If you missed the point of my post so badly that you thought a screed about "monarchism" was the proper response then I'm not sure you're capable of comprehending whatever I might add.
[LF2] "Still, humanitarian groups have complained that the pier has largely failed in its mission."
Oh no, I think it was entirely successful in its mission; that mission being "allow the USA government to declare that it directly intervened in the Gaza Crisis and provided humanitarian aid without getting any Marines exploded".
2016 Trump was a Protest Vote, the same deal as all the woman who voted Leave because she was absolutely certain that Remain would win and wanted to "send a message that not everyone is happy".
For 2020 Trump, Chip's right that people are voting for Trump on purpose. I think he's wrong about why exactly, but it's definitely the case that whatever it is they think he is, it's what they want.
"How much do you want me to weigh the whole “Phil’s 401k depends on Biden winning” in my discussions with you on who you think is the moral choice for us all to make?"
Jaybird, look at how much he posts here now, and just imagine what he'd be like if he didn't have to file TPS reports.
"thanks to the new Chevron decision, all that can now be swept away because Congress didn’t specifically tell NMFS to do all that to set catch limits."
but...isn't the legislation not defining catch limits ambiguous...?
"But the framing of it as “they’d gut the people who are there and install loyalists!” could be rephrased effortlessly as “they’d get rid of the loyalists and replace them with other loyalists”."
This makes sense when you consider that the Democrat concept of government is as a sort of referee for the scrum of interest groups fighting for shares of government goodies. In that paradigm it does make sense to complain about "loyalists" getting installed, because that's the same kind of thing as bribing a referee in a sports game; they're not there to pick winners or losers, they're just there to keep score and make sure everyone plays by the rules. Saying "well there shouldn't BE a government with so much power that we need to worry about loyalists" is like saying "well there shouldn't BE referees for the sports game, everything should just be street ball". And, y'know, people do like to watch street ball, but nobody would suggest that it would work as a game where you get paid serious money to play.
(And, of course, if the rules are ones that progressive Democrats like, then that just goes to show how those are natural good rules that make sense and not icky team-picking favoritism.)
He might be able to wriggle out of the jam by claiming that they were "personal memoirs", but if they were still marked as classified then it was illegal for him to show them to anyone.
"I still think that shenanigans could overcome the logistics problem. Have a vote at the convention. Tell everyone the vote was unanimous. "
I mean, that's what Biden said on the news the other day, that everyone voted and they voted for him and therefore talking about anyone else is stupid.
"I didn’t find either of these pieces quite satisfying in terms of explanatory power."
I think that what happened was that people figured that since it was Those Lying Liars Who Lie saying Biden was old and feeble, then obviously that must have been untrue, and the debate happened and they saw that it was actually true, and now they're trying to find a way to blame Those Lying Liars Who Lie instead of admitting that they'd substituted teamplay for thinking.
"[T]hey want the Executive Branch to be the sole interpreter when it’s convenient. They don’t want the judiciary to do anything but rubber stamp those decisions."
"We can let others chime in, but I predict that no one here will say that the difference between Harris and Biden will change either their motivation to vote, or their vote itself."
chip if there's no difference between harris and biden then why not switch? at least then we'd have someone who can stay up past eight PM.
"What if a President accepted a bribe to give a letter of Marque to someone? That would be a crime, right? Last I checked bribery was illegal. But under this ruling the President would be able to argue that issue Letters of Marque was an official power an therefore they can’t ever be prosecuted for it."
He couldn't be prosecuted for issuing the Letter of Marque, but he could be prosecuted for taking a bribe, and the court case would not be permitted to consider "a Letter of Marque was issued" as evidence of criminality. (as in, "a Letter of Marque was issued, which is an extremely uncommon thing to do, therefore something criminal must have happened" would not be a permissible argument.)
Like, the important thing is that the President took a bribe, and "taking a bribe to let someone get a photo op in the Oval Office" is considered exactly as much of a crime as "taking a bribe to broker a deal to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia".
"anybody who purports to prosecute the (former) President for crimes supposedly unrelated to the legitimate exercise of his office, must show, a priori that the conduct at issue is not an official act of his office."
Which is the whole point of this, really; it's to give Trump another six months to fart around in court, assuming that he's going to win the election and then on January 21 2025 pardon himself for everything.
ooh, or we could go after Obama for ordering the IRS to audit conservative political organizations more stringently and at a higher rate than liberal political organizations.
Brother, I recognize that you have a story you very much want to be true, but if you want to secure a criminal conviction you need more than someone saying that he wants to do something. You need Trump actually saying "change the vote totals".
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Voting for Republicans is Voting for Fascism”
"Someone who can't ever keep more than one flower alive!"
(trapdoor opens, alligator lunges out and bites off my torso)
"
"Do you care to expand on that?"
If you missed the point of my post so badly that you thought a screed about "monarchism" was the proper response then I'm not sure you're capable of comprehending whatever I might add.
On “Linky Friday: Eternal Vigilance Requires Eternal Listicles, Soundtracked to Roundball Rock”
[LF2] "Still, humanitarian groups have complained that the pier has largely failed in its mission."
Oh no, I think it was entirely successful in its mission; that mission being "allow the USA government to declare that it directly intervened in the Gaza Crisis and provided humanitarian aid without getting any Marines exploded".
On “Voting for Republicans is Voting for Fascism”
" for those of us who are tuned in to what the political Right has wanted since its existence as a pro-monarchist political realm"
Yeah, I remember when I was in my Junior year of college. Good times. I really had a lot of strong feelings about stuff that year.
"
(you mean "hear, hear")
On “The Arrow of Time, Lodged Deep in Our Political Posterior”
"You could register for a political party and vote for candidates in primaries."
we don't get the day off to vote in primary elections
"
2016 Trump was a Protest Vote, the same deal as all the woman who voted Leave because she was absolutely certain that Remain would win and wanted to "send a message that not everyone is happy".
For 2020 Trump, Chip's right that people are voting for Trump on purpose. I think he's wrong about why exactly, but it's definitely the case that whatever it is they think he is, it's what they want.
On “What is Project 2025? And Should We Be Worried About It?”
"How much do you want me to weigh the whole “Phil’s 401k depends on Biden winning” in my discussions with you on who you think is the moral choice for us all to make?"
Jaybird, look at how much he posts here now, and just imagine what he'd be like if he didn't have to file TPS reports.
"
"thanks to the new Chevron decision, all that can now be swept away because Congress didn’t specifically tell NMFS to do all that to set catch limits."
but...isn't the legislation not defining catch limits ambiguous...?
"
this is not actually a reply to my comment
"
"The ambiguity is part of the plan."
which is literally what the Supreme Court was complaining about in Chevron, and I thought you lot all hated that one.
"
"But the framing of it as “they’d gut the people who are there and install loyalists!” could be rephrased effortlessly as “they’d get rid of the loyalists and replace them with other loyalists”."
This makes sense when you consider that the Democrat concept of government is as a sort of referee for the scrum of interest groups fighting for shares of government goodies. In that paradigm it does make sense to complain about "loyalists" getting installed, because that's the same kind of thing as bribing a referee in a sports game; they're not there to pick winners or losers, they're just there to keep score and make sure everyone plays by the rules. Saying "well there shouldn't BE a government with so much power that we need to worry about loyalists" is like saying "well there shouldn't BE referees for the sports game, everything should just be street ball". And, y'know, people do like to watch street ball, but nobody would suggest that it would work as a game where you get paid serious money to play.
(And, of course, if the rules are ones that progressive Democrats like, then that just goes to show how those are natural good rules that make sense and not icky team-picking favoritism.)
On “A Semi-Short Explainer of Presidential Immunity Decision”
Can you provide a case where the entirety of the criminal act was saying "hey, could you maybe do something about this"?
Or is this another one of those deals where you have time to comment but somehow no time to back it up and we should Just Trust You That You're Right?
"
He might be able to wriggle out of the jam by claiming that they were "personal memoirs", but if they were still marked as classified then it was illegal for him to show them to anyone.
On “It’s Time For Biden To Be A Statesman”
"I still think that shenanigans could overcome the logistics problem. Have a vote at the convention. Tell everyone the vote was unanimous. "
I mean, that's what Biden said on the news the other day, that everyone voted and they voted for him and therefore talking about anyone else is stupid.
On “Open Mic for the week of 7/8/2024”
"I didn’t find either of these pieces quite satisfying in terms of explanatory power."
I think that what happened was that people figured that since it was Those Lying Liars Who Lie saying Biden was old and feeble, then obviously that must have been untrue, and the debate happened and they saw that it was actually true, and now they're trying to find a way to blame Those Lying Liars Who Lie instead of admitting that they'd substituted teamplay for thinking.
"
"[T]hey want the Executive Branch to be the sole interpreter when it’s convenient. They don’t want the judiciary to do anything but rubber stamp those decisions."
oh wait so now you support the Chevron decision?
On “A Semi-Short Explainer of Presidential Immunity Decision”
"Telling the Secretary of State of Georgia to find 11,000 is a criminal action because it’s soliciting the secretary of state to break the law"
He didn't say to do it. He didn't say those words. He did not. You keep insisting that "sort of like" is the same as "did", and it's not true.
This case is not the one that will get Donald Trump. You need to stop making up comforting fantasies where it does.
On “Sleepwalking Towards Another Trump Presidency”
"We can let others chime in, but I predict that no one here will say that the difference between Harris and Biden will change either their motivation to vote, or their vote itself."
chip if there's no difference between harris and biden then why not switch? at least then we'd have someone who can stay up past eight PM.
On “A Semi-Short Explainer of Presidential Immunity Decision”
*shrug* it's got as much actual evidence as "Trump issued illegal orders to change the vote" did.
"
"What if a President accepted a bribe to give a letter of Marque to someone? That would be a crime, right? Last I checked bribery was illegal. But under this ruling the President would be able to argue that issue Letters of Marque was an official power an therefore they can’t ever be prosecuted for it."
He couldn't be prosecuted for issuing the Letter of Marque, but he could be prosecuted for taking a bribe, and the court case would not be permitted to consider "a Letter of Marque was issued" as evidence of criminality. (as in, "a Letter of Marque was issued, which is an extremely uncommon thing to do, therefore something criminal must have happened" would not be a permissible argument.)
Like, the important thing is that the President took a bribe, and "taking a bribe to let someone get a photo op in the Oval Office" is considered exactly as much of a crime as "taking a bribe to broker a deal to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia".
On “Sleepwalking Towards Another Trump Presidency”
But it's your opinion that Mendez's essay and the poll numbers matter!
On “A Semi-Short Explainer of Presidential Immunity Decision”
"anybody who purports to prosecute the (former) President for crimes supposedly unrelated to the legitimate exercise of his office, must show, a priori that the conduct at issue is not an official act of his office."
Which is the whole point of this, really; it's to give Trump another six months to fart around in court, assuming that he's going to win the election and then on January 21 2025 pardon himself for everything.
"
ooh, or we could go after Obama for ordering the IRS to audit conservative political organizations more stringently and at a higher rate than liberal political organizations.
"
Brother, I recognize that you have a story you very much want to be true, but if you want to secure a criminal conviction you need more than someone saying that he wants to do something. You need Trump actually saying "change the vote totals".
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.