…uh…why?
The price of bitcoin soared past $65,000 Monday, putting it within striking distance of its all-time high reached in November 2021.
The cryptocurrency has gained 48% in 2024 and is approaching the intra-day all-time high of more than $68,000.
The latest rally is being fueled by hopes that the launch of bitcoin exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, will expand the pool of bitcoin buyers.
…it’s like some doom-critter in a movie…always room for another jump scare before you hit the credits…but…I mean…currency ETFs are a thing…but…would those really be the same thing…I’m not convinced…but…the money might be?
The ETFs have collectively already attracted billions of dollars of investments.
…I mean…don’t know about you…but I don’t appear to have attracted billions of dollars of investment…& I might not make all that much sense but I genuinely think I might make more sense than crypto…it’s…confusing?
The cryptocurrency world is also banking on a price rally coming after a technical event known as “halving” occurs in April. That causes the rate of supply of new bitcoin to decline. So if demand remains unchanged or even grows, the price goes up.
…uh huh
“With equities, you own a share of a company that produces goods or services, and many also pay dividends,” Vanguard said. “With bonds, you get a stream of interest payments. Commodities are real assets that meet consumption needs, have inflation-hedging properties, and can play a role in certain portfolios.”
“While crypto has been classified as a commodity, it’s an immature asset class that has little history, no inherent economic value, no cash flow, and can create havoc within a portfolio.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/markets/bitcoin-approaches-new-high-how-much-and-why
…immature…lack of historical evidence in support of the thing…no inherent economic value…cash flow issues…creates havoc…sort of sounds like something
Allen Weisselberg, a longtime lieutenant to Donald Trump, faces five months in jail after reaching an agreement with prosecutors in New York to plead guilty to perjury in the former US president’s recent civil fraud trial charges.
[…]
That trial ended with a judge imposing a huge financial penalty of more than $450m including interest on Trump. Weisselberg, 76, was ordered to pay $1.1m and permanently banned from serving in the financial control function of any New York business.
[…]
But a key moment of his testimony came when Weisselberg insisted he did not notice a discrepancy on Trump’s financial statements: that Trump’s triplex apartment was listed as being 30,000 sq ft when in reality, it is closer to 11,000 sq ft.“It was de minimus, in my mind,” he said at the time.
Forbes magazine disputed the claim he made on the stand, saying it had emails and notes that proved Weisselberg had actively tried to convince the magazine for years that the triplex was bigger than it actually was, denying what was listed on real-estate documents. Weisselberg abruptly ended his testimony after Forbes published an article accusing him of lying on the stand.
In exchange for Weisselberg pleading guilty to perjury in the fraud trial, the Manhattan district attorney’s office agreed to not prosecute Weisselberg for any other crimes he may have committed during his time at the Trump Organization.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/04/allen-weisselberg-guilty-trump-org
…know what doesn’t seem “de minimus”?
In ruling that states cannot kick Donald Trump off the ballot, the Supreme Court placed significant limits on any effort — including by Congress — to prevent the former president from returning to office.
Should Trump win the presidential election and lawmakers then seek to not certify the results and prevent him from taking office because he “engaged in insurrection” under Section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, the decision could foreclose that action.
It is on that point that the court — notionally unanimous in ruling for Trump despite its 6-3 conservative majority — appeared to be divided, with the three liberal justices vehemently objecting to the apparent straitjacket the decision enforced on Congress.
…the whole thing with the judicial branch existing in a state akin to regulatory capture…& treating with matters regarding the executive & legislative equivalents
“This gives the Supreme Court major power to second guess any congressional decision over enforcement of Section 3,” Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UCLA School of Law, wrote immediately after the ruling.
[…]
In ruling for Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court specified that anything Congress does must be specifically tailored to address Section 3, an implicit warning that broad legislation could be struck down.“Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming president,” the liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote on their separate opinion.
By weighing in on the role of Congress, “the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office,” they added.
One sentence in particular attracted the attention of legal experts, with the liberal justices writing that the majority was seemingly “ruling out enforcement under general federal statutes requiring the government comply with the law.”
…for such a securely entrenched bunch of assholes they sure do seem pretty chickenshit
Several observers said that may be a reference to Congress’ role in certifying the presidential election results should Trump win in November, which is now governed by the Electoral Count Reform Act enacted in 2022 with the aim of preventing another Jan. 6.
The law includes language saying Congress can refuse to count electoral votes that are not “regularly given.” That could be interpreted to apply to a winning candidate who members of Congress believe is not eligible to serve under Section 3.
Derek Muller, an election law expert at Notre Dame Law School, said it seemed the majority wanted to “close that door.”
But, he added, “the court is speaking somewhat opaquely here, as if it does not want to reveal the true substance of the disagreement.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/trump-wins-supreme-court-warn-may-harder-congress-boot-oathbreaking-in-future
[…]
If the court was addressing the counting of Electoral College votes, “they could easily have mentioned that if that’s what they meant,” said [Richard Pildes, a professor at New York University School of Law].
…sure they could…but…all due respect to the prof…but…I’m not sure that’s how lawyers work in most people’s experience
The court said the Colorado Supreme Court had wrongly assumed that states can determine whether a presidential candidate or other candidate for federal office is ineligible.
The ruling makes it clear that Congress, not states, has to set rules on how the 14th Amendment provision can be enforced against federal office-seekers. As such, the decision applies to all states, not just Colorado. States retain the power to bar people running for state office from appearing on the ballot under Section 3.
“Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing section 3 against all federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse,” the ruling said.
By deciding the case on that legal question, the court avoided any analysis or determination of whether Trump’s actions constituted an insurrection.
…uh huh…& the part where they rule the day before “super tuesday” is just an innocent happenstance
Minutes after the ruling, Trump hailed the decision in an all-capital-letters post on his social media site, writing, “Big win for America!!!”
…the fact you have to redefine every term in that assertion with the arguable exception of the first word for that not to be literally the opposite of the truth…should be fucking offensive…to a lot of the people chalking this up as a win, even…I mean…these are people who in considerable numbers believe they should get to be as tooled up as an actual member of the armed forces…on the off-chance that someone like the guy they plan to vote for should ever get their grubby mitts on the levers of power…so they can…you know…water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots…or at least people who like to call themselves that…& they bottled it the first go around…which should have made it terrifyingly clear that the miracle cure was snake oil…&…look…2nd amendment-wise…it’s not a good look if the likes of me wind up in the position of starting to think things like “well, if you’re not going to use the stuff to do the thing you say you need the stuff in case of…maybe give us a lend?”…for a start I’d more than likely do myself a mischief…& according to a lot of coroners’ reports cleaning a gun would probably be enough to see me off…but…it’s the principle of the thing?
The Supreme Court decision removes one avenue to holding Trump accountable for his role in challenging the 2020 election results, including his exhortation that his supporters should march on the Capitol on Jan. 6, when Congress was about to formalize Joe Biden’s win.
Trump is facing criminal charges for the same conduct. The Supreme Court in April will hear oral arguments on his broad claim of presidential immunity.
…&…what…we think they’ll change their minds…or congress & the senate will somehow have a moment of clarity & vote through a determination that this isn’t a fucking game & the question isn’t even a little unclear about whether or not his name has any business being on a ballot…except for the coining it in part…& the legal shield part…& the ego-fix echo chamber thing…which is about all the business he’s ever really been engaged in?
Although the bottom-line vote was unanimous, there were some divisions on the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, as to how the case was resolved. The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — complained in a jointly written concurring opinion that the court had decided more than it needed to by laying out how Section 3 could be enforced by Congress.
They said the decision could “insulate” Trump from “future controversy,” adding that the ruling “shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement” of section 3.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed that the court went further than required, although she did not join the liberal justices’ opinion.
Barrett said although she had some disagreements with the rationale, the liberals should not “amplify disagreement” in such a politically charged case.
“All nine justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home,” she added.
…sure…message received…& possibly understood…in that I understand it to be passing the buck to the electorate on shaky grounds that boil down to continuing to play who-blinks-first with a man who superglued his eyelids open out of consideration to a bunch of shit in the abstract that mostly wouldn’t survive if someone doesn’t put him out of our misery…call it moral cowardice…or just piss poor jurisprudence…or a dereliction of duty…or…I’m going to stop…I feel momentum developing & I need to get this turned around in the direction of something…but…I could call it a lot of things
The case raised several novel legal issues, including whether the language applies to candidates for president and who gets to decide whether someone engaged in an insurrection.
The state high court’s decision reversed a lower court’s ruling in which a judge said that Trump had engaged in insurrection by inciting the Jan. 6 riot but that presidents are not subject to the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment because they are not an “officer of the United States.”
Trump and his allies raised that point, as well as other arguments that the 14th Amendment cannot be applied. They also argued that Jan. 6 was not an insurrection.
Republicans, including Trump’s primary opponents, broadly supported his claim that any attempt to kick him off the ballot is a form of partisan election interference. Some Democrats including California Gov. Gavin Newsom have also expressed unease about the 14th Amendment provision being used as a partisan weapon.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-trump-cannot-kicked-colorado-ballot
…I know how we got here…but…really…it’s not actually complicated…is it…it *would* be election interference…if it were used as a partisan weapon…but…when the insurrection is led by the pre-determined candidate for one horse in a two-horse race…the *appearance* of a partisan component only exists in the first place because the GOP has fully abased itself like it’s fine for their weird kink to murder a republic…did none of these fuckers ever play those “spot the difference” kids’ games?
Section 3 of the Civil War-era 14th Amendment says: “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath … as an officer of the United States … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
Even if someone is found to be ineligible to serve, the amendment says Congress can overturn that decision with a two-thirds majority.
The provision was mainly used between its ratification in the aftermath of the Civil War and the 1872 enactment of the Amnesty Act, according to a Congressional Research Service report.
…&…fuck all that noise about whether the president is an officer of the united states federal edifice…or the part where they seemed to think congress actually ought to concern itself with heading off spurious attempts to abuse the mechanism rather than be required to formally state the fucking obvious…somehow I don’t think the founding fathers ever imagined their baby would wind up in the care of anyone who wouldn’t know that kind of thing when they saw it…like a rat?
The former president has not been charged explicitly with “insurrection” or “rebellion” in any of his criminal cases, including the Washington, D.C., election interference case brought by special counsel Jack Smith. Smith’s office charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. The case is scheduled to go to trial in early March.
The CRS report says, “Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary.”
…you don’t say?
Of the cases that are pending appeal or have been dismissed, most were decided on grounds having nothing to do with Section 3 itself, much less whether Trump participated in or supported an insurrection.
Instead, several courts have dismissed these cases on threshold questions of justiciability, meaning the cases are not eligible to be decided.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-14-amendment-section-3-explained-colorado-ballot-ruling
…so
As I have been noting for months, in all of Jack Smith’s rebuttals to Trump’s claims that Presidents have absolute immunity, he floated scenarios that are pretty similar to stuff that Trump is known or suspected of doing.
One of those is, “a president who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary.”
As I noted in response to Trump’s claim that that would be treason, Trump has done a whole lot that’s improper with classified information.
…&…nobody’s charged the insurrectionist-in-chief with insurrection…although…a lot of useful idiots & few people who thought they were clever are currently banged up on that account…just sayin’…like the shit allen went with that guilty plea over…that he did because his boss fucking wanted it that way…because that’s how that shit fucking works…even if said boss is mysteriously not keeping his ass company in the dock…for…reasons
To be clear: Trump has never been accused of selling nuclear secrets to America’s adversaries.
He undoubtedly gave Israel’s counterterrorism secrets to Russia — why, and whether there was a quid pro quo involved, we still don’t know.
He is known to have Tweeted out highly sensitive satellite information to dick-wag Iran, with the result that Iran learned about the satellites targeting their country.
To spite Mark Milley, he showed a plan to attack Iran to Mark Meadows’ ghost writers.
Ongoing reporting, first from ABC and then from NYT, reveals that after Australian billionaire Anthony Pratt paid millions for access to Trump, Trump shared details of a conversation he had about a call he had with Iraq’s president after bombing Iraq, described his perfect phone call with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and provided sensitive details of America’s nuclear subs.
And he is accused of leaving nuclear documents — documents that Trump’s lawyers may have reviewed for the first time last week — in unsecure ways at his beach resort, possibly even in his gaudy bathroom.
So, no. Trump has not (yet) been accused of selling nuclear secrets, to adversaries or anyone else. Though he did give away what he claimed to be nuclear secrets to a businessman from an allied nation after the guy paid a lot of money for access to Trump.
But as I noted, we don’t yet know what happened to some of the secret documents that Trump snuck away from Mar-a-Lago after hiding them from Evan Corcoran in June 2022, documents he took with him to host a golf tournament the Saudis paid an undisclosed sum to host at Bedminster.
Those documents have never been located.
Just so long as Trump didn’t sell any of these nuclear documents, but instead gave them away, I’m sure we’re all good.
That’s important background to Trump’s primary defense in his stolen documents case. Between his motion to dismiss because the Presidential Records Act doesn’t say what he claims it says and his motion to dismiss for absolute immunity, he is arguing that he intended to steal boxes and boxes of classified documents.
…so…while I ask myself what’s so super about tuesday…I continue to have…other questions…I mean apart from the obvious ones…like…couldn’t we call that “you can’t do me for it because I did that shit but I’m me & you’re you so I get to do what I want & you get to STFU”…because…it sure as shit looks like it from here?
[…OK – at some point this part should vanish…or at least be rendered redundant*…& some tunes should materialize…but before that there’s a couple more blocks of quoting dr wheeler I need to get out of my mental buffer if I’m going to execute “shit:done.bat” today…so…with you shortly?][*…well…kinda…or at least more so than the rest of these are by default, anyway?]
The latter argument is substantially the same garbage argument Trump has made to the DC Circuit and SCOTUS. The former is a real piece of work, even by Trump’s standards. Here [is] his argument:
- Before the Presidential Records Act was passed, Presidents treated presidential papers — which are different from government classified documents — as their personal property
- Because NARA had no authority, after Bill Clinton left office, to reclassify tapes of personal conversations Clinton made so Tom Fitton could have them, it means NARA has no authority over what counts as a presidential or personal record
- Bill Clinton’s personal tapes are exactly the same as the boxes and boxes of official documents Trump sent to Mar-a-Lago
- Without providing any evidence Trump did classify all those official documents as personal documents, he will nevertheless claim he did so while still in office
- Robert Hur’s report describing seizing all of Joe Biden’s diaries — which are specifically excluded from the PRA — is proof that Presidents control all official documents they stash away
- Cmon, Judge Cannon, you made the ridiculous argument I own these documents once already, only to have the 11th Circuit rip you a new asshole, but why can’t you make precisely that argument again?
- Charging Trump for actions he took after leaving the White House is the same as supervising his actions day-to-day
- Because DOJ declined to second-guess Mark Meadows’ spectacular failure to declassify documents Trump wanted to give to John Solomon, it means DOJ must accept Trump’s vague assertion that he didn’t spectacularly fail to declassify boxes and boxes of documents either
- These boxes and boxes of official documents, which are not excluded from the PRA, are just like Reagan’s diaries, which are specifically excluded
- Clinton’s conversations about official stuff are just the same as the official documents documenting that kind of stuff
- Because NARA had never made a criminal referral before February 2022, the fact that it has since made two means it couldn’t make any
- Trump didn’t think he’d get busted, so it was improper for FBI to bust him
- DOJ should have dealt with me like they did with Peter Navarro when he also blew off the PRA
- Because DOJ refused to seize unclassified personal Clinton recordings so Tom Fitton could have them, it means DOJ could not seize classified official documents so NARA could have them
…I mean…when you put it like that?
Ultimately, though, the two arguments together are very simple. First, from the PRA filing, Trump intended to take those boxes and boxes of classified documents.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/02/23/trumps-defense-he-intended-to-steal-boxes-and-boxes-of-classified-documents/
[…]
And, from the immunity filing, because Trump stole those boxes and boxes of classified documents while he was still Commander-in-Chief, he has immunity from prosecution for doing so.
[…]
This is, quite literally, an argument that it was totally legal for Trump to choose to steal boxes and boxes of classified documents.
…there’s a lot of other shit going on…& even super tuesday is something of a foregone conclusion this go around…the one guy will sweep it…& the time he lost to a girl in D.C. under the proverbial rug…the other guy will cop a bunch of flack for not having become younger while president…& the circus will move right along…but…all the pussy-footing about making out it would be inappropriate for any of the people who ought to be to take appropriate action…so that the skewed-as-best-as-they-can picture of “the will of the people” can answer a question that hasn’t been put to them about whether or not it makes sense to allow a man bent on killing a thing to be appointed as that thing’s guardian…is…making me crazier than usual…here’s your candidate…it’s hard to see him on account of all the convicted associates in his orbit…but…he’s “untouchable”…politically
The Supreme Court has not only held that states cannot enforce the 14th Amendment for Federal offices,
This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.
…look…it’s not just me…but there’s a whole “I double-dare you” thing going on with that…”if we were talking about a candidate for state office who did this shit…hell, yeah you can strike that shit…but you don’t have jurisdiction over matters of federal standing…& we haven’t got a spine holding us up so much as a tight leash…so…we aim to punt like nobody’s business & claim it’s the honorable thing to do
But it held that Congress must exclude insurrectionists from office.
…AKA the thing that demonstrably can’t get that hospital pass to the end zone
The respondents nonetheless maintain that States may enforce Section 3 against candidates for federal office. But the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, on its face, does not affirmatively delegate such a power to the States. The terms of the Amendment speak only to enforcement by Congress, which enjoys power to enforce the Amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5.
…see…originally…them founding fathers, right…they…must have assumed everyone else was a fucking moron…because that’s the only way to look at this that suits us…they couldn’t possibly have included this language to serve to actually prevent the outcome it purports to want to forestall in any actually effective sense…that way madness lies…or whatever pipe dream they’re fiend-ing on
Instead, it is Congress that has long given effect to Section 3 with respect to would-be or existing federal officeholders. Shortly after ratification of the Amendment, Congress enacted the Enforcement Act of 1870. That Act authorized federal district attorneys to bring civil actions in federal court to remove anyone holding nonlegislative office—federal or state—in violation of Section 3, and made holding or attempting to hold office in violation of Section 3 a federal crime. §§14, 15, 16 Stat. 143–144 (repealed, 35 Stat. 1153–1154, 62 Stat. 992–993). In the years following ratification, the House and Senate exercised their unique powers under Article I to adjudicate challenges contending that certain prospective or sitting Members could not take or retain their seats due to Section 3. See Art. I, §5, cls. 1, 2; 1 A. Hinds, Precedents of the House of Representatives §§459–463, pp. 470–486 (1907). And the Confiscation Act of 1862, which predated Section 3, effectively provided an additional procedure for enforcing disqualification. That law made engaging in insurrection or rebellion, among other acts, a federal crime punishable by disqualification from holding office under the United States. See §§2, 3, 12 Stat. 590. A successor to those provisions remains on the books today. See 18 U. S. C. §2383. [my emphasis]
Taken in tandem with SCOTUS’ punt on Trump’s immunity bid, this seems like an invitation for Jack Smith to supersede Trump with inciting insurrection. After all, SCOTUS has now upheld the DC Circuit opinion that says there’s no double jeopardy problem with trying someone for something on which they were acquitted after impeachment.
Jack Smith could — today — charge Trump with inciting insurrection in response to this order. It is the one Constitutional means to disqualify him, according to this order.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/03/04/scotus-invites-jack-smith-to-supersede-trump-with-inciting-insurrection/
…you know what…I take it back…if that turns up on this particular tuesday…that would probably qualify as super in my estimations
…now…I might not feel the whole whistle-while-you-work joys of spring…but…if you hum it I’ll try to follow along?
I’m going to pause reading to address your first point concerning bitcoin. I don’t understand it either, but Better Half is in finance and he has to deal with it, in a professional way. He’s rather saw his right hand off than get us involved in it personally.
Aside from being this made up means of transaction, used mostly by illicit characters, it’s extremely volatile. It is what people say it is, but good luck doing anything with it. I saw a real estate listing, I can’t remember if it was here or in the Hamptons, and they were accepting bitcoin, which I thought was bizarre. When Sam Bankman-Fried’s Ponzi operation collapsed (his birthday is tomorrow, by the way) BH was on the phone 24/7 for a couple of weeks doing what he does best, which was to reassure the partners they wanted to keep and let loose the D-list hangers-on. It was amazing. It was like watching the Stock Market crash of 1929 replay itself.
But it’s back. Good luck to all of them.
…my understanding is it’s “cyclical”…which sounds suspiciously like the people who understand it doing a rinse & repeat on fleecing crops of newbs
…but what do I know…I’m not a financial regulator…or even a proper speculator if we’re running with those definitions?
…but the other part I don’t understand is why anyone thinks a thing with an un-editable audit trail is the thing for doing shady shit
…if if that’s obscured now…you really want to bet they won’t invent a quantum computer that hashes it out into plaintext one afternoon?
…I dunno…I don’t fucking understand these people…but…I’m not sure I understand any people…based on my understanding of me it’s quite possible we don’t actually work that way?
The analogy I use is that when you enter a casino, you buy a certain amount of chips. When you leave the casino, those chips will be worth either more or less than you paid for them. Cryptocurrency works exactly the same way.
If that entertains you, great. But nobody who is serious about money dabbles in that crap (full disclosure, some of our accountants mess around in various cryptos, and some have made money, but none, to my knowledge, put serious cash into them). It’s right up there with the salespeople at my old software firm who went to Vegas and gambled. Sometimes you leave a few hundred up. Most times you leave a loser.
We are constantly talking company founders and CEOs off the crypto ledge, because they think “sweet, I can double my VC funds in two days.” Dear Lord, no. Many VCs are now added clauses to term sheets that explicitly bar goofy-ass “investments.”
Yep, it’s criminal all the way down, from the people propping it up to the end users, who are mostly using it for precisely the thing you’d expect a libertarian currency to be used for: sex trade, drugs and other crimes.
Also worth noting that almost all ransomware attacks seek bitcoin as the payment because of its difficulty to trace (and ease to transfer). It legitimately has 0 actual value and only carries downside … it’s the perfect crime!
I believe the answer is “it’s OK if a Republican does it but we’d shut up shop pretty goddamn quick if someone else tried this shit.”
I have a bit of a side hustle – as the new breed calls it – correcting clinical study translations from Spanish that’ve been done by AI. (Some are fairly decent, with a bit of necessary tweaking, and some accidentally render into English things like people’s names, streets and even Buenos Aires.) I make a couple of grand a month doing it – which is definitely good money, although hardly on the clickbait level of some Gen Z-er who makes ten times that doing whatever – and get an average of about one “Language Coin” for every project I complete. Right now, I have almost of a thousand of the things – although it says that they’re being stored as “Ethereum test coins” until the cryptocurrency goes live. Somehow, I get the impression that, if and when that ever does that happen, I’ll still be looking more at my checking account than whatever ETF index there is.
Language coins! Good for you, hon! In all my years of babbling in multiple foreign languages (I started when I was 16 and persuaded my parents to send me to Central America for the summer; home stay; that poor family) I have never collected a single language coin.
Well, I’m sure that one of your early teachers could’ve made some by tracing around a fairly large metal washer on some yellow construction paper and then filling in the details with colored Sharpies, and they’d probably still be worth more than whatever I’ve got, babe — and maybe not just in sentimental value, either!
Ok, which of you wrote this?
https://www.salon.com/2024/03/05/there-is-something-at-the-new-york-times/
Wait, Florida did the right thing?
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-appointed-judges-shut-down-florida-stop-woke-act-1875810
Fuck Texas!
It was me. Lucian Truscott IV is my pen name, obviously.
I knew it!
There is nothing wrong with being named Lucian Truscott IV, although there is something offensive about him, but I can’t remember what. I know somebody who is a “V” and he told me that when someone is born, and he has a son, and the son is a “Junior.” Junior’s son becomes the the II.
He was especially lecherous, but my age and not unattractive, so I assume he was playing the field. He asked how I got my name. I parried and said that my husband has the same name as his father and I, in fact, am named after my mother’s two brothers. That didn’t deter “V”. “Your supposed husband isn’t here, is he? I think we should go somewhere and have some fun.” I said, “I think you’re disgusting and I hope to never see you again.” I said goodbye to my fellow barflies, the ones I knew and came with, and left. I still see “V” every so often, he’s a good friend of a couple of ours, and we’ve let bygones be bygones. He’s had some work done, but he looks great. You won’t be seeing him showing up on “Botched” any time soon.
I knew a “III” who was a dragon slayer (a person who one-ups you on every topic until they eventually claim that they once slayed a dragon). He wore a bowtie daily and bragged about attending every Phish concert whenever they would go on tour (he had lots of disposable income)… We didn’t keep in touch but he has a son now and I guess his wife put her foot down at naming him “IV”…they went with a Roman emperor’s name instead.
Oh no. Bowties. Phish concerts. Aaaargh. Maybe he’s a good dancer? Or has lots of jokes or funny anecdotes to retail? Otherwise…
Nope, nothing to balance out those quirks. 😆 I have nothing nice to say about him so I’ll leave it at that.
There is a joke/warning among women against dating “roman numerals guys.” Just that they probably come from money so they’ll probably also be a jerk/lazy in bed/etc. Pretty, but not a long term prospect.
My working theory about the Times is that AG Sulzberger was pushed kicking and screaming in 2020 to fire James Bennet from running the Opinion section.
Bennet was a mess both in terms of the quality of the writers and the arbitrary, screwed up editing processes he had, and both were the result of the deeply political approach he took. And the mess had put the paper in a really bad place. Sulzberger took a look at the aftermath of the firing, though, and decided the problem wasn’t the Bennet way, it was listening to critical voices.
Since that time he’s turned the paper even more insular, more imperial, and increasingly confrontational with both internal and external critics. The crackdowns on employees are getting worse, which is a particular problem. When a media outlet is repeatedly telling its journalists they don’t know what journalism is, it’s a flashing warning sign that the problem is actually at the top.
He’s listening to a narrow band of people who are telling him that a Trump victory will be no worse than 2017. He’s letting his festering bile drown out common sense.
“You’ll have to read other publications — for example, Salon or maybe the Guardian — if you want to learn how often Trump is losing his way mid-sentence at rallies and just mumbling incoherently.”
Is this noticeably different than how he normally talks?
…depends…a friend of mine is pretty much convinced dotardus j dodderington is suffering from something called wernicke’s (or “fluent”) aphasia as a result of a stroke they haven’t admitted he suffered
…&…could be a man with a hammer seeing a nail…but he works in stroke recovery…so he’s more familiar with what that looks like than me after watching this?
If you told me Trump had been abducted by aliens and this whole thing was their science experiment, I’d believe it. So the stroke/aphasia thing doesn’t sound too far off.
Get ready, it is coming & Dems need to scream this to the media…
https://hartmannreport.com/p/the-saudi-and-putin-scheme-for-screwing-1e4
So, does anyone here realistically think Trump WON’T be elected in November? Like Loveshaq posted above, people are critiquing Biden for age stuff, but not Trump. I just imagine myself voting for his VP, in case he croaks in office. We don’t even know Trump’s pick yet! Dems are saying they’re not going to vote for him (or going to write in Donald Duck or whatever) over Palestine, as though anything would be different/better under another admin.
…I mean…personally…I think joe can take him…even allowing for the flagrant fuckery
…but it’s closer than it has any business looking…& if I’m wrong I apologize in advance for anyone who goes blind when my dissatisfaction hits critical mass?
I think it is good that they are getting Kamala out there making strong statements about the “war” in Gaza. If they think he is too old & she will be the real president (the MAGA nightmare they always promote), lets get her out there making tougher stands. We need to embrace the what happens if he dies in office and not run from it.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-vp-harris-urges-israeli-government-do-more-boost-aid-into-gaza-2024-03-03/
I do not believe Trump will be elected. His support has pretty much dwindled to the crazification factor (27%). He’s gutted the Republican National Convention and is now spending their money on his increasing legal fees so Biden will have ads running constantly and Trump can’t. Yes, he’s going to get the nomination. No, he can’t beat Biden. Democrats and independents are furious over the reproductive bullshit and the Republicans simply can’t resist pushing more and more restrictions.
Yes, polls keep saying bullshit that is utterly meaningless. Again, only old white Republicans respond to polls. Every time you see one about Trump winning, replace the word “respondents” with “old white Republicans.”
Let’s look at an example from the WSJ:
What that means is:
That’s not great news for Trump. Democrats and independents will not be voting for him, and Republicans are losing interest in the loser.
I want to believe this.
I expect him to win. I expected him to win in 2016 and almost all of my friends thought I was nuts for that but nope, I just have no faith in white people to not make glaringly horrible decisions based on racism and Christian Nationalism. Including a lot of white people too stupid to realize they are part of a Christian Nationalist group because they are racists.
I think Trump has a chance but not a particularly good one. I also think most people don’t pay attention until later on and that’s when things will be won or lost. McCain led Obama in ’08 as late as like September. (Of course it’s deeply depressing that Trump isn’t barred from running and even has a chance at all, but that’s America for you.)
I’m also not that concerned about the too-leftist-to-vote-Biden crowd because a) it’s loud but small and b) I’m not sure how many of them voted for him in 2020 and those that did I think are still likely to realize that Trump is a lot worse when that’s the choice. I don’t think their outrage over the handling of Israel and Palestine is necessarily performative or fake, but I do think it’s street cred for a lot of them who are predisposed to hate the Democratic Party and so “Genocide Joe” becomes the shorthand for that frustration. (Which I should note, I share, and I think now is the time to put the screws to him on it.)
To add: I think it was Jamelle Bouie who noted that the two choices are going to be Biden, who is wrong on Gaza now but is the head of a coalition that is considerably more sympathetic to the Palestinians than that policy and has shown a willingness to bend to those beliefs versus Trump who will be ready to drop cluster bombs on the strip come Day 1 and heads a coalition who thinks the Rapture won’t happen unless the Jews are firmly in control of Israel. You have to be willingly blind not to see the difference between those two things.
I think the chances are 50/50. I knew he would win in 2016 because I knew that Hillary Clinton would lose against anyone due to the decades of deep hatred and mistrust which had been invested in her not winning the White House. Of course, she also managed to fuck things up for herself by just assuming she would stroll to victory and refused to listen to Sanders’ people when they warned her in the general election that she was going to lose MI, PA and WI if she didn’t actually show up.
I expected the nail biter of 2020, mostly because Joe Biden is a centrist dipshit but he doesn’t inflame the levels of hatred that Hillary does. Plus Trump had managed to royally fuck up the Covid response in an election year…in addition to everything else.
But, considering the number of states run by Republicans that immediately changed the electoral rules after Biden won, I’m expecting another nail biter–and I won’t be surprised if Trump “wins” this year.
For my part, I haven’t voted for the Democratic nominee since 2012–primarily because I’ve grown to despise the process whereby the DNC decides who should be nominated and everyone just sort of nods and follows along. 2008 was the last competitive primary we had. But, I also have the luxury of living in a state that goes for the D by a minimum of 30 points. If I lived in WI, I’d probably hold my nose, vote for Biden, and then go home and take a shower.
This is not directed specifically at you, but I do feel like the left in this country needs to figure out how to play politics because as it stands now, they sound increasingly unhinged. Biden’s already done more left-wing shit than Obama ever even considered thinking about having a meeting to discuss the possibility of examining. But when he’s done good things, all people have done is bitched that he didn’t do other things. And I get the bitterness — I feel it in my bones sometimes — and also that there’s SO MUCH more than needs to be done, but it’s also like how do you expect the administration to respond to endless doomerism?
Biden’s polling numbers dropped and stayed dropped when he left Afghanistan. I have no idea if a broader left coalition said “Yes, good, more of that please” that it might have helped when things turned to Ukraine and then Gaza. But I’m also old enough to remember the narrative of Gore and Bush being the same flavor and I have a feeling about a million Iraqis would love to sound off on that idea if they were still alive today.
No, I get that. When I say Biden is a centrist dipshit, I meant in terms of his 2016 campaign. Yes, he’s taken heed of who brought him to the dance, but generally speaking its for the weedy stuff that liberals can never get people’s attention for in the first place so no wonder nobody sees it. Yet, he can be incredibly tone deaf with the shit that grabs headlines for weeks at a time, like the Gaza situation. I mean, it took him five fucking months just to get to a point where he decided direct aid to Gazans via airdrops would be a good idea? At no point has he ever even suggested that he might cut off the firehose of military aid and equipment the US has been sending forever which has enabled Israel to be essentially unstoppable. Why? Because Republicans–and not a few Democrats–will fucking destroy him over it. So, he toys around the edges because ultimately that’s probably his best political option. Doesn’t mean it’s right, just that’s the way it is.
I’ve always thought the Afghanistan thing got hung on him when it shouldn’t have. Trump made the fucking deal, but Biden was in office when it got enacted so he gets the blame. That’s bullshit, but that’s also exactly the weedy stuff that nobody cares to get into.
Of course, he’s also been sitting on piles of money because he’s waiting for Trump to officially start campaigning for the general election so Biden can bury him in purchased media time. Maybe he starts getting the lefties’ attention again, maybe not. Either way, Biden is just a symptom. The problem is the DNC and media insistence that truly liberal candidates aren’t “electable” and there’s no way to dispel that idea because they have a stranglehold on the messaging and the money.
…if I keep subscribing to all you people’s newsletters I’m going to get even less done
…but…yes to all of that, I think…with extra helpings for the afghanistan bit…because that is very much as you point out a thing that gets him docked points…that is 100% the other guy trying to give him a grenade as a house-warming gift even though it fucked up the strategic national interest more than it put the administration off its stride
…also played into the hands of a selection of…what do you call them…hostile foreign powers…which…you know…aid & comfort & such
…it might not have been treason for a lame duck president to sabotage that shit on his way out the door…but it’s a lot nearer to it than propping a bucket of whitewash over the door to the oval?
This is part of my concern. People on the left have these ever-shifting goalposts and purity tests that the right DO NOT. The right is party over anything else and it helps them win, even when their policy is insane and their party members are rapists and nazis. We quibble about whether to use “Latinx” in a newsletter or to primary a rep for asking for a ceasefire…. it’s madness.
i really dont get how anyone expected this to not immediately turn into a huge shitshow
https://nltimes.nl/2024/03/04/govt-plans-replace-mother-gender-neutral-term-dutch-population-register
was fun watching twatter explode and all the radio djs go nuts tho
https://nltimes.nl/2024/03/04/minister-quickly-halts-unnecessary-plan-drop-word-mother-national-registry
not that i have a problem with parent from whom the child was born…….but tbh…seems like the kinda thing you could solve by asking the parent in question what they want to have on the birth certificate…and then not being a dick about it…(unless said parent is elon musk…coz he’ll take the piss with it)
hmm…4 minutes to duan…this seems like a good time to serve a youtube oddity