Iuz the Evil

38 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

So, these attitudes are not a matter of simple lack of education. Even though the bias of the article's author is blatantly obvious, so is that of the "professors" bringing this lawsuit.

 

But a philosophy prof? Makes me wonder what century of philosophy he studied up to.  

 

Victorian era utilitarianism?

9 hours ago, Clonus said:

8 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

Fortunately there's nothing on there I really care about.  I might have to have some celebratory Taco Bell now, in fact...

If they were to bring back the Tostada, that would be worthy of such a ranking in the news cycle. That broke my heart, when they pulled that.

9 minutes ago, Starlord said:

House arrest.

 

PS:  Wonder if Biden would pardon him if he wins election....

State conviction, he cannot.

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

If he *does* end up with jail time...I feel bad for the Secret Service.  They'd still be obligated to protect him.

Theoretically so would the jail, no way he goes to gen pop.

“Convicted felon and presidential candidate…”

 He’ll appeal so probably won’t need to report, even if sentenced to jail, but is a good outcome. I hope they put an ankle monitor on him.

4 hours ago, Cygnia said:

Oh, it gets worse/funnier...

 

Trump makes Secret Service confiscate rubber chickens at Libertarian convention

 

 

Chaos at Trump event as crowd member yells that ex-president 'should have taken a bullet'
 

 

‘Swamp Creature!’: Trump Gets Shouted Down as He Begs for Libertarian Nomination

 

 

I love everything about the Libertarian response in that article. He should totally do that sort of thing more often. Just sound strategy right there…

8 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

We're all familiar with the aphorism, "there's no such thing as bad publicity."  

 

I've never bought it.

 

Cuz now they're looking ridiculous.  Of course, they're about to nominate RFK Jr.  Hard to look more ridiculous than that.

Oh for sure, it’s undignified and stupid, but I’m sure that’s what they were thinking when they made that Faustian bargain.

Edit: They may also have been hoping to peel off party members from the big two, given both have well publicized internal strife these days. But I think that’s too much credit.

58 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

But that only begs the question, why the HECK did their convention organizers decide to invite him????

For the media coverage which gives their political party far more attention that it would otherwise get. And to see if they can leverage any policy items they care about in his speech, which is very unlikely.

It’s always a tiny bit surreal to me to see the conversation on threads between the most progressive board I frequent (this one) and the most conservative board I frequent (the Main Board for Rivals) look identical, down to the issues (candidate removed from ballot) and meta concern (free and fair elections). I could remove the candidate names and States in question, and you would not be able to distinguish the board of origin. It’s the same argument, same narrative, etc. There are so many common concerns, I wish there was more common ground.

I’ll accept the outcome, myself, whether I approve of it or not. The last election investigation demonstrated overwhelmingly to me (at least) that although there are issues that may arise we overall have integrity in the process. I suppose it’s a reflection of our current disenchantment with the many, many narrow margins of victory and significant acrimony towards those of our countrymen on “the other side”. I understand people get really passionate about their political opinions.

Whether the majority of individual voters or the electoral college process itself results in an outcome I consider favorable is another matter. I’ll be sweating that I’m sure, given the national divide and my preferences on the outcome and even the implications for my job and day to day operations. That said: those are the rules in play, and the candidates theoretically understand that going in. Just show up and vote, because really that’s the only power we have in this, which may not totally inappropriate in this democratic experiment.

 Have a happy Memorial Day weekend.

Not like he’s going to falsify his tax returns…

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/20/us/politics/house-vote-aid-ukraine-israel.html
 

Thank goodness. Aid to Israel and Ukraine (and Taiwan) passes the House.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/14/middleeast/israel-iran-attack-response-intl/index.html
 

Israel determining scope and nature of their planned response. They’re obviously being urged to show restraint.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-tries-to-calibrate-response-against-israel-after-deadly-bombing-abb38b57
 

Yeah sounds like this is going to continue to escalate. I think there is little chance Israel does not counterattack Iran in some way, basically that’s the policy. Attack on Israeli territory = IDF counter.
 

There’s also news that most of the Israeli hostages may be dead. Hamas stating they can’t come up with 40 to exchange (of the IIRC 136 In captivity).

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/10/middleeast/hamas-israel-hostages-ceasefire-talks-intl

That’s going to make ceasefire options less appealing to Israel, I would expect. The situation is even more fraught with peril than is typically the case for the region right now, and there’s some pretty significant global implications.

I see he’s seeking a ninth term in congress. Everyone seems to like their own flavor of congress critter, even the MTG and her ilk. I expect he’ll be re-elected given the stats on that, probably wouldn’t have said it if it did not play well in his District, but you never know…

31 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

JUST dropped into my inbox...US believes a branch of ISIS, based in Afghanistan and a frequent critic of Putin, is responsible for the Moscow attack that...last I saw...claimed 40 lives.

And, yeah...fearmongering is likely sufficient explanation too.  And certainly, BOTH can be true.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/22/europe/crocus-moscow-shooting/index.html
 

confirmed, ISIS took credit

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/15/tech/vpn-searches-spike-texas-pornhub/index.html
 

So THAT just happened. Hah! The GOP cannot seem to get out of their own way. At least they’re addressing the “critical issues” of online porn access. 

Pretty sure that ship had sailed?

1 hour ago, Old Man said:

 

You don't have to wonder; this is absolutely what's happening.  The thing about SCOTUS is that it has no enforcement capability of its own.  Its power derives from its perception as an impartial arbiter of law.   Today's SCOTUS includes of two openly corrupt justices, one more who stole his seat from Garland, and two shockingly unqualified justices who were installed as a reward for helping with Bush v. Gore back in the day.  Now we get rulings where logic and stare decisis are jettisoned in order to come to a predetermined political outcome, such as Dobbs, or Bruen which my state has elected to ignore, or Colorado.  Thus, trust in our institutions is eroded, as intended.

Well, the enforcement authority lies with the executive branch and they haven’t been taking action for a variety of reasons. If California or New York decide to ignore Bruen, nothing much is happening under this administration. Might change with a different one. Same with Dobbs, really. There’s a lot the Federal government can theoretically do, but it takes the will to do it and that can cut both ways. So I’m thinking some of it is related to the perceived stature of the Court, and some of it that the Executive branch is polarized by whoever happens to be in the chair at the time and as a result takes no action supporting the Court’s rulings. (Not sure what they could do about Colorado). If you get an executive branch that supports these rulings, that might look pretty different, as it has in the past.
 

Now we have a Constitutional Sheriffs movement that’s taking off, 14 Counties in very progressive California (of 58) have very publicly told the State that they’ll not be enforcing laws they deem unconstitutional. And while California can legally tell them they are not allowed to do that, good luck enforcing that position. How will you prove lack of enforcement? What do you legally have the ability to do regarding an elected official who has local support for the position they are taking? Sheriffs have a lot of power practically, and there are few systems to curtail that outside the vote (which will continue to go in their favor if they are endorsing a locally popular position). Is harder that it sounds and the potential for very serious breakdown of our systems is quite real. 
 

i don’t like anything about this stuff, we have processes for this. “Just do what you know is right” is a path to anarchy in my opinion. It’ll be interesting, and potentially very unpleasant, to watch this play out. 

That’s an interesting article, there have been numerous cases in recent years where district courts tend to push up against (or ignore, or circumvent) Supreme Court rulings, I’m wondering if the politicization of the SCOTUS is contributing to that by reducing their perceived stature and impartiality with the lesser courts.

I generally don’t like it when the legal system doesn’t follow its own rules. Being the law and all that…

4 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

SNL has had a great cold open the last two weeks.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/07/europe/sweden-join-nato-official-intl/index.html
 

Sweden ends a 200 year policy of nonalignment going back to the Napoleonic wars to join NATO. This is absolutely devastating to Putin’s dreams of empire reconstruction, and in my opinion a huge success for the safety and stability of Europe in the face of Russian expansionism. It’s also a repudiation for military adventurism as a political tool. 
 

Good news in my book. Sweden is no joke, Finland either, when it comes to their military contribution to the alliance. As a deterrent force, NATO just got stronger.

Voted, civic duty accomplished

Well, he’s 77 years old. It’s a reasonable concern, particularly given his behavior

I think it’s reasonable to be concerned about the cognitive facilities of any individual running for President who is of an age to be required to show up in person to renew a license and is subject to family requests for license review. The Donald exceeds that by a healthy margin in California (70), as does his opponent.

 It would be nice to have candidates with a little less tread worn off their tires, but it is what it is. I could see either of them not having their full cognitive facilities, and likely both.

There could potentially be some programming improvements to do there…