So what? He retreats a bit to not challenge the gunman (I'm not even expecting heroics) ... then he discharges his firearm to spoil the surprise and get the Secret Service moving.
I covered several timing issues that we don't know as to whether he was thinking of doing that but didn't have time... so maybe he would have. Don't know.
But the idea -- in an emergency -- of at least ruining the ambush isn't a bad use of your firearm.
"What should the local cop have done that he didn’t"
First thought was get out of the way and fire shots into the air.
Then radio contact.
I haven't seen solid reporting yet on the time between the shooter allegedly pointing his gun at the cop, and then taking his shot at Trump. If it was as immediate as some reports suggest, then the cop wouldn't have had time to fire... but then the cop probably disrupted the shot that was subsequently taken in haste. If he had time to scramble to safety and used his radio; well that was probably good training, but poor prudence.
Most of the challenges of electoral reforms start and end with the States being States and not merely Federal districts/departments.
Still, the best medium-/long-term improvements involve small to medium changes in the electoral process that don't require opening up the hood and tinkering with the Constitution.
Introducing 'simple' measures like RCV and even Proportional Allocations are all doable... another overlooked change that could 'probably' be driven by the Feds (for National Elections) would be setting floors and ceilings that States require for New parties to have Ballot Access. In some states it's stupidly lax, while in others it's prohibitively difficult... the upshot is a strong bias against new parties. Which, of course, is made worse by FPTP.
But really, there are other electoral schemes that work (with their own different downsides) that would at least get us out of the bad place we're in... if you want to be RADICAL on something that might actually help... be radical for electoral reform projects.
That section is explicit that it would challenge 'Humphrey's Executor' so that it might have more direct control of the federal bureaucracy. I'll confess to not having an opinion on Humphrey's Executor... and I'll admit to always favoring reining in the Imperial Presidency... and I'll further cop to wanting the Legislative Branch to actually legislate and defend *it's* prerogatives too. So I'd see SCOTUS siding w/Congress (as it already has under Roberts in 2020) that this would be a Shared Power (a'la the recent immunity case).
The Presidency has been expanding its reach since, well, ever. You're perfectly welcome to campaign on upholding the principle of Humphrey's Executor -- I'd even give you a 'bully bully' from the sidelines; but this isn't an 'existential threat'... it strikes me as a very Heritage-esq Imperial Presidency policy preference; Sadly the Imperial Presidency is bi-partisan.
And, since, none of us know what this ruling was about... here's wikipedia:
Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), was a Supreme Court of the United States case decided regarding whether the United States President has the power to remove executive officials of a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial administrative body for reasons other than what is allowed by Congress. The Court held that the President did not have this power. However, Humphrey's has been distinguished by Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In Seila, Chief Justice John Roberts described Humphrey's as holding that Congress may occasionally create independent agencies with removal only for cause if such agencies share the characteristics of the FTC in 1935.
Yeah, I read the Dept. of Interior brief (figured I'd start with something only Michael Cain would care about)... much of the section was advocating for keeping the Dept of Interior HQ out west (which Trump did, I guess?) and not pull it back to DC (which Biden is doing, I guess?).
Admittedly there were also a lot of bullets saying things like extend or reinstate "SO 3351: Strengthening the Department of the Interior’s Energy Portfolio" and "Clarify the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act94 to ensure consistent application with other federal infrastructure loan programs under the Federal Credit Reform Act. This should be done to foster opportunities for locally led investment in water infrastructure."
I'm sure there are things that I'd agree were good ideas and things I'd say were horrible ideas, but there weren't any things that I'd say were obviously fascist. If anything they were very Heritage-ish ... which means I'd probably be against much of it; but I haven't seen an actual quote (yet) of the real thing that the other team should appropriately campaign against.
I've seen some things that I *think* Team Blue *could* campaign against that I'd support (i.e. I'd agree w/Heritage) but which would be more popular with the general public than my position. Quite possibly (probably) there's a humdinger in one of those position papers, but give me the quote and the link... not a link to Amanda Marcotte saying things about things.
Based on current events, I'm guessing that Trump distancing is around Mifepristone/Day After pills -- which you can read about in the Health and Human Services section.
I don't think RN finishing third is the 'shocking' part... we knew going in to the election that the left and Ensemble would pull their 3rd place candidates to sacrifice their own seats to take seats from RN -- just as they had done in the previous election.
The shocking part is the rise of the Left, which isn't your grandpa's soft socialist party and the overnight collapse of Macron's Center Left Ensemble party -- and the mystery of why he called a snap election with 3-yrs left. From NYT:
"The alliance includes four left-wing parties: Communists, Socialists, Greens and the far-left party, France Unbowed. While many in France cheered what appeared to be a loss for the far right, others were fearful of what the far left might bring.
Last week, after the first vote in a two-round election, the coalition withdrew more than 130 of its candidates from three-way races in which the far right had a chance of winning — and pushed their supporters to vote strategically against far-right candidates.
[...]
Still, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, founder of France Unbowed, a pugnacious and divisive figure, quickly declared that his party was not willing to negotiate to form a coalition government. Instead, he demanded that the left-wing alliance be given the reins to govern so it could implement its “entire program.”
Olivier Faure, leader of the Socialist Party, also said the alliance would not negotiate to form coalition government.
“That would betray the vote of French people and prolong the Macronist program,” he said.
Some voters consider France Unbowed, which has members who have been accused of antisemitism, to be at least as dangerous as the far right. And some economists have worried about the alliance’s spending plans at a time when France is already mired in debt."
I'm not sure where we are on the political compass when there's a party further left than the Communists in your coalition...
Glad to see that an electorate can respond to poor governance/execution.
Now for the 'lessons learned' to be mis-learned.
Didja ever notice that England has 650 seats in a geography that is 1/40th the US and a population 1/3 the size?
- End the reapportionment act of 1929
I like how [new] Parties can form and compete in districts on short notice -- compared to the new party suppression bureaucracy in the US... but I'm still not a fan of FPTP voting.
- End FPTP
Sure, but I'm not 100% convinced it is or needs to be a coup.
Executive negotiations on their exit may be closer to the mark; what they get, who they bequeath things to, and how their legacy is shaped by the nature of their exit. That happens all the time and can be lengthy or short depending upon circumstances.
Timing, it seems to me, will at least partially be determined by prosaic logistical limitations like ballot access, convention planning, and anything else that would determine the *real* deadline other than election day itself.
Hmmn, some people are breaking the rules by commenting without predictions.
60% chance Biden is on the ticket
35% chance Harris is leading the ticket
5% other (East of Rockies/West of Blue Ridge)
No idea who Trump picks... don't care and it doesn't matter.
Saving election predictions until the election prediction time capsule.
My emerging Biden take is that many may be writing off the election, and therefore candidates with an interest in 2028 don't want to ruin their chances with a half-baked unfocused campaign that isn't ramped and staffed properly with messaging they want to take... would be like cooking a meal you don't like in someone else's kitchen. Which means Harris might just be willing to take that gamble. The flip side is that no-one wants the gamble, so they might as well ride Biden as far as he'll go and see what happens. Democracy, in this case, dies in ambition.
North put it best in another thread...(I paraphrase) the remedy for not replacing Biden is for Biden to make it clear he doesn't need replacing.
It's possible that he will pick-up and campaign just fine for the next four months; personally I'm skeptical as this isn't a sudden onset, but something we've watched (if we're being honest) happen over the past 4-years. So the question is given the fact that age isn't fixable with therapy and time (a'la the Fetterman stroke) where do you want to be in the first week of Nov?
With regards purely the 'best' way to organize a change? I *has* to be a Biden driven project... in fact it would be *best* if he could course correct a bit and build a little momentum. Then, after the primary votes are cast, he declines the nomination in his last (hopefully) lucid and masterful speech where he charts a path forward, nominates his choice for president (whomever that may be) and plays the part of Cincinnatus doing his duty.
Then all chaos breaks out...
But (semi-)seriously, if it feels like a coup... then the greater likelihood all factions split... if it's an orchestrated moment of civic high mindedness? Then there's at least a chance a deal could be crafted and a new narrative sustained through the election.
I agree with ACB's concurrence. They got the fundamental Political Theory correct; but were too expansive in III-C. - e.g. if prosecuting for a non-core crime, aspects of core powers can and should be used as evidence of the crime since the 'shielded' powers may be relevant for proving the non-core crime. The bribery example is fit for purpose. Ultimately though, abuse of legitimate authority by the Executive is limited by the other two branches of Govt, not the courts.
In this particular instance, I sympathize the the consequentialists simply seeking Trump's conviction... III-C may burden the case; though I don't think it kills it, nor, clearly does the court.
Thus, I don't think this is the sky is falling moment people imply... basically sending the case back to the lower courts to ascertain the facts of the case(s) specific to his work with 3rd parties on the false electors -- the ones who all pled guilty in GA -- and to ascertain the facts as to whether a plausible case can be made as to whether his actions with Governor Kemp fall outside the outer reaches of his presidential powers. I'd say that's a makeable case. As I note above, I think III-C. is too broad and that ACB gets it more right, especially with regards interlocutory relief. But I don't think the court provided special protection to Trump for much of what he can and should be prosecuted for.
The fact that they didn't simply rule on where exactly to draw the lines absent the finding of facts by the lower court strikes me as unsatisfying, but as I understand it (and as they state) it's right and appropriate for the lower courts to do that first. Therefore, it's likely that whatever they find will also be reviewed and likely used to then build a test for use in the future. If this was part of an election year plan (I hope not) then that part of the plan is not going to happen in time it would seem. I don't think that influenced SCOTUS as Roberts is driving the bus to his usual conclusion: do your jobs.
If the Roberts court will be known for anything in the future it will be his asking, nay, begging for every other part of government to just do their jobs.
Bought DA2 + Inquisitor for $6.98 on Steam. I'm not wild about these types of games... I feel like the game is playing me and I'm just pushing buttons to advance the story. But whatever... $6... will see if I stick with it
My Doctor asked if I knew what Foie Gras was trying to educate/jolt me... my only thought was a Homer Simpson-esqe, 'yes, and it's delicious'.
Unfortunately non-Alcoholic fatty liver runs in my family; probably what took down my Yiayia (before all this fancy technology stuff). Which is sad because all she ate was baseline immigrant food she made herself. When asked what one does for this he said, have you considered kale? And I was able to rattle off half a dozen of my favorite ways to use Kale. He meant, no, just Kale Kale. Ah well, there's an exit strategy for all of us, just have to figure out how to manage it.
On the brighter side, it's not every weekend that a fella comes to the house to talk about marrying your daughter. So we had a nice sitdown and I told him he must answer these questions three ere my blessing he would see. Well, technically four questions, but you know.
Sociologically the match is interesting because he's 1st Generation Greek (both sides), I'm 2nd Generation (half), and my daughter 3rd Generation (quarter)... which will make their children slightly more Greek than I, and culturally closer to how my Dad was raised than I. She's college educated; he left after a year and now manages several properties he and his uncle own; the sort of guy who can do anything... tear down a boiler? Re-roof a Cabin? Navigate DC rental laws? Keep peace/order in an urban building? Sure. First time I met him he reminded me of my Uncle Damianos; uncannily so. Open hearted, gregarious, smart, but not clever, people oriented with a high EQ, and the sort of person who just does what needs doing without tallying the debt or cost of it. He wouldn't fit in here at all.
They are travelling to Greece with his parents to meet the rest of the family, including his 102 year old Papou; who, I'm guessing, doesn't have a fatty liver.
The Centrists are getting a little spunky and going all MAGA with their own Project 2025...
“The center left tends to win at the ballot box, and then we’re outgunned the other 364 days of the year,” Communications Director Kate deGruyter told me. “And so we have to recognize that there’s an investment required in being able to make sure that the ideas that we see are popular, that are resonant with voters, are actually being carried out.”
Yeah, it was certainly a fair question... I mean, it was an expected and necessary question even.
It's probably a testimony to the decent job the moderators did... that was on the list as question #9 and by golly she asked question #9. Me? At that stage of the debate? I would've gone on to question #10. But I'm a softy.
Never, in a million years though would I have asked if he wanted more time...
On the format... we should just abandon the whole 'debate' nonsense... simple topics are fine. Candidates are going to say what they want to say. Let's just give them a minimal prompt and see what they say. I thought they did a decent job of just giving topic oriented questions (vs. the old gotcha style wind-ups).
I suppose. He just registered as baseline Trump crazy... just saying *things* and making things up. Hard to say if he would've said *better* crazy things or crazy things with better zip?
Maybe the fact that he was mildly disciplined shows decline?... the old Trump, er young Trump, would've come up with a new nickname for Biden on the spot!
Well, here you go from my comment in the Election thread.
---
As I say, I don’t follow Dem politics… but If I grab a list of popular Dems East of Rockies and West of Blue Ridge — then here are some names that Biden would then hand select and present as the way forward.
Popular Govs (as of 2022, last list I could find)
Net Approval, State Lean, and PARG(?)
KY Andy Beshear D +24 R+27 +51
KS Laura Kelly D +20 R+21 +41
LA John Bel Edwards D +10 R+21 +31
CO Jared Polis D +22 D+6 +16
NV Steve Sisolak D +10 R+3 +13
MN Tim Walz D +11 D+2 +9
MI Gretchen Whitmer D +4 R+2 +6
Sure, he was attacking Joe as President... he said lots of things (some of them true) about how Joe was the worst president in the history of presidents.
But he didn't turn on an obviously failing Joe in ways he could have (and probably will in the coming days?). Sure, the golf thing was weird, but it was weird in the way saggy old men wagging their tongues in bath towels in a clubhouse would be weird. Not Trump going all in on dementia jokes.
Well put, Andrew. I genuinely felt bad for Joe. Not in the cringey way you feel bad for politicians being politicians, but in the ordinary human way you feel bad for someone who no longer can do the very thing he used to do so well.
I knew there was no way out (jokes about Jamaal Bowman pulling the fire alarm notwithstanding); but I practically gasped when at 10:20pm(!!) Dana asked Joe 'the question' about his age. The question that he knew was coming -- the Reagan question he had 4 years to prepare for -- and he trundled on about something, I dunno South Korea or what? Until he petered out.
... and then she twisted the dagger: Mr. President you still have 40 seconds left, would you like to continue?
On “Trump was just shot at a rally. He appears to be fine.”
So what? He retreats a bit to not challenge the gunman (I'm not even expecting heroics) ... then he discharges his firearm to spoil the surprise and get the Secret Service moving.
I covered several timing issues that we don't know as to whether he was thinking of doing that but didn't have time... so maybe he would have. Don't know.
But the idea -- in an emergency -- of at least ruining the ambush isn't a bad use of your firearm.
"
"What should the local cop have done that he didn’t"
First thought was get out of the way and fire shots into the air.
Then radio contact.
I haven't seen solid reporting yet on the time between the shooter allegedly pointing his gun at the cop, and then taking his shot at Trump. If it was as immediate as some reports suggest, then the cop wouldn't have had time to fire... but then the cop probably disrupted the shot that was subsequently taken in haste. If he had time to scramble to safety and used his radio; well that was probably good training, but poor prudence.
On “The Arrow of Time, Lodged Deep in Our Political Posterior”
Most of the challenges of electoral reforms start and end with the States being States and not merely Federal districts/departments.
Still, the best medium-/long-term improvements involve small to medium changes in the electoral process that don't require opening up the hood and tinkering with the Constitution.
Introducing 'simple' measures like RCV and even Proportional Allocations are all doable... another overlooked change that could 'probably' be driven by the Feds (for National Elections) would be setting floors and ceilings that States require for New parties to have Ballot Access. In some states it's stupidly lax, while in others it's prohibitively difficult... the upshot is a strong bias against new parties. Which, of course, is made worse by FPTP.
But really, there are other electoral schemes that work (with their own different downsides) that would at least get us out of the bad place we're in... if you want to be RADICAL on something that might actually help... be radical for electoral reform projects.
On “Open Mic for the week of 7/8/2024”
I'll read it now...
That section is explicit that it would challenge 'Humphrey's Executor' so that it might have more direct control of the federal bureaucracy. I'll confess to not having an opinion on Humphrey's Executor... and I'll admit to always favoring reining in the Imperial Presidency... and I'll further cop to wanting the Legislative Branch to actually legislate and defend *it's* prerogatives too. So I'd see SCOTUS siding w/Congress (as it already has under Roberts in 2020) that this would be a Shared Power (a'la the recent immunity case).
The Presidency has been expanding its reach since, well, ever. You're perfectly welcome to campaign on upholding the principle of Humphrey's Executor -- I'd even give you a 'bully bully' from the sidelines; but this isn't an 'existential threat'... it strikes me as a very Heritage-esq Imperial Presidency policy preference; Sadly the Imperial Presidency is bi-partisan.
And, since, none of us know what this ruling was about... here's wikipedia:
Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), was a Supreme Court of the United States case decided regarding whether the United States President has the power to remove executive officials of a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial administrative body for reasons other than what is allowed by Congress. The Court held that the President did not have this power. However, Humphrey's has been distinguished by Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In Seila, Chief Justice John Roberts described Humphrey's as holding that Congress may occasionally create independent agencies with removal only for cause if such agencies share the characteristics of the FTC in 1935.
"
Yeah, I read the Dept. of Interior brief (figured I'd start with something only Michael Cain would care about)... much of the section was advocating for keeping the Dept of Interior HQ out west (which Trump did, I guess?) and not pull it back to DC (which Biden is doing, I guess?).
Admittedly there were also a lot of bullets saying things like extend or reinstate "SO 3351: Strengthening the Department of the Interior’s Energy Portfolio" and "Clarify the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act94 to ensure consistent application with other federal infrastructure loan programs under the Federal Credit Reform Act. This should be done to foster opportunities for locally led investment in water infrastructure."
I'm sure there are things that I'd agree were good ideas and things I'd say were horrible ideas, but there weren't any things that I'd say were obviously fascist. If anything they were very Heritage-ish ... which means I'd probably be against much of it; but I haven't seen an actual quote (yet) of the real thing that the other team should appropriately campaign against.
I've seen some things that I *think* Team Blue *could* campaign against that I'd support (i.e. I'd agree w/Heritage) but which would be more popular with the general public than my position. Quite possibly (probably) there's a humdinger in one of those position papers, but give me the quote and the link... not a link to Amanda Marcotte saying things about things.
Based on current events, I'm guessing that Trump distancing is around Mifepristone/Day After pills -- which you can read about in the Health and Human Services section.
On “French Far-Right Place Shocking 3rd In Legislative Elections”
I don't think RN finishing third is the 'shocking' part... we knew going in to the election that the left and Ensemble would pull their 3rd place candidates to sacrifice their own seats to take seats from RN -- just as they had done in the previous election.
The shocking part is the rise of the Left, which isn't your grandpa's soft socialist party and the overnight collapse of Macron's Center Left Ensemble party -- and the mystery of why he called a snap election with 3-yrs left. From NYT:
"The alliance includes four left-wing parties: Communists, Socialists, Greens and the far-left party, France Unbowed. While many in France cheered what appeared to be a loss for the far right, others were fearful of what the far left might bring.
Last week, after the first vote in a two-round election, the coalition withdrew more than 130 of its candidates from three-way races in which the far right had a chance of winning — and pushed their supporters to vote strategically against far-right candidates.
[...]
Still, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, founder of France Unbowed, a pugnacious and divisive figure, quickly declared that his party was not willing to negotiate to form a coalition government. Instead, he demanded that the left-wing alliance be given the reins to govern so it could implement its “entire program.”
Olivier Faure, leader of the Socialist Party, also said the alliance would not negotiate to form coalition government.
“That would betray the vote of French people and prolong the Macronist program,” he said.
Some voters consider France Unbowed, which has members who have been accused of antisemitism, to be at least as dangerous as the far right. And some economists have worried about the alliance’s spending plans at a time when France is already mired in debt."
I'm not sure where we are on the political compass when there's a party further left than the Communists in your coalition...
On “About Last Night: Labour Landslide in UK Elections”
Glad to see that an electorate can respond to poor governance/execution.
Now for the 'lessons learned' to be mis-learned.
Didja ever notice that England has 650 seats in a geography that is 1/40th the US and a population 1/3 the size?
- End the reapportionment act of 1929
I like how [new] Parties can form and compete in districts on short notice -- compared to the new party suppression bureaucracy in the US... but I'm still not a fan of FPTP voting.
- End FPTP
On “The Joy Of Opening Time Capsules: 2024 Special Edition”
Sure, but I'm not 100% convinced it is or needs to be a coup.
Executive negotiations on their exit may be closer to the mark; what they get, who they bequeath things to, and how their legacy is shaped by the nature of their exit. That happens all the time and can be lengthy or short depending upon circumstances.
Timing, it seems to me, will at least partially be determined by prosaic logistical limitations like ballot access, convention planning, and anything else that would determine the *real* deadline other than election day itself.
"
Hmmn, some people are breaking the rules by commenting without predictions.
60% chance Biden is on the ticket
35% chance Harris is leading the ticket
5% other (East of Rockies/West of Blue Ridge)
No idea who Trump picks... don't care and it doesn't matter.
Saving election predictions until the election prediction time capsule.
My emerging Biden take is that many may be writing off the election, and therefore candidates with an interest in 2028 don't want to ruin their chances with a half-baked unfocused campaign that isn't ramped and staffed properly with messaging they want to take... would be like cooking a meal you don't like in someone else's kitchen. Which means Harris might just be willing to take that gamble. The flip side is that no-one wants the gamble, so they might as well ride Biden as far as he'll go and see what happens. Democracy, in this case, dies in ambition.
On “Where Do Democrats Go From Here?”
North put it best in another thread...(I paraphrase) the remedy for not replacing Biden is for Biden to make it clear he doesn't need replacing.
It's possible that he will pick-up and campaign just fine for the next four months; personally I'm skeptical as this isn't a sudden onset, but something we've watched (if we're being honest) happen over the past 4-years. So the question is given the fact that age isn't fixable with therapy and time (a'la the Fetterman stroke) where do you want to be in the first week of Nov?
With regards purely the 'best' way to organize a change? I *has* to be a Biden driven project... in fact it would be *best* if he could course correct a bit and build a little momentum. Then, after the primary votes are cast, he declines the nomination in his last (hopefully) lucid and masterful speech where he charts a path forward, nominates his choice for president (whomever that may be) and plays the part of Cincinnatus doing his duty.
Then all chaos breaks out...
But (semi-)seriously, if it feels like a coup... then the greater likelihood all factions split... if it's an orchestrated moment of civic high mindedness? Then there's at least a chance a deal could be crafted and a new narrative sustained through the election.
On “SCOTUS Opinions on Trump Immunity, Corner Post, and Netchoice: Read Them For Yourself”
I agree with ACB's concurrence. They got the fundamental Political Theory correct; but were too expansive in III-C. - e.g. if prosecuting for a non-core crime, aspects of core powers can and should be used as evidence of the crime since the 'shielded' powers may be relevant for proving the non-core crime. The bribery example is fit for purpose. Ultimately though, abuse of legitimate authority by the Executive is limited by the other two branches of Govt, not the courts.
In this particular instance, I sympathize the the consequentialists simply seeking Trump's conviction... III-C may burden the case; though I don't think it kills it, nor, clearly does the court.
Thus, I don't think this is the sky is falling moment people imply... basically sending the case back to the lower courts to ascertain the facts of the case(s) specific to his work with 3rd parties on the false electors -- the ones who all pled guilty in GA -- and to ascertain the facts as to whether a plausible case can be made as to whether his actions with Governor Kemp fall outside the outer reaches of his presidential powers. I'd say that's a makeable case. As I note above, I think III-C. is too broad and that ACB gets it more right, especially with regards interlocutory relief. But I don't think the court provided special protection to Trump for much of what he can and should be prosecuted for.
The fact that they didn't simply rule on where exactly to draw the lines absent the finding of facts by the lower court strikes me as unsatisfying, but as I understand it (and as they state) it's right and appropriate for the lower courts to do that first. Therefore, it's likely that whatever they find will also be reviewed and likely used to then build a test for use in the future. If this was part of an election year plan (I hope not) then that part of the plan is not going to happen in time it would seem. I don't think that influenced SCOTUS as Roberts is driving the bus to his usual conclusion: do your jobs.
If the Roberts court will be known for anything in the future it will be his asking, nay, begging for every other part of government to just do their jobs.
On “About Last Night: Debate Debacle Edition”
He should. A replacement level Republican would win handily. Whoever replaces their candidate first, wins.
On “Saturday Morning Gaming: Crime O’Clock”
Bought DA2 + Inquisitor for $6.98 on Steam. I'm not wild about these types of games... I feel like the game is playing me and I'm just pushing buttons to advance the story. But whatever... $6... will see if I stick with it
On “Weekend Plans Post: Ground-Penetrating Radar, Short Weekends, and Grape Juice”
My Doctor asked if I knew what Foie Gras was trying to educate/jolt me... my only thought was a Homer Simpson-esqe, 'yes, and it's delicious'.
Unfortunately non-Alcoholic fatty liver runs in my family; probably what took down my Yiayia (before all this fancy technology stuff). Which is sad because all she ate was baseline immigrant food she made herself. When asked what one does for this he said, have you considered kale? And I was able to rattle off half a dozen of my favorite ways to use Kale. He meant, no, just Kale Kale. Ah well, there's an exit strategy for all of us, just have to figure out how to manage it.
On the brighter side, it's not every weekend that a fella comes to the house to talk about marrying your daughter. So we had a nice sitdown and I told him he must answer these questions three ere my blessing he would see. Well, technically four questions, but you know.
Sociologically the match is interesting because he's 1st Generation Greek (both sides), I'm 2nd Generation (half), and my daughter 3rd Generation (quarter)... which will make their children slightly more Greek than I, and culturally closer to how my Dad was raised than I. She's college educated; he left after a year and now manages several properties he and his uncle own; the sort of guy who can do anything... tear down a boiler? Re-roof a Cabin? Navigate DC rental laws? Keep peace/order in an urban building? Sure. First time I met him he reminded me of my Uncle Damianos; uncannily so. Open hearted, gregarious, smart, but not clever, people oriented with a high EQ, and the sort of person who just does what needs doing without tallying the debt or cost of it. He wouldn't fit in here at all.
They are travelling to Greece with his parents to meet the rest of the family, including his 102 year old Papou; who, I'm guessing, doesn't have a fatty liver.
On “About Last Night: Debate Debacle Edition”
He didn't 'lose a debate' that's missing the point.
This isn't about scoring points on a framework of who had the best rhetorical command of their message and policy positions.
Biden failed the 'is he ok' test.
On “Open Mic for the week of 6/24/2024”
To take your mind off the debate...
The Centrists are getting a little spunky and going all MAGA with their own Project 2025...
“The center left tends to win at the ballot box, and then we’re outgunned the other 364 days of the year,” Communications Director Kate deGruyter told me. “And so we have to recognize that there’s an investment required in being able to make sure that the ideas that we see are popular, that are resonant with voters, are actually being carried out.”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/06/28/fight-next-biden-administration-00165366
"
Fair enough; he certainly doesn't have that Golden Elevator bedazzle that he once had.
On “About Last Night: Debate Debacle Edition”
Yeah, it was certainly a fair question... I mean, it was an expected and necessary question even.
It's probably a testimony to the decent job the moderators did... that was on the list as question #9 and by golly she asked question #9. Me? At that stage of the debate? I would've gone on to question #10. But I'm a softy.
Never, in a million years though would I have asked if he wanted more time...
On the format... we should just abandon the whole 'debate' nonsense... simple topics are fine. Candidates are going to say what they want to say. Let's just give them a minimal prompt and see what they say. I thought they did a decent job of just giving topic oriented questions (vs. the old gotcha style wind-ups).
On “Open Mic for the week of 6/24/2024”
I suppose. He just registered as baseline Trump crazy... just saying *things* and making things up. Hard to say if he would've said *better* crazy things or crazy things with better zip?
Maybe the fact that he was mildly disciplined shows decline?... the old Trump, er young Trump, would've come up with a new nickname for Biden on the spot!
"
RESISTANCE ... this court is doing the real work of protecting us from a future Trump Presidency.
"
Well, here you go from my comment in the Election thread.
---
As I say, I don’t follow Dem politics… but If I grab a list of popular Dems East of Rockies and West of Blue Ridge — then here are some names that Biden would then hand select and present as the way forward.
Popular Govs (as of 2022, last list I could find)
Net Approval, State Lean, and PARG(?)
KY Andy Beshear D +24 R+27 +51
KS Laura Kelly D +20 R+21 +41
LA John Bel Edwards D +10 R+21 +31
CO Jared Polis D +22 D+6 +16
NV Steve Sisolak D +10 R+3 +13
MN Tim Walz D +11 D+2 +9
MI Gretchen Whitmer D +4 R+2 +6
If one must simply present names…
"
Sure, he was attacking Joe as President... he said lots of things (some of them true) about how Joe was the worst president in the history of presidents.
But he didn't turn on an obviously failing Joe in ways he could have (and probably will in the coming days?). Sure, the golf thing was weird, but it was weird in the way saggy old men wagging their tongues in bath towels in a clubhouse would be weird. Not Trump going all in on dementia jokes.
On “About Last Night: Debate Debacle Edition”
Well put, Andrew. I genuinely felt bad for Joe. Not in the cringey way you feel bad for politicians being politicians, but in the ordinary human way you feel bad for someone who no longer can do the very thing he used to do so well.
I knew there was no way out (jokes about Jamaal Bowman pulling the fire alarm notwithstanding); but I practically gasped when at 10:20pm(!!) Dana asked Joe 'the question' about his age. The question that he knew was coming -- the Reagan question he had 4 years to prepare for -- and he trundled on about something, I dunno South Korea or what? Until he petered out.
... and then she twisted the dagger: Mr. President you still have 40 seconds left, would you like to continue?
"
Something has changed.
On “Has The Election Turned A Corner?”