domain:nunosempere.com
zeke5123a
1yr ago
Many easy ones.
-
Jury verdict has to be unanimous. The idea that the key can pick and choose in a case that is not mallum in se is prohibited under the due process regime.
-
Federal preemption — congress vested sole authority in DOJ and FEC to enforce FECA because there was a strong interest in a uniform application of the law (in part because it conflicts with the first amendment and in part because it is a federal election). The state can’t use this federal law as a predicate because of preemption.
-
They could say the judge gave the wrong instructions not explaining FECA well (including botching the willfulness standard).
-
Evidence was obtained that the recent ruling likely says was inappropriately obtained.
These are probably the most straightforward at the scotus level but there are more.
But I’m not sure it goes to scotus. Trump’s team can pick an appellate judge to immediately hear an appeal to stay the order. There are many reasons to junk this case. I think the NY appellate stays any jail sentence immediately.
ControlsFreak
1yr ago
I've been a fan of the following theory. Donald Trump could not have entered into a quid pro quo arrangement (trading money for official acts) with Donald Trump by using his own money to pay for his own expense (regardless of whether the FEC's interpretation of 'private use' holds, though this would be a perfectly fine alternate theory), just because he used an intermediary for the transaction. Since the underlying crime referenced by the conviction is a federal crime, there is a substantial federal question, and prior Supreme Court precedent has established that the federal statutes in question can only withstand First Amendment scrutiny to the extent that they are interpreted in a tailored fashion so as to only address quid pro pro or the appearance thereof. Vacate and remand the question of whether the jury instructions were such that they can sustain the conviction, given that the federal crime alleged is actually not a crime.
quiet_NaN
1yr ago
Of course, the assumption that the top 100 books of this century have already been written is a level of pessimism on the NYT's part which makes Eliezer Yudkowsky look like a hopeless optimist by comparison.
zeke5123a
1yr ago
The only difference is he is a lot more successful!
I say in jest as a fellow rust belt kid. I could relate to a lot of what Vance wrote in Hillbilly elegy.
zeke5123a
1yr ago
He also didn’t have an incumbency advantage AND was going up against an unusually strong democrat.
zeke5123a
1yr ago
He can speak a language they understand and tell them “I’m you.” I’m from western PA. He can relate.
zeke5123a
1yr ago
I think this is a naive take. Yes why would they be focused on JD. But now they have a reason. He is going to be in western PA a lot (eg new castle). He is going to try to run up the vote in the not overly densely populated areas. And he will be able to genuinely speak a language western PA folk will understand. If he can get 50-75k more votes in Western PA that could be the difference between winning or losing.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
1yr ago
Most of the political discussions in Dune made me wish I had read it as a "Gifted" 12 year old instead of in my 30s. At 12 I would have felt so clever solving the little puzzles, now I just find the stupidity of the characters tiresome.
zeke5123a
1yr ago
To Tucker’s credit, he loudly and publicly says “I fucked up on Iraq and it is my biggest mistake.”
Maybe there are others but I think most media just move along. I appreciated that he owned his failure. Maybe it’s an act but he seems to have really taken it to heart. He was probably the only person on Fox that criticized Trump over Solemni (sp?). He was probably the only person on Fox at the start of the Ukraine war to pump the brakes. Maybe it doesn’t come from a well thought out place but being burned on Iraq seems to have made him reflexively against any foreign entanglements.
zeke5123a
1yr ago
We just had a whole cadre of leftist media (eg NYT, WaPo, CNN) pretend the president wasn’t senile for three years. Yet we are attacking Tucker? Physician heal thyself.
zeke5123a
1yr ago
I kinda of agree. I don’t have anything against Vance specifically. He in fact may turn out wonderfully. I just don’t know him—at all. He hasn’t had the eye of Sauron on him so I can’t trust him.
It’s why I would’ve preferred RDS. Of course Trump feels (I think really unfairly) that RDS betrayed Trump so was never going to happen.
Lizzardspawn
1yr ago
Biden won a competitive primary in 2020.
Ahh yes - the competitive thing where everyone simultaneously dropped and endorsed you after a lot of backroom dealing.
A lot of the current mess dems are in could be traced to them trying to stop Bernie twice.
BahRamYou
1yr ago
The fact that the best available talent on the centrist wing of the Democratic party in 2020 was Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar says something less-than-positive about the state of the American centre-left.
I think it's more about the party base than its leadership. Like you said, the black political machine is huge in Dem primaries, and they came out big for Biden. Buttigieg and Sanders did great in the early, mostly-white states of Iowa and New Hampshire. But then along came South Carolina with its huge black population and just absolutely crushed it for Biden. Almost half of the vote to just one candidate in a multi-way race, and more than half of the delegates in a fairly large state. No one else could touch him after that.\
It's an interesting question as to why he won so much black support. You might think Harris would have won their support, since she's part black. Or maybe someone more progressive. But no. They went hard for the fairly moderate guy who was also Obama's VP. In that case, being VP meant a lot. But I don't think that, say, Mike Pence would enjoy a similar bump- even the most ardent Trump supporters don't really like Pence.
Dean
Flairless
1yr ago
Fundamentally, Biden won because none of the wonkier centrist candidates could win the support of the black political machines who deliver a plurality of the Dem primary vote, so the other centrists (by the time the voting started, that meant Buttigieg and Klobuchar) had to drop out and endorse Biden if they wanted to crush the Sanders/Warren wing. This was obvious to anyone who understands Democratic party politics after the South Carolina primary.
And this was the moment of anointing. Biden did not enter the primaries anointed- Biden was anointed into the primaries by how the inner-party party reacted in the face of an emergent threat to their control of the party as a whole, rather than allow an outsider wing raise as a result of voter preference in the primaries.
AshLael
Just here to farm downvotes
1yr ago
I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn't be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he's America's Hitler.
I guess he landed on option 1.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
1yr ago
Deal with the devil.
AshLael
Just here to farm downvotes
1yr ago
dovetailing
1yr ago
I have not read most of the books on that list, but from the ones I have it does not bode well. The Great Gatsby is fine, but massively overrated. The same goes for Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four. Others are mediocre at best with a lot of flaws (Lord of the Flies) or simply execrable (On The Road, a book whose only redeeming quality is that it did an excellent job of making me detest the narrator). And the authors of the list seem to take pleasure in selecting books which had, at one point or another, been banned for obscenity, which certainly sheds some light on their criteria for greatness.
On the other hand, the books they chose not to include are also telling. How can you make a list of the best 100 twentieth-century novels and not include The Lord of the Rings (a contender for #1, and it's not in their list of 100!)? They also seem to think that anything that could be construed as "children's literature" is beneath them, though for my money this includes some of the best literature. Notably omitted is Anne of Green Gables as well as, as far as I can tell, every single Newbery winner (I'd single out A Wrinkle in Time, as well as it's more-mature sequel A Swiftly Tilting Planet (not a Newbery winner), as being particularly good).
All of which is to say, this list surely embodies somebody's idea of a good book, but it's somebody to whose recommendations I'd give negative weight.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
The obvious need is for the advancement and maintenance of first world societies. You need first world people to stave of stagnation, deterioration and corruption.
On a social level the proportions that make up a population are very important if you care about first world living standards. This is why populations like Iceland can create a better living environment than populations in various eastern European countries despite the total number of high trust, high IQ people being higher in eastern Europe.
It has to pay off to be high trust. Otherwise the people predisposed to trusting will learn to do the opposite. This creates a drastic division within a society where people, most often the smartest who are very capable of forming collectives of trust, close themselves off from wider society because engaging with it fairly is not worth it since it has too many trust breakers.
This effectively makes nepotism and corruption a winning move, which is obviously awful for anyone who idealizes any modern conception of a first world society.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1yr ago
The people who don't vote for President are unlikely to show up for jury duty also. And they're still Democrats.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1yr ago
His children are Ewan (not Evan)
Really leaning into that borderer thing, eh?
Thoroughlygruntled
1yr ago
If anything, a former never-Trumper who has just been so disgusted by the dems that he's reluctantly come around to MAGA seems like the exact thing Trump should want in a running mate. This whole election seems to be dominated by that vibe, and I know A LOT of disaffected centrists who are planning on holding their noses and voting for Trump for the first time in November.
4doorsmorewhores
1yr ago
This is a bait and switch argument. At first the claim was "The party has current problems because instead of healthy party politics deciding leaders, they anoint whoever has the most name recognition or seniority in the previous regime", now it's "After a somewhat rigorous and unpredictable primary process with votes and wins all over the place, eventually they coalesced around a candidate who they thought was best (And who did in fact end up winning), which proves he was anointed"
Definitely go for a trans-alp tour. One of the classics is Munich to Venice, but I'm more fond of the more western routes through Switzerland.
More options
Context Copy link