facts and making an argument. What I spend most of my time doing is gathering facts and analyzing them so I can first make an argument to the client to get settlement authority in the amount I think I need and then making an argument to opposing counsel that they should accept what I'm offering them. The relevant information here is 1. The facts of the case at hand, and 2. The facts of other cases my firm has settled with Plaintiff's counsel. Any LLM would need access to hundreds of pages of depositions, thousands of pages of medical records, interrogatories, fact witness lists, expert reports, innumerable pages of discovery material, and other information each case generates. And then multiply this by every case the office has ever handled, and some that they didn't. Almost every case I handle involves discovery evidence and deposition testimony from prior cases that the Plaintiff is relying on as evidence. And I need it to digest the facts of all recent cases (at least the past 5 years, sometimes longer) to compare settlement amounts. In order to do this, a firm would need to be running their own AI servers, which would have to be training constantly. And that doesn't even get to the other problem, that AI can't take a deposition.
In oil and gas it's even worse since my job was in title, and title records are stashed in courthouses and often haven't been digitized. Some counties are getting better with digitizing land records but few counties have attempted to digitize historical probate records, and the ones that have don't have online access. I'm not aware of any county that has digitized historical court records. With the exception of Ohio, the counties that do have online access are fee-based, and I doubt many companies are willing to give AI the authority to charge credit cards. And once you do get the records, anything before about 1920 is going to be handwritten, often poorly, and anything before about 1970 is going to be typewritten in a way that OCR struggles with. Some online systems don't work off of a typical database, but simply have scanned index pages that require you to manually enter the book and page number you're looking for. These use indexing systems that computers have made obsolete, and it's an open question whether an AI could figure out how to use them absent specific instructions. But the ultimate question is whether or not the general AI's that exist now would even be able to understand what they're supposed to be doing. There's also the problem that even knowing if a particular instrument even applies to the parcel in question. In states that predate the US Land Survey System, property descriptions will often start with "Beginning at a white oak" or something similarly nonspecific, then run through survey calls. Sometimes the calls have inaccuracies that need to be untangled. Sometimes (particularly with old leases and ROWs) it will just state the owners of the adjoining property. Sometimes (pretty often, actually, a title chain will simply stop cold because it passed through an estate and the only record of the transfer is the probate record of the person who died, whose name you probably don't know. I could continue but you get the idea. Figuring out a title takes years of learning various techniques based on the resources available. And God help you if you work in West Virginia.
With bankruptcy and estate planning, while actual legal questions are more prevalent, the bigger issue is being able to advise clients about what they should be doing. The kind of people willing to half-ass estate planning are the kind of people who are going to get a basic will off of Legal Zoom for 80 bucks anyway and allow their heirs to deal with the consequences of the fact that their estate wasn't so simple after all. (Practically every client I did a will for told me their situation was "really simple" and this was almost never the case. One guy had property in another state. One couple had a blended family. One guy owned a fucking restricted business.) Bankruptcy is theoretically more straightforward, especially Chapter 7s, but bankruptcy clients need someone to tell them that things are going to be okay as much as they need legal advice. These people come into your office absolutely scared to death and want to hug you when they leave.
And then there's the thing that local courts have their own customs that can't easily be translated to LLMs. Does the PA Statute of Repose apply to equipment that's permanently affixed to a structure? In Cambria County it does, in Allegheny County it usually doesn't, and it's not something anyone is ever going to appeal. How will the bankruptcy trustee treat a particular situation? Depends on the trustee. These are things you can only know if you're a lawyer who practices in the jurisdiction, and there are no written opinions to guide the AI. I admit that it has some theoretical uses, but I wouldn't start telling people to drop out of law school just yet. I mean, there are plenty of reasons to not go to law school, but this isn't one of them.
Referring to abortion as “decisions of heart and home” is an interesting tactic.
Correct if I am incorrect, but don't democrats deny any right to the father of child and the family of the mother to determine if it should live or die? Because if neither her husband nor her family should have any say, the "home" part is deceitful. Only the "heart" (of the mother) decides.
The callback to her earlier line with “the only client he has ever had - himself” is great speechwriting.
Is this referring to Trump? He owned hotels, casinos, of which visitors could be called clients.
Someone has to actually lose.
A bit off-topic, but I read today about the political system if Bosnia and Herzegovina. The country has three main ethniticies: Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs, all are subethnicities of Slavs, each has an associated religion, and all speak basically the same language. The country is divided into Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina where the Croats and Bosniaks live, and the Srpska Republic inhabited by Serbs. Since the divisions run deep and none of ethnic groups trusts any other to not ethincally cleanse them, the bodies where power is allocated by election are subordinate to a neutral third party: Office of the High Representative (OHR) or unoffically Viceroy of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Such a solution for a territory deemed to be too "primitive" for self-rule wasn't invented in Dayton, Ohio, but follows in the tradition of "Mandates" dating back to the League of Nations.
Perhaps a similar solution could be adopted in Palestinian Territories: P5+regional islamic powers+EU+Israel each send representative to Steering Board, which elects a viceroy. He would be given a range of powers and would tasked to make sure violent extremists do not gain power, and to slowly accustom Palestinians to a free and democratic society.
How does differ from a just a military occupation? Under the OHR system the natives make the vast majority of political decisions and OHR only intervenes if he senses danger to the peace treaty (in BiH's Dayton Agreement), while under military occupation (as practised by Americans, not as defined in international law) not even this fig leaf is required: any organization can be freely dissolved, destroyed, or altered, any person killed, imprisoned, or impoverished with no justification needed.
While the Bosnian and Second World wars both saw brutality, Germans in the war just prior to the one which earned them the occupation (WWI) behaved in a honourable and admirable manner, while South Slavs in the war just prior to the one which earned them the occupation (WWII) commited many atrocities, even against each other. So by this criterion by which one could determine how civilized populations are, Palestinians of the pre 10-7 era are closer to the South Slavs of WWII, than Germans of WWI, in their want to seeing people die.
So the role the foreigners play should reflect this similarity: because the Palestinians are seemingly crueler in general, the regime should be hands-off.
Standard US tips are 20% of the bill.
A cursory Google search suggests that 15 to 20 percent is the standard range.
Restaurant owners strongly encourage credit card payments
What about the big class-action lawsuit regarding credit-card fees? And the other lawsuit regarding credit-card policies that forbade businesses from "steering" customers away from credit cards and toward cash?
Meanwhile, on reddit, a conversation like this is happening:
is it really extrapolating much to assume that the party that requires healthcare providers to report any miscarriage so you can be investigated and prosecuted and mandates that you be raped with an ultrasound probe before you can get life saving medical care could also require you to have children by a certain age or other things that are not part of current legislation? Are slopes ever slippery?
I guess I haven't spent too much time in the Rust Belt specifically, but there has been a lot of migration around the country for at least the last century. It's easy to point to growing Sun Belt cities and stagnating-or-shrinking northern ones -- an older friend from Ohio noted that Cincinnati is about the same size it was in the 70s and still mostly fits inside the same interstate ring road, while Houston is in the process of building a third.
But it's also impacted smaller communities. My family history involves a couple tiny rural towns in the South that have since completely evaporated and left only road signs and a couple still-occupied houses. The historical marker points to where the one room schoolhouse and the general store had been. These places disappeared with better cars and roads in the middle of the last century: we can just bus the kids to the bigger school down the road, and drive into town for the store. Will this get rebuilt? I don't know: some developers nearby have been trying to sell swanky ranchettes, but even if that happened in the same place, it's a fundamentally different community -- this time around it has electricity and indoor plumbing, not to mention air conditioning and a major city within a few hours of driving, none of which were there a century ago.
though in this particular case I can imagine Mr. Jones facing consequences even here in the United States. Remind me, is it still okay to call for the punching of U.S. Nazis? Was it ever? I seem to have lost track.
Watching the clip. It looks like Jones's comments would be pretty close to the line in the US. Advocacy of violence is explicitly protected in the US by the 1st amendment (well, by supreme court precedent interpreting the 1st amendment, see Brandenburg v Ohio).
The two things that are more radioactive (legally) are that he's doing it in front of a crowd and pretty immediately goes into a chant (which generally has the effect of shutting off certain parts of the brain). This goes a long way to satisfying the "immediacy" requirement of restricting speech in the US. But you would still have to prove intent, which is really hard to do.
TL;DR: I'd expect a < 25% chance that this would result in legal consequences in the US. Social consequences, on the other hand...
I mean, any resident of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, or in past elections, Florida & Ohio can tell you that TV stations have no problems taking anybodies political ads and running them.
As far as memes go, I thought with Musk in charge, X was now the land of free speech where the true non-restricted views of the people can run free.
CrimeCamNow is all from the Atlanta metro, and Georgia Police Activity is also from the same state. There’s NM Bodycam for stuff out of New Mexico (expect a lot of meth dealers and drunk Mexicans getting got), Arkansas Police Activity and Police Pursuits (featuring the legendary Officer Byrd and the Arkansas State Police’s notoriously extensive use of the PIT maneuver), there’s Ohio Bodycam and Columbus Police Bodycam, there’s Officer Outlook in Minnesota, there’s California Bodycam… I’m subscribed to about 50 different channels from all over the country.
wo particular and factual points. Recent polling indicates that in his "home region" which includes significant battleground states (that's Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin), CNN pegged him at -16 net favorability, which is dramatic. Especially considering that usually VP picks are chosen specifically for their help in swing states! That he's hurting them there instead is notable.
I'm not really sure I'd call Illinois and Indiana battleground states. ohio and michigan, sure. But Illinois and Indiana aren't particularly competitive.
This matches my impression. Where is all this JD Vance criticism coming from? The neocon types and the Democrats.
You forget the white nationalists and 4channers calling him a miscegenating race-traitor; the paranoid "mark of the beast" folks who see him as a Thiel/Palantir/CIA puppet here to enact total digital surveillance; and the "sigma male" crowd around Vox Day calling him a possibly-gay "gamma":
Finally, JDA reports that JD Vance is proving to be a negative for the Trump ticket because women don’t like him. Gamma confirmed. And Karl Denninger noticed something very odd about the man’s marital relationship.
So his wife was employed by a California firm that focused on litigation and appeals in San Francisco and DC yet Vance lives in Ohio. That’s a rather interesting arrangement you two have, don’t you think, particularly with three young children in the game.
Oh, I don’t know, Karl. I’m sure he got out there as often as he could. There’s a lot of things for a man to do in San Francisco. A lot of interesting places to visit. A lot of friendly fellows interested in getting to know you…
While it's impossible to ignore the online dimension of Vance criticism (and what kind of criticism isn't at least a little online nowadays?) that's not what gives the criticism its legs. No, the concern lies in what the more accurate political pundits are saying about his potential influence on the election, and this is grounded in polling, so it's not just white noise.
Two particular and factual points. Recent polling indicates that in his "home region" which includes significant battleground states (that's Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin), CNN pegged him at -16 net favorability, which is dramatic. Especially considering that usually VP picks are chosen specifically for their help in swing states! That he's hurting them there instead is notable.
Second, if we look nationally and compare again to historic VP picks, his polling is currently worse than Sarah Palin at the same point in time (i.e. right after the convention). And potentially the worst ever. One poll had net approval as -5 and another at -13. In fact literally no VP pick ever has had a negative net favorability rating (edit: at this stage)!
So yeah. It's not just insiders. This is data from voters themselves. Sure, that's a function of media attention in some respect, but this early in the campaign? I think a claim that it's just people out to get him is unsupported.
edit: Palin trajectory for comparison. She did end up around -20 net. Since typically net favorability tends to decrease for most VP candidates as the campaign goes on, starting already in the red is worrying. Note that although the chart goes longer, her net rating was only around zero-ish when the 2008 election actually happened, so -5 is still worse than she ever was during the actual campaign!!
The idea that the VP pick helps win the home state is largely a myth. Vance isn't going to help Trump win Ohio.
I agree. VP picks make for great news-entertainment, but have very little effect on the overall election. Much like their actual role- their power is limited! The typical voter, especially the swing voters, vote for the pres, not "hmm there's a 2% chance that this VP will takeover so that should influence my vote a little..."
There is no VP pick Trump could have made that would not have been spun by hostile media forces as a bad choice.
The idea that the VP pick helps win the home state is largely a myth. Vance isn't going to help Trump win Ohio.
Virtually any other VP pick would have been a sign to Trump's base that he was moderating, and would have depressed turnout.
Vance isn’t a bridge to Ohio, he is a bridge to Thiel-adjacent SV capital. If Trump continues to cut into dem advantage with latino and black votes AND tech money moves toward donation parity between the parties, that cuts into two of the Democrats’ most important election pillars for the last 15 years. Democrats can’t win elections relying on, ahem, childless cat ladies as the only reliable party structure.
Is it possible for Trump to ditch Vance? He doesn't seem to bring much to the ticket, other than taking the spotlight away from Trump. Trump already won Ohio with a wider margin than Vance did in his senate bid. Can I get a steel man for why he was picked? It doesn't change my vote, but it comes off as a bad play to me.
Apologies for the delay in replying - life can get busy sometimes.
I am saying the problems afflicting the rural working class and poor (as distinct from the suburban conservatives who make up much/most of Trump's base and who are generally doing more than fine) are not the product of the urban professional class, immigration, or free trade as Greer hints.
I disagree but neither of us have provided evidence here. I agree with Greer's position that choices about the costs of these changes were not equally distributed across society, and they were the inevitable consequences of the choices that were made.
US manufacturing dominance in the mid 20th century was a bubble of anomalous circumstances that was never going to be sustained.
Greer actually agrees with this and it is a large theme in his work - though he also throws in the energy factor, which I think is a significant element as well. The point actually being made is that the reaction to those changes and shifts involved making decisions that profited some sections of society at the expense of others. Neither me nor Greer are claiming that the managerial class/salary class just decided to fuck over the rural poors for no reason - but that the decisions made in response to crisis hurt those groups to advantage others. All of the factors you identified are real reasons as to why the US would not be able to maintain the success they did and neither me nor Greer would disagree (I think, at least).
I'm not going to say that nothing can be done about the US' relative position in global manufacturing, but it isn't what Trump is promising and it isn't what a bunch of 60 year old ex-factory workers from Ohio want. It probably means more immigration, not less, more international partnerships and less protectionism, more capital/automation-intensive facilities, and more federally directed industrially policy
I think that those policies and ideas, the same ones that have been put in place for the past several decades, will continue to have the same impact they have had for the past several decades. If you want to have that argument I would love to, but I don't think this moldy old conversational thread is the place.
A major distinction is that Trump haters don't say this, whereas many Trump supporters cite the arrogance, condescension, and judgment of 'coastal elites' as a reason for supporting him. They frame it more sympathetically than I do, but it's coming from their own mouths.
I actually think "arrogance, condescension and judgement" coming from someone is a valid reason to hate them and work against them - I know that if I act arrogantly and condescendingly to people while negatively judging their lifestyle it doesn't tend to lead to us becoming best of friends. But that's actually very different to the original claim, which was "Trump supporters have an inferiority complex and feel humiliated when college-educated liberals look down on them."
He was literally four in 1966. If he has any expertise on the socio-economic conditions of the 60s, it is purely incidental to his personal life.
And he also lived in Appalachia and other parts of the country hit by the economic conditions we spoke about later - he's been following these stories for quite some time. The reason I brought it up is that he ha actually lived through all the changes that he's describing.
As someone whose life story was a bit like Vance's (except in rural north Alabama instead of small town southern Ohio), it's weird. I grew up not really fitting in with the place (was too much of a nerd) and as an adult would rather hang out at the bar with your average blue tribe dilettante (I really like smart right wingers and or grey tribe types, but they're rare in my local college town social scene and or keep their mouths shut. I'd much rather talk to a liberal lawyer/law student than some low-info Boomer Gen X Reaganite or Trumper who hasn't updated their talking points since the 1990s.) than your local rednecks (I can talk enough about cars and football to fit in, though, and one of our regulars was impressed that I was the first non-tradesperson he'd met who knew what a glazier is.), but I don't really share their values. Somehow, in spite of not having been raised in the church, I turned out a fairly conservative person. I don't know what separates me from the average hicklib (There are plenty of those to be found in an SEC college town scene.), but at some point in my late teens/early 20s I felt it necessary to forgive my classmates for not having accepted me, to thank my teachers for what they did do, and while I'm not a churchgoer I've made my peace with God. Most of the people in the ruralville I'm from are decent and mean well, and as for the ones who aren't, there's trash everywhere I guess.
As for the borderer stuff, I don't know if Vance was or wasn't hamming some things up (The gist of his family having been part of the Great Migration strikes me as accurate, and while my father's side aren't from Appalachia they did migrate from the south to the rust belt and have been badly hurt by that area's economic decline and their own dysfunctions. My mom's side were the hillbillies, and apparently meeting them was something of a culture shock to my dad who'd grown up middle class in the Midwest.), but he nailed the toxic push-pull relationship between Mom and Mamaw (I do not believe that he was lying about that.) such that I was unprepared for that trip down memory lane and spent some time in tears.
I will say that I sympathize deeply with Vance's reactionary streak, even if I'm not sure (and I don't know if he's sure either) what the answer is.
I think it'll be way less coherent than that. You can actually tell what's happening almost in your fictionalization. I think it'll be something where Trump just blurts out, apropos of little
"She put the Hattians on Ohio! Terrible, terrible. Many such cases." And if you know, you know. If you don't, he just sounds crazy. What about Hattians in Ohio? Was Kamala actually in any way responsible for... whatever he's talking about? He might as well be ranting about lizard people or clockwork elves.
More options
Context Copy link