I can actually speak with some authority on such things. Admittedly second-hand, but close at hand. If you want to join my family holiday table, doubling the white representation, you can get first-hand information.
Some of you will, no doubt, wonder at the difference between this case and the Harvey Weinstein case on the admissibility of prior acts of sexual misconduct. The short answer is that under federal evidence law, specifically rules sponsored two decades ago by Republicans, such evidence is more freely admissible than under the common-law evidence rules of many states, including New York. Whatever rule one prefers, the federal courts have to follow Congress's dictates.
What does it mean? Probably not much. If it "made sense" to this guy to set a stranger on fire he is, to use the clinical term, nuts. Maybe there were some red flags that could or should have been picked up, and we'll probably hear about it if he slipped through the cracks in the system, but that kind of nitty gritty detail won't lend itself to deep-sounding pronouncements.
When I heard that Reagan had Alzheimer's, I remembered Dorothy Parker's remark upon Coolidge's death: "How can they tell?"
Yes, I am a terrible person.
But what, specifically, would she say to differentiate herself from Biden on issue number 1? Did she, in fact, differ from Biden? You've made it clear that you don't consider the truth relevant and we'll just have to agree to disagree on that, so let's play it your way. What lie should she have told-- concretely and specifically? And if, instead, she should have given us empty bafflegab, why do you think she could have sold it?
Objection. Non-responsive. You remain perfectly free to explain what you think Harris could or should have done differently and why, in your view, it would have helped her win. You don't need anyone's agreement on your assumption to do that; indeed, doing a good job would enhance the believability of your assumption. You have been asked to do that. You have declined. That's your prerogative and I take your declination seriously.
We can agree that you believe that. We don't have to agree that it's true. You can try to establish that it's true by pointing out specific mistakes, telling us what should have been done differently in enough concrete detail to grapple with, and explaining why your suggested changes would likely have moved the needle enough to make the changes outweigh the costs of not making them. You have been asked for that. You have declined. That's your prerogative. And your habit.
As for disagreeing with both P and not-P, you beat me to it.
Forget it, Jake, it's Dark Matter Town. Nothing you can possibly say would get him off his evidence-free belief that, on the face of it (perhaps literally), Harris wasn't up to the job.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/23/2024”
I can actually speak with some authority on such things. Admittedly second-hand, but close at hand. If you want to join my family holiday table, doubling the white representation, you can get first-hand information.
"
White folks talking about what black folks are experiencing and telling them it isn't happening or is inconsequential can be tiresome.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/30/2024”
Trumps' appeal of the first E. Jean Carroll verdict denied:
https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d7c6caab-3832-45a4-b1f6-3165d0e7b870/1/doc/23-793_opn.pdf#xml=https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d7c6caab-3832-45a4-b1f6-3165d0e7b870/1/hilite/
Some of you will, no doubt, wonder at the difference between this case and the Harvey Weinstein case on the admissibility of prior acts of sexual misconduct. The short answer is that under federal evidence law, specifically rules sponsored two decades ago by Republicans, such evidence is more freely admissible than under the common-law evidence rules of many states, including New York. Whatever rule one prefers, the federal courts have to follow Congress's dictates.
On “Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death Penalty”
Cue the famous H.L. Mencken quotation.
"
I think you think we disagree. I don't think we do. I was responding to InMD's question about what the "ask" was, not asking it myself.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/23/2024”
What does it mean? Probably not much. If it "made sense" to this guy to set a stranger on fire he is, to use the clinical term, nuts. Maybe there were some red flags that could or should have been picked up, and we'll probably hear about it if he slipped through the cracks in the system, but that kind of nitty gritty detail won't lend itself to deep-sounding pronouncements.
On “Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death Penalty”
In practical terms, which are the only ones that matter here, yes.
On “From The Wall Street Journal: How the White House Functioned With a Diminished Biden in Charge”
When I heard that Reagan had Alzheimer's, I remembered Dorothy Parker's remark upon Coolidge's death: "How can they tell?"
Yes, I am a terrible person.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024”
Prices were starting to look a little frothy to me. With this pullback, they can rise on a stronger foundation.
"
At least it's refreshing to see a woman come a- cropper for thinking with the lower brain for a change.
"
To District of Columbia Stadium?
On “From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’”
That's what you've got?
"
But what, specifically, would she say to differentiate herself from Biden on issue number 1? Did she, in fact, differ from Biden? You've made it clear that you don't consider the truth relevant and we'll just have to agree to disagree on that, so let's play it your way. What lie should she have told-- concretely and specifically? And if, instead, she should have given us empty bafflegab, why do you think she could have sold it?
On “Are Republicans Waking Up?”
Growth, economy, jobs, crime… that stuff.
The Democrats would like a word.
On “From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’”
Objection. Non-responsive. You remain perfectly free to explain what you think Harris could or should have done differently and why, in your view, it would have helped her win. You don't need anyone's agreement on your assumption to do that; indeed, doing a good job would enhance the believability of your assumption. You have been asked to do that. You have declined. That's your prerogative and I take your declination seriously.
"
We can agree that you believe that. We don't have to agree that it's true. You can try to establish that it's true by pointing out specific mistakes, telling us what should have been done differently in enough concrete detail to grapple with, and explaining why your suggested changes would likely have moved the needle enough to make the changes outweigh the costs of not making them. You have been asked for that. You have declined. That's your prerogative. And your habit.
As for disagreeing with both P and not-P, you beat me to it.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024”
The complaint:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25460086-trumpselzersuit121624/?mode=document
On “From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’”
Now you know how the rest of us feel.
"
If you continue to do my work for me, I can take the holidays off.
"
At least we now know.
"
But we've already established that that would have been a lie. So (2).
"
So (2).
"
Do you think the answer she actually gave was true or not? Or do you think the truth isn't relevant?
"
Yes, I get that. I got it the first time. So (2).
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024”
Forget it, Jake, it's Dark Matter Town. Nothing you can possibly say would get him off his evidence-free belief that, on the face of it (perhaps literally), Harris wasn't up to the job.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.