Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Hank Chinaski]

Paging Ty: I really didn’t listen in con law. Michigan had a vote to amend its Constitution to make any act that restricts abortion illegal. Can a federal statute violate a State Constitution?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Paging Ty: I really didn’t listen in con law. Michigan had a vote to amend its Constitution to make any act that restricts abortion illegal. Can a federal statute violate a State Constitution?

I think the short answer is that the Supremacy Clause suggests that if the federal government passes a law that requires a result inconsistent with a state constitution, the federal law takes precedence. For example, I believe Wyoming used to elect state legislators from counties (or districts?) which would pick multiple candidates, and my recollection is that the federal government said this was inconsistent with civil rights legislation and forced a change to single districts. Whether or not I have the details right, I think that's the principle.

OTOH, for the federal law to apply, it would have to be enacted under Congress's enumerated powers, and it's not immediately clear to me how one would justify federal regulation of abortion law, which is not the way it works.

Which is to say, it's not clear to me that the answer to your question is so clear that it couldn't be engineered by the Supreme Court according to what conservatives decide the law should be. This Supreme Court seems particularly results-oriented and unbound by the way the law has been understood, especially on the issues that matter most to conservatives.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

"The past four years have highlighted the ways that Democrats exaggerate the political importance of racial identity. Joe Biden, after all, promised to nominate the first Black female Supreme Court justice (which he did) and chose Kamala Harris as the first Black vice president — who has now succeeded him as the Democratic nominee. Yet Harris has less support from Black voters than Hillary Clinton did in 2016.

Biden also adopted the sort of welcoming immigration policies that Democrats have long believed Hispanic voters support. He loosened border rules early in his term, which helped millions of people enter the country. In spite of that change — or maybe partly because of it — Democrats have also lost Hispanic support.
. . .

More generally, many voters have come to see the Democratic Party as the party of the establishment. That may sound vague and vibesy, but it’s real. Trump’s disdain for the establishment appeals to dissatisfied voters of all races. As my colleague Nate Cohn points out, a sizable minority of Black and Hispanic voters think 'people who are offended by Donald Trump take his words too seriously.'

The Democrats’ second big problem is that they have wrongly imagined voters of colors to be classic progressives. In reality, the most left-wing segment of the population is heavily white, the Pew Research Center has found. While white Democrats have become even more liberal in recent decades, many working-class voters of color remain moderate to conservative."

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/14/b...tion-poll.html

That’s what happens when bread goes up a dollar. But I tell people, bread is cheaper in Russia.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

That’s what happens when bread goes up a dollar. But I tell people, bread is cheaper in Russia.

Normal people just don't like progressives. It's a thing.

I don't think they like MAGA, either.

Pet theory on why Trump's numbers are resilient:

1. Inflation
2. Immigration

Hardly revelatory, I know. But those are bedrocks. Kind of like Harris' bedrock issue, which is reproductive rights.

Where it gets interesting, IMO, is the third issue, which I'd call "Officious Overreach."

There is a type of person, and they seem to gravitate toward progressive and right-wing politics, who think they know what's best for everyone, and insist that their views be enshrined in policy.

In the 80s, this was most pungently apparent in the behaviors of people like Brent Bozell and Focus on the Family groups boycotting media and products advertised on it which they deemed obscene. They even got Ed Meese to get behind policies to try to police and ban what offended them.

This pissed off the quiet majority of the country. And Meese became a kind of politically toxic Joe McCarthy in his day. Despite all their efforts, these "morality hall monitors" failed. Normal people told them to fuck off. And so they went back under their rocks and festered within the evangelical and fundamentalist cultures.

From 2010 on (and really aggressively after 2016), the most pungent example of this busy-bodyism has been the progressives. They've been scolding everyone who isn't 100% on their page for wrongthink for a long time now, and people are really irritated by it.

Unlike Meese and Bozell and the "culture police" of the 80s, who had to fight against an often mocking and openly disdainful media, the current puritans enjoy the support of much of the mainstream media.

Now, of course, few people watch mainstream media anymore, so this support is limited. But it is enough to keep their message - their insistent, naive, and white-hot righteous scolding - loud enough to create a highly annoying background noise withing our politics.

We can ignore the MAGA because, well, they're overtly nuts. They're in red hats, at rallies, assuming a posture akin to something between LaRouche supporters and Birch Society Members.

But its not so easy to ignore the left wing culture police. They look a bit more normal, they are far more articulate, often credentialed (in silly subjects, but nevertheless adequate to put letters behind their names) and they're armed with just enough pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-scientific "scholarship" to present defenses of their frequently preposterous positions.

Nobody wants a govt of hall monitors. Nobody wants to be scolded about how he needs to think by some 35 year old PhD in gender studies or intersectional anthropology.

This country's essential DNA is still individualism. One cannot expect to get anywhere in America by perpetually tsk-tsking people in a strident and self-assured manner. Particularly where, in the case of progressivism, the intellectual and empirical underpinnings of the ideology are weak and falter under even slight cross-examination. (Every extreme ideology falters the same way.) The quiet majority are not fools. They may be credulous in some regards, as all people are, but they can spot people selling unrealistic utopian policies.

It doesn't sell any form of widget and it certainly doesn't sell political candidates to tell people "We know what's best and you must listen to us." First, people who say that are almost always dead wrong. If one is that strident, he is demented, and that dementia is negatively impacting his thinking and his judgment. So whatever he's selling is probably going to turn out horribly post-purchase. Second, at no time in human history has anyone ever successfully shamed his opponents into conceding he is right and they are wrong. The rigorous studies explaining why are myriad (Haidt's The Righteous Mind is a good start.)

Telling half the country they mustn't - they cannot, ever - vote for a certain candidate is a great way to drive tons of voters to that candidate. Like it or not, this country reveres the outlaws, not the compliance officers who tell us "no" and school marms handing out detentions. We were founded on the idea that nobody tells us what to do.

And that's a good thing. Because that preserves the ragged and often cruel dynamism that has made this country different and better in many regards than all others.

If His Orangeness should win this fall, which looks increasingly possible, if not perhaps likely, I would hope the left takes a different tack toward this Project 2025 stuff (should there be an attempt to enshrine it in law). Rather than scold everyone and offer its own competing vision of a controlled and managed society, make the argument that every American feels in his or her bones: "No. I'm not going to do what you tell me. Go ahead and try to make me."

The last thing anyone needs - the very worst thing imaginable - is what we have now: One side arguing "My version of a control structure for our govt and culture is best," countered by, "No, yours sucks. My version of a control structure is best."

How about both of these groups of assholes stop trying to control everyone and instead, live and let live?

This would be welcome by all of us in the middle, who are sick and tired of attempts by competing groups of Officious Overreachers to dictate how the rest of us are expected to behave.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. Inflation
2. Immigration

Deporting a ton of immigrants is going to have a direct effect on prices.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

How the mighty have fallen.

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered former Donald Trump attorney and New York mayor Rudy Giuliani to turn over all his valuable possessions and his Manhattan penthouse apartment to the control of Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, the Georgia election workers he defamed and to whom he now owes $150 million.

Judge Lewis Liman of the federal court in Manhattan said Giuliani must turn over his interest in the property to the women in seven days, to a receivership they will control. The judge’s turnover order of the luxury items is swift and simple, but the penthouse apartment will have its control transferred so Freeman and Moss can sell it, potentially for millions of dollars.

The women, who counted Georgia ballots after the 2020 election, will also be entitled to about $2 million in legal fees Giuliani has said the Trump campaign still owes him, the judge ruled.

In addition to the Trump campaign fees and the New York apartment, Giuliani must also turn over a collection of several watches, including ones given to him by European presidents after the September 11, 2001, attacks; a signed Joe DiMaggio jersey and other sports memorabilia; and a 1980 Mercedes once owned by the Hollywood star Lauren Bacall. Additionally, the judge ordered that Giuliani turn over his television, items of furniture and jewelry.

CNN

[LessinSF]

For Sebby - https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/fa...olarship/2229/

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

For Sebby - https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/fa...olarship/2229/

I'll never quibble with the notion that in politics, perception is more important than actual. Or that Trump was not as administratively effective as he claims.

However, when you have a pro-deregulation regime in place, business generally has more confidence. So merely saying you're going to go easy on regulation can free up investment.

And at the really really small business level, people aren't as concerned with enforcement. Saying you're going to fund 87k new treasury agents, OTOH, however immaterial that may actually be, isn't singing a song the restaurant owner, Uber driver, or hair salon owner want to hear.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Here's why.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/22/o...democrats.html

"The politics of selective fidelity to traditional norms. Liberals fear, with reason, the threat Trump poses to the institutional architecture of American government. Yet many of the same Democrats want to pack the Supreme Court, eliminate the Senate filibuster, get rid of the Electoral College, give federal agencies the right to impose eviction moratoriums and forgive hundreds of billions of dollars in student debt without the consent of Congress. They decry Trump’s assaults on the news media while cheering the Biden administration’s attempt to strong-arm media companies into censoring opinions it disliked. And they warn of Trump’s efforts to criminalize his political opponents, even as they celebrate criminalizing him. Hypocrisy of this sort doesn’t go unnoticed by people not fully in the tank for Harris.

It remains perfectly possible that Harris will win the election, in which case we will hear a great deal about the brightness of her appeal and the brilliance of her campaign. Wiser liberals might want to press two questions: How did Trump still get so very, very close? And how can we fashion a liberalism that doesn’t turn so many ordinary people off?"

Simple. Remember what it is to be a Liberal and kick the Progressives out of the tent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Here's why.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/22/o...democrats.html

"The politics of selective fidelity to traditional norms. Liberals fear, with reason, the threat Trump poses to the institutional architecture of American government. Yet many of the same Democrats want to pack the Supreme Court, eliminate the Senate filibuster, get rid of the Electoral College, give federal agencies the right to impose eviction moratoriums and forgive hundreds of billions of dollars in student debt without the consent of Congress. They decry Trump’s assaults on the news media while cheering the Biden administration’s attempt to strong-arm media companies into censoring opinions it disliked. And they warn of Trump’s efforts to criminalize his political opponents, even as they celebrate criminalizing him. Hypocrisy of this sort doesn’t go unnoticed by people not fully in the tank for Harris.

It remains perfectly possible that Harris will win the election, in which case we will hear a great deal about the brightness of her appeal and the brilliance of her campaign. Wiser liberals might want to press two questions: How did Trump still get so very, very close? And how can we fashion a liberalism that doesn’t turn so many ordinary people off?"

It amazes me that the NYT publishes drivel like that from Bret Stephens as if it is contributing to the discourse. He just discovered liberal hypocrisy!

A wiser editor would have said to Bret Stephens, cut everything and start with the last two sentences, which are interesting questions on which many people are actually engaging. Do you have any ideas to add to that conversation? Maybe he didn't, so they just went with this to troll the libs.

P.S. It's not the hypocrisy. Bret Stephens has never, ever, ever written a column about how conservative hypocrisy costs them anything. The question is, why do the Bret Stephens of the world -- and I think you can count yourself among them, unless you disagree -- get bothered by liberal hypocrisy, but not by conservative hyprocrisy? What is really going on with that double standard?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Here's why.
Simple. Remember what it is to be a Liberal and kick the Progressives out of the tent.

Who, specifically, are the Progressives in the tent, what, specifically, have they done that moves the needle? And how do Democrats win elections by alienating a non-trivial fraction of their coalition?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Here's why.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/22/o...democrats.html

"The politics of selective fidelity to traditional norms. Liberals fear, with reason, the threat Trump poses to the institutional architecture of American government. Yet many of the same Democrats want to pack the Supreme Court, eliminate the Senate filibuster, get rid of the Electoral College, give federal agencies the right to impose eviction moratoriums and forgive hundreds of billions of dollars in student debt without the consent of Congress. They decry Trump’s assaults on the news media while cheering the Biden administration’s attempt to strong-arm media companies into censoring opinions it disliked. And they warn of Trump’s efforts to criminalize his political opponents, even as they celebrate criminalizing him. Hypocrisy of this sort doesn’t go unnoticed by people not fully in the tank for Harris.

It remains perfectly possible that Harris will win the election, in which case we will hear a great deal about the brightness of her appeal and the brilliance of her campaign. Wiser liberals might want to press two questions: How did Trump still get so very, very close? And how can we fashion a liberalism that doesn’t turn so many ordinary people off?"

Simple. Remember what it is to be a Liberal and kick the Progressives out of the tent.

The size of the Court has been static for a long time, whether to pass legislation to update it is never an unreasonable question, made more pressing by McConnel's behavior. No one is suggesting it be done despite not having the votes.

The filibuster is a historical, anitdemicratic anomaly. It was historical tolerable as long as racism was bipartisan, but that is no longer the case.

Getting rid of the electoral college would require an amendment. Surely Bret doesn't think amendments are too easy to do?

Debt forgiveness is tied directly the statutory language that Congress passed.

Like, different things are different, actually.

[Icky Thump]

I just got a message from a family member asking me to vote for Jill Stein. I responded “I’m writing in PNut.”

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

The size of the Court has been static for a long time, whether to pass legislation to update it is never an unreasonable question, made more pressing by McConnel's behavior. No one is suggesting it be done despite not having the votes.

The filibuster is a historical, anitdemicratic anomaly. It was historical tolerable as long as racism was bipartisan, but that is no longer the case.

Getting rid of the electoral college would require an amendment. Surely Bret doesn't think amendments are too easy to do?

Debt forgiveness is tied directly the statutory language that Congress passed.

Like, different things are different, actually.

1. Expending the Court simply because the majority does not behave to one side's liking is extreme. Codify Roe into law instead.

2. I can see both sides of this.

3. Getting rid of the Electoral College would create a tyranny of dense population pockets over the rest of the country. Unwise.

4. What statutory language? The only language I know that allows that is the bankruptcy code. We can and should make student loan debt dischargeable, and allow for clawbacks from universities that confer degrees to people they know or should know will effectively force those people into bankruptcy.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

It amazes me that the NYT publishes drivel like that from Bret Stephens as if it is contributing to the discourse. He just discovered liberal hypocrisy!

The critique is far more expansive than that, but you'll frame it as you like, as that's your favorite form of response.

A wiser editor would have said to Bret Stephens, cut everything and start with the last two sentences, which are interesting questions on which many people are actually engaging. Do you have any ideas to add to that conversation? Maybe he didn't, so they just went with this to troll the libs.

I agree those are the most important questions. How did Trump get so close? Well, a lot of it is what Stephens cites. People really, really dislike a lot of the preachiness and know-it-all-ism of Democrats, particularly given it's matched almost always with incompetent policies and is later discovered to have been based on bad data analyses. Democrats never leave anything alone. There's always an urge to tell everyone what their analysis of an issue is, and then insist on a policy prescription to react to it. Later, they admit they tackled a problem that didn't need to be tackled and in doing so caused another worse problem. From Clinton-era silliness about everyone needing to own a house (followed by the feckless W administration) to Covid over-reaction, they think they're the smart set, with the answers... and they fuck it up. Over and over and over. The law of unintended consequences bites Ds in the ass every time and their response? "Let's pass another law!"

On the second question, Liberalism doesn't turn off anyone. And I don't think liberals turn off anyone. Liberals are open minded. Classical liberals don't want to tell anyone what to do. They venerate tolerance and live and let live attitudes.

It's MAGA and Progressives that want to tell everyone what to do. Stephens' question should have been, "How do both parties rid themselves of extreme right wingers and progressives?"

We classical liberals and conservatives can get along just fine, horse trading our way to sane compromises. But these right wingers, these MAGA people? And these wingnut progressives? You can't deal with these groups. They're cancers - founts of dysfunction.

YMMV, but IMO, moderate Ds hate progressives. They think they're nuts. And moderate Rs hate MAGA and right-wingers. They think they're nuts and ruining the party. There's a whole lot of overlap for the sane of us in the middle to cut deals. We just have to eliminate the extremists from the conversations.

P.S. It's not the hypocrisy. Bret Stephens has never, ever, ever written a column about how conservative hypocrisy costs them anything. The question is, why do the Bret Stephens of the world -- and I think you can count yourself among them, unless you disagree -- get bothered by liberal hypocrisy, but not by conservative hyprocrisy? What is really going on with that double standard?

Conservative hypocrisy is so overt, there's nothing revelatory in a column calling it out. They're openly full of shit. It's like Trump. Try keeping a list of all his lies and contradictions. You'll run out of space in the spreadsheet by noon.

Who, specifically, are the Progressives in the tent, what, specifically, have they done that moves the needle? And how do Democrats win elections by alienating a non-trivial fraction of their coalition?

1. The Woke. They're political toxic waste. They're fading, but not fast enough.

2. The corporate classes that support woke narratives. These people aren't really woke. They use the woke as useful idiots, to divert the conversation from one about class, wealth inequality, and (gasp) anti-competitive monopolistic consolidation in numerous industries to one about race, gender, and trans issues.

3. The legacy media. Again, fading fast, but just irritating enough to alienate a ton of people.

How does getting rid of them help the Democrats? Well, because a whole lot of moderate ex-Republicans are now looking for a home. They have more money and power than progressives, they outnumber progressives 50 to 1, and they desperately want Normalcy. It's not naive to suggest the silent majority wants to go back to the days of Reagan and O'Neill cutting deals. Unless one has shit for brains, he realizes (unless he's MAGA or progressive) by age 27 that this country doesn't work without compromise. That no one wins in zero sum games.

The Democratic Party is, I think, on the verge of scooping up roughly 1/4 of the Republican party. Give them a space in the tent. Make MAGA and Progressivism Fringe Again and let the rest of us sail into a future of Sane Compromise.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

3. Getting rid of the Electoral College would create a tyranny of dense population pockets over the rest of the country. Unwise.

Instead we get the tyranny of the Hank, Sebby and godforsaken cheeseheads. Is a system that prioritizes a handful of "swing" states really any different?

4. What statutory language?

The HEROS Act for one. You can Google/research but each round of forgiveness is tied directly the statutes the administration says authorizes it.