If we wanted "God's discernment " we would look to someone who has a credible claim to knowing what it is. But if the point is that none of us has such a claim, there's nothing more to be said about it.
And slim v. none on some good stuff outweighs all the bad stuff? Is there any other candidate for any other office to whom you would apply such a standard?
Predicting is an actual thing, for which there can be varying degrees of justification. And people necessarily act on predictions all the time.
Do you actually dispute the prediction that RFK Jr. will not be allowed in a Trump administration to pursue the things some of us think he is right about?
If not, do you think that Colorado Springs Man supports RFK Jr.'s doomed attempt to defy his boss is sufficiently likely to matter to take on all the other baggage that RFK Jr. brings?
Or is this just rationalizing distaste for people who don't like RFK Jr.?
Neither RFK Jr., nor anyone else acceptable to a Trump administration, will do a damn thing about Big Food, Big Pharma, and Big Agriculture, even if so inclined, because Donald Trump won't let them. So that's a wash. That just leaves us with how much you care about, oh, everything else. If you care about everything else, it's much better not to have RFK Jr.
It’s likely that a sane person will be much smarter about what he’s going to pursue. Unlikely to tilt against something that he has no chance of winning against.
Why that is supposed to be less preferable? In your scenario, the new candidate won't pursue a bunch of stupid s**t that RFK Jr. would and would make fewer ineffectual noises than RFK Jr. about stuff that is not stupid s**t but that neither of them would be allowed to pursue. And in either case, the support of people who would like those windmills tilted at -- damn few of them Trump supporters -- would be politically meaningless in a Trump administration. Your hypothetical, which you seem to think problematic, is, on the contrary, a net gain for sanity.
Why support "him" rather than whatever he happens to be right about? He, himself, whether right or wrong on a particular issue, is an inconsequential whackjob who has no business being put up for the job he hopes to hold. Especially when he will not be allowed to pursue those things he is right about. Those who share his views on Big Food, Big Pharma, and Big Agriculture have been advocating them despite the handicap of being associated with RFK Jr. and will probably continue to do so.
The RFK Jr. sanewashers tout a couple of things RFK, Jr. (fun fact, we sat in the same room to take the bar exam) is right about. The problem is, he's right about the problems of Big Food, Big Pharma, and Big Agriculture, big Republican constituencies he won't be allowed to touch in a Trump administration.
What's not disputed is that some of the frightened passengers were telling Penny to ease up and that Neely was subdued and choking. If Penny were merely "holding him down," then there would have been no trial even if it were 12-15 minutes because Neely wouldn't have died. But you can easily choke a man to death in 3-5 minutes; Penny had been trained how to do that.
None of which was legally relevant to the negligent homicide charge, which was presented on the theory that Penny didn't do anything wrong at the beginning of his intervention, but only when he continued choking Neely long after he was effectively subdued and was, in fact, dying.
This is a lot simpler and more plausible than the eleventh-dimensional chess scenarios. They won't ask for or accept pardons. In any sane world, they will not be prosecuted for anything because they haven't done anything for which they can be prosecuted. If Trumpworld isn't Saneworld and they get prosecuted, I expect they will fight on the merits. If they are asked to testify before Congress, they will do so because nothing they could truthfully say would incriminate them.
The normal rule for prosecutors is to charge the highest-level offense that you have a decent chance of proving. That's why there was a manslaughter charge. I don't think anyone would have made a big bet that the charge would stick, but there was a legitimate case. After all, the jury hung on it. The lesser charge, criminally negligent homicide, was what I thought the evidence showed. The prosecution theory was that Penny was justified in intervening*, which moots all the complications about defense of others, but that at some point he continued to choke Neely to death when it was no longer reasonable for him to do it. The threat had subsided, other passengers warned Penny that the guy was choking to death and that he should stop -- a by-the-numbers case for criminally negligent homicide. Given that one or more jurors had been willing to convict on manslaughter, it is hard to understand why those same jurors voted to acquit on criminally-negligent homicide. Unless they had been one or two holdouts on a manslaughter acquittal and were just worn down on criminally-negligent homicide.
That said, it wasn't entirely surprising that the jury acquitted. Juries have been remarkably sympathetic to defendants in this sort of case.
* I once tossed a disruptive loon off the subway, to the cheers of fellow passengers. I didn't kill him and probably didn't hurt anything other than his pride. And I was never the trained physical specimen that Penny is.
And a lot never were. But the urge to have a hot take drives far too many people to jump on rumor or speculation on Monday rather than wait until Thursday to get things right. Maybe they get some value out of it, but it's hard to see.
I heard the same speculation from sources not generally hospitable to conspiracy theories, not about Schiff specifically, but about the entire class of potential Trump targets to which he belongs.
That is not as clear as it ought to be: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110580824.pdf
And it's hard to see how that would work for a pre-emptive pardon.
Actions speak louder than words. If he accepts a pardon, he can't say "I didn't want this." If he doesn't, he can say what he damn pleases. If he isn't offered one, there's nothing for him to say and we can make up whatever we like, based on our priors about about Schiff, and nobody can prove us wrong.
Place your bets.
The problem with this "school of thought" is that a pardon must be accepted to be effective. Neither Schiff nor anyone else can work both sides of the street:
On “Thursday Throughput: RFK Jr Edition”
No, it's not. You didn't ask anything. I'm not sure you said anything either, but that's another matter.
"
If we wanted "God's discernment " we would look to someone who has a credible claim to knowing what it is. But if the point is that none of us has such a claim, there's nothing more to be said about it.
"
That was clear enough. Thanks for playing.
"
Well, you thought wrong. So answer the questions. Or don't. Just make it clear that you aren't going to and save our time.
"
And slim v. none on some good stuff outweighs all the bad stuff? Is there any other candidate for any other office to whom you would apply such a standard?
"
Well, yes, the dang gummint won't let the dang gummint do what the head of the dang gummint doesn't want done.
Your point is?
"
Predicting is an actual thing, for which there can be varying degrees of justification. And people necessarily act on predictions all the time.
Do you actually dispute the prediction that RFK Jr. will not be allowed in a Trump administration to pursue the things some of us think he is right about?
If not, do you think that Colorado Springs Man supports RFK Jr.'s doomed attempt to defy his boss is sufficiently likely to matter to take on all the other baggage that RFK Jr. brings?
Or is this just rationalizing distaste for people who don't like RFK Jr.?
"
Neither RFK Jr., nor anyone else acceptable to a Trump administration, will do a damn thing about Big Food, Big Pharma, and Big Agriculture, even if so inclined, because Donald Trump won't let them. So that's a wash. That just leaves us with how much you care about, oh, everything else. If you care about everything else, it's much better not to have RFK Jr.
"
It’s likely that a sane person will be much smarter about what he’s going to pursue. Unlikely to tilt against something that he has no chance of winning against.
Why that is supposed to be less preferable? In your scenario, the new candidate won't pursue a bunch of stupid s**t that RFK Jr. would and would make fewer ineffectual noises than RFK Jr. about stuff that is not stupid s**t but that neither of them would be allowed to pursue. And in either case, the support of people who would like those windmills tilted at -- damn few of them Trump supporters -- would be politically meaningless in a Trump administration. Your hypothetical, which you seem to think problematic, is, on the contrary, a net gain for sanity.
"
That's not what "sanewashing" means. But you knew that.
"
Why support "him" rather than whatever he happens to be right about? He, himself, whether right or wrong on a particular issue, is an inconsequential whackjob who has no business being put up for the job he hopes to hold. Especially when he will not be allowed to pursue those things he is right about. Those who share his views on Big Food, Big Pharma, and Big Agriculture have been advocating them despite the handicap of being associated with RFK Jr. and will probably continue to do so.
"
The RFK Jr. sanewashers tout a couple of things RFK, Jr. (fun fact, we sat in the same room to take the bar exam) is right about. The problem is, he's right about the problems of Big Food, Big Pharma, and Big Agriculture, big Republican constituencies he won't be allowed to touch in a Trump administration.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/9/2024”
What's not disputed is that some of the frightened passengers were telling Penny to ease up and that Neely was subdued and choking. If Penny were merely "holding him down," then there would have been no trial even if it were 12-15 minutes because Neely wouldn't have died. But you can easily choke a man to death in 3-5 minutes; Penny had been trained how to do that.
"
None of which was legally relevant to the negligent homicide charge, which was presented on the theory that Penny didn't do anything wrong at the beginning of his intervention, but only when he continued choking Neely long after he was effectively subdued and was, in fact, dying.
"
This is a lot simpler and more plausible than the eleventh-dimensional chess scenarios. They won't ask for or accept pardons. In any sane world, they will not be prosecuted for anything because they haven't done anything for which they can be prosecuted. If Trumpworld isn't Saneworld and they get prosecuted, I expect they will fight on the merits. If they are asked to testify before Congress, they will do so because nothing they could truthfully say would incriminate them.
"
As opposed to when?
"
The normal rule for prosecutors is to charge the highest-level offense that you have a decent chance of proving. That's why there was a manslaughter charge. I don't think anyone would have made a big bet that the charge would stick, but there was a legitimate case. After all, the jury hung on it. The lesser charge, criminally negligent homicide, was what I thought the evidence showed. The prosecution theory was that Penny was justified in intervening*, which moots all the complications about defense of others, but that at some point he continued to choke Neely to death when it was no longer reasonable for him to do it. The threat had subsided, other passengers warned Penny that the guy was choking to death and that he should stop -- a by-the-numbers case for criminally negligent homicide. Given that one or more jurors had been willing to convict on manslaughter, it is hard to understand why those same jurors voted to acquit on criminally-negligent homicide. Unless they had been one or two holdouts on a manslaughter acquittal and were just worn down on criminally-negligent homicide.
That said, it wasn't entirely surprising that the jury acquitted. Juries have been remarkably sympathetic to defendants in this sort of case.
* I once tossed a disruptive loon off the subway, to the cheers of fellow passengers. I didn't kill him and probably didn't hurt anything other than his pride. And I was never the trained physical specimen that Penny is.
"
And a lot never were. But the urge to have a hot take drives far too many people to jump on rumor or speculation on Monday rather than wait until Thursday to get things right. Maybe they get some value out of it, but it's hard to see.
"
I'm perfectly happy to wait for more-or-less credible sources before expending mental energy on things.
"
I heard the same speculation from sources not generally hospitable to conspiracy theories, not about Schiff specifically, but about the entire class of potential Trump targets to which he belongs.
"
Your point being? Or should I know better than to ask?
"
That is not as clear as it ought to be: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110580824.pdf
And it's hard to see how that would work for a pre-emptive pardon.
"
Actions speak louder than words. If he accepts a pardon, he can't say "I didn't want this." If he doesn't, he can say what he damn pleases. If he isn't offered one, there's nothing for him to say and we can make up whatever we like, based on our priors about about Schiff, and nobody can prove us wrong.
Place your bets.
"
The problem with this "school of thought" is that a pardon must be accepted to be effective. Neither Schiff nor anyone else can work both sides of the street:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-4-1/ALDE_00013319/#essay-9
On “From the New York Post: UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson fatally shot outside Hilton hotel in Midtown in targeted attack: cops”
They couldn't tell?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.