This could be won in so many ways! Loyal and sane Americans might apply so many under-used tactics to settle this latest phase (#8 I reckon) of the recurring U.S. Civil War, restoring peace and rationality to civilization. Elsewhere I offered 100+ such tactics.
But right now - as frantic pearl-clutchers moan for Joe Biden to withdraw - two proposals stand out.
Today, please consider the most plausibly effective one.
== Joe, make it about facts. The very existence of facts. ==
Amid all the hoorow over Joe Biden’s shaky performance in the first presidential debate of 2024, Lawrence O’Donnell nailed it:
“How come the (100%) liar is seen as ‘winning’ a debate?”
How come? The answer’s simple. Though our savvy ‘blue’ pols & pundits never get it.
Somehow, here in the most scientific, technologically competent and progressive society the world ever saw, the word ‘fact’ is debased to a mere matter of opinion.
I’ve been railing about this for eons. Right after the debate, I crafted a careful description of how this mental trap likely has you ensnared and thus rendered politically useless. Only then I realized - you won’t read anything complicated.
Instead of lamely murmuring “That’s not true,” as he did many times in the debate, Joe Biden (and every other Democrat) should shout:
>> There is no better test of who shouldn’t be president than which of us is lying!
So let’s check that now!
>> I propose right now that Donald Trump and I nominate respected, mostly-nonpartisan Americans for a commission to adjudicate just that one matter.
Which of us is a big, fat liar.
>> I will offer a list of nominees tomorrow that includes Republicans and Independents, scientists, sages, biblical scholars, and retired senior military officers, all of whom should be acceptable to any opponent who is an honest person.
>> Let’s see your list, Don! Widely revered Americans who aren’t overtly partisan or under anyone’s thumb.*
Let’s join in this one thing! Helping separate truth from lies, restoring FACT to some meaning in American political life.
>> Just don’t give us any crap about how “It’s all subjective” or “Truth isn’t decided by experts voting on it.” You use biased ‘experts’ all the time. (Many of them operating in Fox or Kremlin troll shops. Today it’s the same thing.)
Look at the list I’ll offer! If you don’t offer up a matching list of widely respected, judicious, mature and knowledgeable Americans to participate, we’ll all know why.
It’s because you don’t have any! …and because you know that you are the big, fat liar.
And that is why you run away from challenges like this one, screaming more lies as you flee.
== WHY THIS WON’T HAPPEN ==
Sure. Yeah. I know all the reasons why you are shrugging this off, right now. Why you are muttering “It’ll never work, Brin. Trump and his minions will just ignore this, or mock it.”
Alas, all that proves is your laziness. Because it’s worth a try!
(I get similar responses when I push the tactic of demanding pre-staked wagers over easily fact-verified challenges like ocean acidification. It always works, making the cultists flee in panic. Always. Yet, lazy bums make excuses to never even try it for themselves.)
Do I think Trump will actually accept, if Biden issues this challenge? Will Donald Two Scoops nominate a list of admirably cogent and responsible adults to join Biden’s nominees on such a fact-adjudicating commission?
Of course not. He doesn’t dare! If Trump accepts the challenge and names qualified people, he’ll be fact-checked into oblivion. If he names shills, that will be clear! And if he refuses…
No, of course Fox and the Kremlin trolls will shriek denunciations, like “You don’t vote on facts!” Or “Our viewers do their own research! By leaving ‘fact’ presentation to us!!!”
Only, that’s the point, fool. Their shrieks and excuses will be the silver bullet. Because millions will see the cowardice! They will see Biden’s long list of respected American sages** and compare it to whatever list Trump provides… of shills and raving loonies and KGB agents. And just those lists, compared side by side… will say it all.
Okay. I know that I type too much, in an era when almost no one has the patience to read. I have so much more to say about this, like how Biden whining “That’s not true!” during the debate was utterly counterproductive. I’ll follow this posting with all that stuff, even knowing how futile it is.
== Other ideas ==
I also have a second proposal, in case Joe-B wants to both soothe and satisfy those calling for him to withdraw. It’s potential gesture he could make that could be a win-win-win all around!
I’ll post some of that, midweek… if I can find the heart for it.
Only it can be hard, these days. Because (again) I know that it is futile. If one side in this phase of the U.S. Civil War consists of confederate-Kremlinist incantation junkies flocking around Vlad Putin and a cabal of microcephalic inheritance brats…
…the other side – the side with all the cogent citizens and fact people and scientists and loyal Americans and just plain decent folks who can’t stand a pervert-traitor slathered in tanning dye, makeup, hairplugs and bad karma… alas, the good, loyal, Union side in this phase of the 250 year culture war over America’s soul…
… has the collective political/tactical IQ – en masse – of a crypto biotic tardigrade.
===
* We can interrogate each others’ nominees before cameras, like in jury selection. Televised. Let’s do it!
** The thing about such a list is the dems don’t even have to line up these folks, before listing them! The whole purpose is to list folks who AREN’T overtly very partisan! Being listed can be involuntary, since all you are saying is “here are people I respect and would listen-to.”
Okay, in today’s polarized nation, most such folks have already taken sides. But still, just offering such a list is worthwhile! Because you’ll get Trump to denounce them! And each august American he denounces will be a blow that rocks some supporters out there.
94 comments:
But it was not Trump, but Biden, that helped put a holocaust denier, forest-burner, yanomani genocider, pro-Hamas, pro-Putin tyrant as "president" of China's satrapy of Brazil. Everyone that Biden supported in Latin America chants "death to Amerika", everyone that Trump supports (Milei, Bolsonaro, the presidents of Paraguay and Uruguay) love America and wish our countries had America's freedom.
Politifact on debate falsehoods.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/jun/28/2024-presidential-debate-fact-check-biden-trump/
A.M. what a stunning pile of utter drivel.
Here's a link to Seth Abramson's debate box score fact-checking Trump: 602 lies in 40 minutes.
https://sethabramson.substack.com/p/donald-trumps-shocking-box-score
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me 602 times in 40 minutes, clearly I want to be fooled.
Mornin' all. I know this is not an ideal week to wander back in. I've been off doing excellent family stuff.....Little League games, dance recitals, helping build a first house. It's much better than arguing on the Internet.
So I'm not going to try and persuade anyone of anything. I regard you as a generally smart bunch who maybe need to get out in the fresh air, eat a hotdog in the bleachers, swing a hammer in the hot sun....
OK, Biden's performance. Given a full week to prepare for the most important moment in his life and THAT was his best effort? This is not a person you'd want in charge of foreign policy....to say nothing of the nuclear arsenal. I believe we've been hoodwinked for a good long time already.
A multi level question. Do you really think he's going to be able to make 3am crisis decisions for a second term?
And if not...is it actually democratic, small d, to ask voters to choose a President with the wink/nudge assumption that we'll just rely on people behind the scenes to run the country? Who? And how do we hold them accountable?
It may be too late to put forward a more competent candidate. The failure to do so a year or so back will haunt the D party in November. That's not a good thing.
Tacitus
I did not watch the debate. Mae and I watched the 1981 movie DRAGONSLAYER instead. Mae later watched the replay of the debate on Youtube. She is a progressive and will vote for whomever the Democratic party nominates. She was dismayed....or should I say, dis-Mae'ed?
I am interested in seeing how the Supreme Court rules on Trump's immunity claim. I've litigated partial immunity cases defending government officials in days past. I also litigated a lot of claims where I used the Chevron doctrine to defend government actions. The end of the Chevron era will be interesting. Fortunately for me, the IRS does not rely on Chevron.
Tacitus:
I know this is not an ideal week to wander back in...
And yet, you thought you would anyway. So here we are.
So I'm not going to try and persuade anyone of anything.
Uh huh.
This is not a person you'd want in charge of foreign policy....to say nothing of the nuclear arsenal. I believe we've been hoodwinked for a good long time already.
A multi level question. Do you really think he's going to be able to make 3am crisis decisions for a second term?
...
It may be too late to put forward a more competent candidate...
More competent than the candidate who negotiated Social Security on the fly during the State of the Union address? Who earned a ten BILLION dollar profit for the treasury by shrewd market timing with the strategic reserve? Who negotiated a border bill with that hostile congress who turned around and nixed their own bill because it would have been successful and thereby robbed Trump of a campaign issue?
President Biden is the most accomplished president of my adult lifetime, and that's in the teeth of opposition by congress and the supreme court. The debate was the aberration, not the years of his administration.
You've been away most the past year or so, so you haven't heard my brutal assessment of Biden's presidency, and I mean this without irony:
Listen, surely I've exceeded
Expectations. Tried for three years.
Seems like thirty. Could you ask
As much from any other man?
From the supreme court opinion on presidential immunity. Emphasis mine:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/b135ae03-8c5a-467e-96b8-7fd371855fa3.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_5
...
Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature
of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity
from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43.
My personal comment: "If the law presumes that, sir, then the law is a ass!"
Blogger ate my reference to the supreme court immunity decision with links. I'm mostly posting this just to test whether it sticks.
A part of the decision mentioned that presidents are immune for constitutionally-specified acts and are entitled to at least presumption of immunity for other official acts. Whatever that means. They did admit that there is no immunity for non-official acts. I suppose Thomas and Alito get to decide which acts are which.
I suppose Thomas and Alito get to decide which acts are which.
Did I understand that right:
If I as a president gave the official order to arrest and execute anyone - including the SC judges and enough congress members to avoid impeachment - I not only would have immunity, but also could pardon anyone involved?
We all like Tacitus2! And it is sweet envisioning him at little league, dance recitals and homebuilding…
…though his implicit assumption – explicit, in fact - is that WE do none of those things. Oh! We snooty nerds would never do anything wholesome! My own volunteer mentoring, my wife’s 30+ hours a week with poor kids. The long hikes, the sports and karate lessons… nah. (Care to compare my 73 year old body build to yours, sir? ;-)
The archetype of Jimmy Carter – Sunday school teacher for 80+ years and hammer-swinging Habitat for Humanity home builder is nothing to you. Not compared to a makeup-slathered, tanning-bed sexual predator with hairplugs who arranges to ‘win’ golf club championships at a svelte '215 pounds'…
Dear Tacitus, I sleep very well knowing a wise old grampa uses his ten hours of sharpness per day carefully & sagaciously APPOINTING the best people on this planet to actually run the US government. Brilliant grownups like Blinken, Austin, Buttegieg, Harris and so on, who are like another species than the long list of utterly proved Kremlin agents, shills and monsters that infest your entire party.
And now Two Scoops declares he’ll no longer appoint ANY ‘adults’ – even partial ones like Kelley - in his 2nd term and instead…
Ah well. Never mind.
Only please dig it, my friend. You clutch the ‘old grampa’ meme desperately and ignore the fact that Trump said not a single true thing during the entire debate.
And I mean that literally, if you include surrounding sentences and context.
Not… one… true thing. FIND FOR US a full minute of DT ranting when he isn't flat out, provably lying.
You would shrug that off… and the Kremlin puppet strings and the 40:1 ratio of indictments/convictions. And being ‘in love” with Kim Jong Il and Trump getting support from every current or ‘former’ communist regime. And the GOP’s all-out war vs science and the US Officer corps…
…you can ignore all that and the perfect storm of lies… while clutching “but he’s OLD!!!”
You’ll notice I didn’t demand a wager from you this time, over a myriad fact-checkable cases where your party has gone mad.
I know better.
But the facts are still there. And a man like you could have more ripple effects for the good of the nation than any of us here.
But you won’t.
So back to your house building and enjoy! May you thrive!
Enjoy your snorts of dismissal of us hand-wringing nerds. Somehow we’ll save American without your help.
Der Oger: "Did I understand that right:
If I as a president gave the official order to arrest and execute anyone - including the SC judges and enough congress members to avoid impeachment - I not only would have immunity, but also could pardon anyone involved?"
It's worse. Their assertion is that he must first be impeached and convicted in the Senate AND hence he can personally walk into the Senate and shoot enough senators that the vote will fail, while his Secret Service detail prevents anyone doing anything about it. No need to 'order' anyone and no pardons required.
Der Oger:
the official order to arrest and execute anyone - including the SC judges
On January 6, 2021 when the Proud Boys and company were converging on Trump's speech, it was taking a long time to get everyone though the metal detectors, and Trump wanted them taken down. He said something like, "They're not here to hurt me."
I think the supreme court is engaging in similar calculation. President Biden wouldn't do something like that even if he is ruled to have the right to, and Trump "wouldn't be there to hurt them".
My interpretation of the decision is "The president is immune from prosecution for 'official acts', and we (the supreme court) decide which acts those are."
Dr Brin:
Not compared to a makeup-slathered, tanning-bed sexual predator with hairplugs ...
In all fairness, Tacitus doesn't approve of Trump, and some of his anxiety over Biden seems to be that the Democrats aren't mounting an effective campaign to prevent another Trump presidency. He sounds much like my wife's Republican sister who admits Trump is vile, but is more worried about Biden being too old. Shades of 2016 when Trump was already obviously vile, but there was just something no one could quite enunciate about Hillary that was (apparently) too scary to countenance.
I might have been too flippant in my opening remarks responding to Tac above. But I do dispute the idea that the one bad debate performance represents the "real" Joe Biden who has been hidden from view these past three years, while his actual performance as president doesn't count. On that, I will continue to push back. And even the punditry, now that the initial scrambling is wearing off, seems to be trending toward that same page.
Let Sotomayor's dissent explain why we now have a legal dictatorship thanks to trump's SCOTUS
In her dissent, she declared that “When [a president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution.” She listed out some extreme cases where she argued this ruling would shield presidents from prosecution:
Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless
as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.
Sotomayor added: “In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.” She went on, concluding her dissent by stating her “fear for our democracy”:
The majority’s single-minded fixation on the President’s need for boldness and dispatch ignores the countervailing need for accountability and restraint. The Framers were not so single-minded. In the Federalist Papers, after “endeavor[ing] to show” that the Executive designed by the Constitution “combines … all the requisites to energy,” Alexander Hamilton asked a separate, equally important question: “Does it also combine the requisites to safety, in a republican sense, a due dependence on the people, a due responsibility?” The Federalist No. 77, p. 507 (J. Harvard Library ed. 2009). The answer then was yes, based in part upon the President’s vulnerability to “prosecution in the common course of law.” Ibid. The answer after today is no. Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.
With fear for our democracy, I dissent.
Appointing an ambassador is an official act. If trump accepts a bribe for this official act he is now immune.
Counting the popular and electoral college votes are "official acts".
Trump is now immune when he pressures a state to find him 10,000 votes.
SCOTUS just hand trump the keys to a dictatorship
Combine this with the recent SCOTUS ruling gutting federal regulations.
Especially financial watch dogs.
Because what could be more honest and trustworthy than an unregulated bank?
And now you can bribe the president not to prosecute bankers (as if any banker ever goes to jail) since the decision to prosecute is an official act.
All trump has to do now is slap "official act" on any action knowing it could take years for the appeals process to run it's course.
Which brings me back to the GOP project 2025.
Especially the part of rounding up and deporting undesirables to some kind of camp. You know, where they can concentrated.
And it's only a matter time before the cattle cars come.
Or did you all think the deportation would be confined to just Hispanics?
Mark this date as the day American democracy dies and the republican "slow coup" achieved complete success.
Dr. Brin, with all due respect you need to stop bringing rhetoric to a knife fight.
If democracy is to survive we need to be just as vicious nasty ruthless and cunning as those on the Right.
Short analysis of the case.
1. For core duties delineated in the US Constitution: absolute immunity.
2. For "Official Acts:" presumption of absolute immunity, but presumption can be overcome.
3. For unofficial acts: no immunity.
Regarding "Official Acts," what is to be done if a President purports something to be an official act but where it arguably is not. This can be handled in a number of ways:
1. Impeachment based on this act being a "treason, bribery, or other high crime or misdemeanor." Impeachment would presumably convert the underlying action into an unofficial act. This could then be followed by a standard criminal prosecution.
2. Criminal prosecution after the end of the President's term of office. The status of the action as an "Official Act" would be one of the facts to be litigated.
This decision does not give a president the ability to order executive branch personnel (military or law enforcement) to "murder" or "assassinate" anyone. Such an order would be de-facto illegal. Congress would be able to immediately impeach and remove this president. If Congress did not act, said president could be indicted, tried, and convicted after they leaves office. The status of the action as a core constitutional duty, official act, or un-official act would be part of the facts to be decided by the jury.
If Trump hadn’t said a single word it still would have been obvious that Biden is not the president. That’s why nobody cares about Trump’s supposed “lies”.
“ What millions of Americans witnessed during last Thursday’s presidential debate was far worse than the mere implosion of an incumbent’s reelection campaign. The irredeemable corruption of the Democratic Party was also laid bare for all to see. There can be little doubt that Joe Biden’s unfitness for office has long been common knowledge among his party’s leadership as well as its rank-and-file officials. Yet the Democrats deliberately defrauded the American people concerning who really controls the executive branch of our government. Nor do they intend to do the right thing even now. The party’s “senior statesmen,” former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, have publicly urged Biden to continue the charade.
…
Sadly, this is not a ball game. Joe Biden is masquerading as the President of the United States. After last Thursday, no one believes this man is in charge of anything. This means the people who actually run his administration wield enormous power — without the consent of the American people. Regardless of what one thinks about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, no one voted for any of the Obama/Clinton retreads who currently infest the White House. Nor was a single ballot cast for “Dr. Jill.” Nonetheless, the Democratic Party is perfectly content to let this continue if it offers even a slim chance to remain in power. [ https://spectator.org/bidens-debate-debacle-disqualifies-his-entire-party/ ]”
GMT:
Impeachment based on this act being a "treason, bribery, or other high crime or misdemeanor."
Trump's two impeachments made clear that no Republican president will ever be convicted in the Senate.
Such an order would be de-facto illegal.
Not if a 6-3 majority on the supreme court says otherwise. Or even 5-4.
If Congress did not act, said president could be indicted, tried, and convicted after they leaves office.
Contesting the election and "protecting" the American people from a rigged election can be construed as an official act. And again, it's up to Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Roberts to say, even if Amy Coney Barrett joins the other girls.
The status of the action as a core constitutional duty, official act, or un-official act would be part of the facts to be decided by the jury.
And again, to have the trial court overturned by the fifth circuit and then the supreme court.
You're presuming that congress and the supreme court take their role concerning checks and balances seriously, rather than being part of the coup.
DP:
Mark this date as the day American democracy dies and the republican "slow coup" achieved complete success.
Only if Trump wins. Granted, that is a distinct possibility, but it's not a done deal.
If democracy is to survive we need to be just as vicious nasty ruthless and cunning as those on the Right.
Here, I agree. In this, it's too bad that President Biden is such a nice institutionalist. What we need is a president wielding the powers the supreme court keeps ceding to him in ways that make Republicans shriek, "He can't do that!!!"
Note that this isn't solved by replacing Biden on the 2024 ticket. It requires the current POTUS to do it.
Larry Hart: Amy Coney Barrett joins the other girls
Just like so much of human history, this is all coming down to the Y-chromosome.
McSandberg, welcome to Contrary Brin. Be prepared for vigorous debate and rigorous examination of your opinions.
GMT:
For "Official Acts:" presumption of absolute immunity, ...
"If the law presumes that, sir, then the law is a ass!"
Hmmm, apparently blogger didn't like my previous post in which I spelled that word correctly.
The Mad Librarian:
welcome to Contrary Brin
mcsandberg isn't new here. He regularly drives by with a visi-sonor to sow despair. A little late this time, though. His latest would have been more effective Thursday night.
On a team meeting, a work colleague just claimed, "My brain is fried, 'cause I've been taking cough medicine all day."
Occam's Razor says that was President Biden's problem Thursday.
For a more obscure theory, what exactly were Trump and the Russian embassy plane discussing while parked next to each other at Dulles Airport just before the debate?
LH: “In all fairness, Tacitus doesn't approve of Trump, and some of his anxiety over Biden seems to be that the Democrats aren't mounting an effective campaign to prevent another Trump presidency.”
Alas, you are wrong about that. Tacitus is the clearest example I know of an “Ostrich” Republican. Head buried and chanting desperately. “But Biden’s OOOOOLD!” And “Facts are so painful!!!”
DP said...Dr. Brin, with all due respect you need to stop bringing rhetoric to a knife fight.
Jesus. DO you know the subtitle of my book, sir? Even if you never, ever read anything between the covers, could you at least read the COVER? Polemical Judo, by David Brin: http://www.davidbrin.com/polemicaljudo.html
specifically, your "rhetoric" snark is one more excuse for utter laziness. "It woul;d never work so I WON'T TRY!" In fact though, there's probably 2 million US voters who are miserably watching all this who could be swayed by the RIGHT rhetoric. Or the right... polemic.
Mcsandberg you are a dismal Kremlin shill. I spit in your eye, sir. Better yet, meet me on a field of high stakes $$$ wagers and I will own your house. Have your atty contact me when you have escrowed enough stakes to be worth my time with you.
Joe Biden accomplished more for the republic in just the years 2021 and 2022 than ALL other presidents of this century, combined. And the quality of his appointments is all I need in order to sleep well, content for him to nap occasionally. And yes, for Kamala to take over when necessary. Solid, she is. So drop dead. Sir.
DP @11:36: I’m stealing your “bringing rhetoric to a knife fight”!
Dr. Brin, is there a way to get a link to a particular comment to one of your posts?
Dr Brin:
Care to compare my 73 year old body build to yours, sir?
A few weeks ago, I was chatting at the lake with a woman who had (like me) grown up in Evanston and attended Evanston High School. I'm happily married, but I do tend to flirt, especially when I know nothing more can come of it. Anyhoo, I get to mentioning that I graduated in high school in 1978, and after a bit of demurring, she informs me that she's 12 years older than I am. All I could think to (truthfully) say is, "Wow, you don't look it."
Then, she paid me a compliment I never expected to hear again in this lifetime. "I wish I was your age."
Like Dr. Brin, I accept the existence of Objective Fact -- I even recognize it when I see it -- yet we diverge and disagree hugely as to the meaning & implied significance of said facts.
The FACTS are as follows:
(1) Demographic Replacement is real;
(2) Socialism, communism & globalism are failed modalities;
(3) Technocracy equals the totalitarian impulse rather than popular will; and
(4) The Right is rising in both the US & EU.
I accept that we vehemently disagree as to the meaning & significance of these facts, so I will remain silent as you dither over whether or not a ham sandwich & the impromptu presidential declassification of documents represents an immunity-worthy 'official act'.
Later, I'll remind you that the facts are the facts are the facts while your most cherished narratives are NOT, as a narrative is just a story we tell ourselves in an attempt imbue a data point with a greater significance.
Best
I think it's obvious what Biden's first official act should be after this Supreme Court ruling.
He should officially retire the five conservative justices immediately.
The next court can decide that it was an "official" act, and thus immune. Then overturn this ruling. :D
@GMT:
Congress would be able to immediately impeach and remove this president.
Not if enough members of congress who have been officially declared traitors are in prison or dead. Or bribed and blackmailed.
This is very, very bad.
In essence, the US have ceased to be a democracy.
Looking at the options:
If Biden uses those dictatorial powers before the election to an extend necessary to save the democracy, you will have civil war.
If Trump is elected, you will need an Elsner or Stauffenberg to get rid of Trump, and might either have a tyranny and/or also a civil war.
If Biden is re-elected, he may let this powers sleep ... until the next Gopper with dictatorial ambitions comes around.
Unless Congress shifts blue in a manner that would allow overcome the GOP blockades (unlikely), no law will be passed to amend the problem.
"Official Act"= when the GOP do it.
"Unofficial Act"= when the Dems do it.
GMT, you are one of our resident Fed Soc members, IIRC.
Have you resigned your membership in disgust yet?
Same question to our other resident Fed Soc members here - How far does the imperial GOP judiciary get to go before they cross a line that you will not personally support? At what point is the corruption too much for you to ignore?
Again my apologies Dr. Brin, but words, logic, argument and facts - no matter how intelligent or powerful - are insufficient to defend freedom when it is under attack.
In order to destroy the great evil of slavery, Sherman laid waste the state of Georgia and the Carolinas (doing far worse in the Carolinas).
And he was right to do so.
In order to destroy the evil of Nazism and fascism we burnt entire German and Japanese cities along with their inhabitants.
And we were right to do so.
In order to stop the evil of communism we risked incinerating the entire planet for a half century.
And we were right to do so.
Trump's SCOTUS killed our freedom today. Democracy died and was replaced my a monarch who is above the law.
Time to get physical.
Time to get as ruthless and nasty as the MAGA enemies of freedom.
Time for liberals to stop being the kid who gets his lunch money taken by the MAG school yard bully.
Time for liberals to stop being nice guys.
Anybody who wants to know where we are going need only read the history of how the Roman Republic died.
This decision does not give a president the ability to order executive branch personnel (military or law enforcement) to "murder" or "assassinate" anyone. Such an order would be de-facto illegal
GMT,
Seems to me that Barack Obama addressed this point years ago when he asserted he had the right to order an American citizen's death under certain circumstances.
However, the specific legal framework which enabled this power was "national security" and thus could not be questioned by the press. Indeed, Obama seemed to assert that this power couldn't be questioned except by legal authorities with the clearance to see this Top Secret legal regime.
Obama made this assertion in wake of a controversy where the United States made a drone attack which killed a 16 yo son of an Al Qaeda terrorist (i believe Anwar Al Awlaki was the fathers name) in, I believe, Yemen.
During this public controversy, I also seem to recall Obama asserted that he could exercise this power to order the death of an American citizen WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.
Thus, I'm not sure an assassination order would be prima facie illegal.
Dr. Brin,
"Mcsandberg you are a dismal Kremlin shill. I spit in your eye, sir. Better yet, meet me on a field of high stakes $$$ wagers and I will own your house. Have your atty contact me when you have escrowed enough stakes to be worth my time with you.
Joe Biden accomplished more for the republic in just the years 2021 and 2022 than ALL other presidents of this century, combined. And the quality of his appointments is all I need in order to sleep well, content for him to nap occasionally. And yes, for Kamala to take over when necessary. Solid, she is. So drop dead. Sir."
That is why I quoted from David Catron. It isn't just me, there are a lot of people who saw what I did. That's why the betting odds shifted dramatically on Thursday, June 27, 2024 https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/president .
In fact though, there's probably 2 million US voters who are miserably watching all this who could be swayed by the RIGHT rhetoric. Or the right... polemic.
How many of those 2 million voters are going to believe Joe Biden is sharp 10 hours a day after that.debate performance?
I think it will end up being catastrophic for his campaign.
Cenk Uygur of the young Turks is calling him senile. Stephen A Smith is angry at the Democratic party for lying about Biden's health. Jon Stewart mocked Biden's "25th Amendment stare."
These are people with big platforms able to reach the only marginally politically engaged. In particular, Stephen A Smith has a huge black following due to his NBA commentary. Btw, Biden needed 92% of the black vote to win in 2020.
Stewart immediately grasped the "Trump blew it, too" argument, which has become the most effective refutation of a Trump debate victory by most Democrat party loyalists
DP:
how the Roman Republic died.
To thunderous applause?
The SCOTUS ruling have rendered the debate moot.
Tyrannotrumpus Rex is not a viable option.
Oh yeah, McS quoted a wall of text to show that people have written Biden off.
Not yet.
John Viril:
How many of those 2 million voters are going to believe Joe Biden is sharp 10 hours a day after that.debate performance?
The nay-sayers, including those ostensibly on our side, are acting as if Biden has been hidden away in Dick Cheney's underground bunker for the past three years, and that we've only had the word of shifty DNC operatives that the man was still alive until we finally saw the real Joe Biden let loose last Thursday.
A weak performance happens to everyone. Remember "covfefe"? "I'll appoint pro-crime judges"? The slow walk down a ramp and two hands to hold a cup of water?
The scenario of Kamala becoming President sometime in the next four 1/2 yrs, is acceptable. Electing Trump and whomever he picks as Vice Palooka, is thoroughly unacceptable.
Unless one enjoys apocalypse.
His VP choice might be Tim Scott—who possesses the requisite Uncle Tom resume’. What I’d like to ask Trump is:
if Pence isn’t good enough for ‘25- ‘29, why was he so for ‘17- ‘21? Trump would probably reply that choosing Pence in the first instance “wasn’t my idea.”
Clearly, style matters more than substance.
For the literate audience, the transcript of Biden's debate performance demonstrates that he is intellectually capable of listening to and answering questions while forming and articulating coherent logical arguments on the spot. Contrast this to the other guy who told 602 demonstrable lies in 40 minute, who ignored or evaded questions and who drifted off topic while appearing to be afflicted with Wernicke's aphasia.
(https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/politics/read-biden-trump-debate-rush-transcript/index.html)
DP
"Time for liberals to stop being nice guys."
Since this is Contrary B... in what ways do you suggest Biden might wield the new powers his office was granted today by the court?
I think Biden was foolish to have debated in the first place as evidenced by this reaction. Instead he should have challenged Trump to a televised game of golf and to a televised physical and full blood panel and psychological evaluation by a panel of randomly selected military physicians.
Bill Seymour I’m not sure I understand the question. Maybe take a screen shot?
LH… I found the PERFECT harmless flirt line! Ask “Have you ever sent a thank you note to your orthodontist?” I ALWAYS gets a happy smile and even a blush, and there’s not even the slightest hint I’m flirting with anything but totally innocent (and very brief!) intent.
AFR it’s simpler. Invite Roberts and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to dinner. Lock them into the Lincoln Room and declare it an Official Act.
DP you can’t even be bothered to read the subtitle of my book and I should listen to you? Dig it there’s PLENTY of room for polemics! The dems pay no attention whatsoever to scores of options. And by FAR the best outcome will be for the vote against the GOP to be so overwhelming that this phase of the US civil war will be mainly over. Except for the McVeighs and secessions. The former are watched by gloriously brave FBI undercover guys. And the latter is solved by:
“Okay, here’s your share of the national debtg. All federal assets in your state move to yoiur state’s blue cities, who we’ll support when THEY secede from YOU!”
I have no reason to continue engaging with a living horror like MCS.
David
You presumably don't know that LarryHart and I converse outside this forum on occasion. As such you are speaking from a position of ignorance when you categorize my opinions to him.
You sir, have become predictable and hasty.
Tacitus
Bill Seymour,
You can open a web page at a specific section (eg comment) using an anchor (#):
View the page source (browser dependent), find the comment's section using Ctl-F and its first few words, then copy that comment's ID. Make a url by appending '?showComment=#' to the base page url.
For example, here's a link that will open this page at my comment that begins 'Fool me once':
https://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2024/06/bidens-judo-moves-part-one-who-is-big.html?showComment=#c160023851091155061
I think there's a way to directly link to one specific comment if comments are displayed with an associated time-date hyperlink, but CB isn't set up that way and hasn't been for decades (as far as I know). As is, opening a link to solely one comment would require some modification or extraction of the author's content - not advisable. As the Guardian of Forever said in TOS, "I was made to offer the past in this manner. I cannot change."
Sorry, I forgot that Blogger interprets all angular brackets.
Make a url by appending '?showComment=#[commentID]' to the base page url.
Dr Brin:
Bill Seymour I’m not sure I understand the question.
He's asking if there's a way to permalink an individual comment here, so that if someone clicks on the link, they come right to that individual comment.
I'd guess the answer is "no".
I said:
I'd guess the answer is "no".
I hadn't read scidata's post yet. I'll have to learn how to do that.
@Der Oger,
In light of recent election results, could your country please occupy France again?
“Bill Seymour I’m not sure I understand the question. Maybe take a screen shot?”
You’re right; I didn’t state the question clearly. I wanted a URL that I could stick in an HTML <a> tag on my own blog to link back to a particular comment on your blog.
It turns out that scidata has the answer, and it’s even easier than he suggested. Looking at the source, I see that there’s an <a name=> tag that I can link to; and I don’t even need the “?showComment=” business.
This URL displays the whole page with all the comments, but scrolled down to the particular comment that I want to link to. That’s just what I want.
Sorry to hijack the comment section when I should have just looked at the source and answered my own question. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
DP quoting Justice Sotomayor:
The majority’s single-minded fixation on the President’s need for boldness and dispatch ignores the countervailing need for accountability and restraint.
Why can't any of the Trump appointees speak so eloquently? It's sad to recall that the court itself used to inspire such awe.
In the Federalist Papers, after “endeavor[ing] to show” that the Executive designed by the Constitution “combines … all the requisites to energy,” Alexander Hamilton asked a separate, equally important question: “Does it also combine the requisites to safety, in a republican sense, a due dependence on the people, a due responsibility?” The Federalist No. 77, p. 507 (J. Harvard Library ed. 2009). The answer then was yes, based in part upon the President’s vulnerability to “prosecution in the common course of law.” Ibid.
Too bad the "Federalist Society" isn't actually interested in what the Federalists had to say.
Re: link to comment
Bill Seymour - you're right, I was overthinking it*. Also, I just noticed that my own blogger blog does use the datestamp hyperlink trick! (but it also gives the whole page scrolled down to the particular comment.
* Always generalizing a solution is a bad habit learned from my physics days. Seems SCOTUS suffers from the same affliction - alas.
I remember Ronald Reagan had a bad first debate performance against Walter Mondale in 1984 and he recovered in the next debate.
I don't think I was ever a dues paying member of Fed Social. I crashed their 2001 Lawyers' Convention in DC and attended several more after that. I don't go anymore since I might run into a psycho ex-girlfriend.
I am too busy to read the decision, concurrences, and dissents, but Alan Dershowitz seems satisfied with it and he is hardly a fascist (even if he did defend Trump in the first impeachment).
GMT:
Alan Dershowitz seems satisfied with it and he is hardly a fascist
He's been carrying Trump-publican water enough to at least be comfortable being fascist-adjacent.
If you call Dersh fascist-adjacent, I wonder what you call David Goldberger, the ACLU lawyer who represented the neo-Nazis at Skokie?
I am a legal idealist and I will keep my faith in the law because life without law turns into the nightmare that our honored host warns us about - thousands of years of mis-rule by the strongest thugs with the biggest sticks.
Tacitus, I tire of writing detailed missives to you, asking you to consider things that clearly you avoid remotely thinking about. Your distraction re Larry is utterly, utterly irrelevant. As is clutching desperately at the one Biden, issue – his age – which will become a non-issue when – as the generally wise person he is – he resigns in favor of a tested and utterly sane and qualified VP.
I’m frankly sick of the namby whining over JoeB having a flummoxed debate. Grampa may need naps but he appoints 5000 skilled, brilliant people to replace DT's phallanx of traitor-shills. THAT is basic wisdom and with Blinken, Austin, Buttigieg, Harris etc on the job, I sleep just fine. And I have no fears re President Kamala.
No. What matters is YOUR cultish avoidance of addressing the pure fact that every single minute Donald Trump speaks, he lies. I will back up that assertion with $1000. Moreover, if it is even half true, we are talking about a pathological monster. And you are complicit with all of it.
ALL of the current, remaining communist dictatorships – Cuba, China, Laos, Cambodia – especially N Korea – (tho maybe not Vietnam) -- support Trump, along with the “former” Soviet Union, which is run by 5000 ‘ex’ commissars who all grew up reciting Leninist catechisms and hating America. But YOU believe them when they change a few lapel pins.
Just Trump’s ‘fell in love with Kim Jong Un” and his secret meetings with Putin with no US witnesses would have driven your old self bonkers, were a democrat to do it. Yet now the makeup-slathered tanning-pervert-predator is acceptable to you.
I repeat, you likely have more power to sway (ripple effect) more voters in a swing state than ANY of us here. So know this. Your refusal to consider stepping up for your nation and civilization will haunt you.
---
GMT Dershowitz is an utter monster. It’s not who he represents. It is his blatantly blackmailed, Kremlin serving treason.
For those moaning over today's utter betrayal by the Kremlin-blackmailed shills in black robes.. Buck up! Hey, we're trying.
Picture how our blue enlightenment project looked in december 1776. Or March 1863. Or after Pearl Harbor. Or after the civil rights worker murders in 1962, or King and then RFK (the worst night of my life) in 1968, which was by far a worse year than anything we face, today, snowflakes.
Buck up!
GMT:
I wonder what you call David Goldberger, the ACLU lawyer who represented the neo-Nazis at Skokie?
There's a difference between "Nazis have first amendment rights to free speech too," and "Nazis have good ideas about how government should be run."
I will keep my faith in the law because life without law turns into the nightmare that our honored host warns us about
The court specifically said that immunity doesn't apply to unofficial acts. So why does Trump think it throws out his conviction on the "hush money" activities that necessarily happened before the election? Is "trying to get elected" an official presidential act? Trump is apparently confident that this court will agree that it is.
Faith that the rule of law is necessary requires keeping the courts honest, not just accepting the dictates of corrupt courts because asserting that two plus two is in fact four somehow undermines the rule of law.
and who has had the largest influence on the 21st century?
Bin Laden. On 9/10/‘01, the big news was Gary Condit—after the next day it’s been one Bad Scene after another.
Now that I few days have gone by and all the hand-wringing by Biden's supporters has come out honestly into the open, I'm going to take a moment to point out what I saw and challenge the POV that Biden is too old. Those of you with any medical experience could have a decent counter-argument for my POV, so fire away if you can.
1. Biden is a known stutterer with life-long coping experiences.
2. Some who do not understand stuttering as a condition confuse it with poor IQ, dementia, and other brain flaws that have in common a general reduction in the ability of the sufferer to reason.
3. Strong emotions can hamper ANY of us when it comes time to string together thoughts and then articulate them.
Now recall some of the times when it was Biden's turn to respond and tell me
a. he was not angry,
b. he was not having trouble stringing together thoughts and articulating them,
c. he wasn't magically cured of stuttering.
Truth is… if I were Biden's political opponent… I'd probably want him pissed off more often than not… especially in public settings. This would be strategically ideal as it would put Biden's coping experiences just out of reach in front of people who confuse stuttering with dementia.
———
Stuttering isn't dementia.
Stuttering isn't related at all to a general inability to reason.
Stuttering is all about articulation. The thoughts are there, but don't get out right.
———
Sure. Biden is getting old.
His coping strategy for stuttering wasn't up to snuff on the night of the last debate.
Big f%*)ing whoop.
I'll still vote for him because he won't piss on me and call it rain. He won't take the Oath of Office and then betray it minutes later.
F*ck Two Scoops. And his supporters.
@Larry:
In light of recent election results, could your country please occupy France again?
As for the current polling trends, I'd rather propose that Charles III renews the claim to the throne of France. And maybe the United states, since you are a monarchy now.
(BTW, the last British king with the title "King of France" was George III.)
I'm surprised you're opposing Trump when you and many of your fan-boys share so many of his opinions.
I'm also at a loss as to why a self-described "futurist" is so concerned about which individual gets to start the nuclear war with China.
Perhaps you should reread Poul Anderson's "The Last Of The Deliverers"
Even in the context of the supreme court ruling, can someone please explain how activities that took place during the 2016 election count as presidential actions when the candidate was not yet president?
WTF am I missing?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/nyregion/trump-sentence-hush-money.html
Donald J. Trump began an effort on Monday to throw out his recent criminal conviction in Manhattan and postpone his upcoming sentencing, citing a new Supreme Court ruling that granted him broad immunity from prosecution for official actions he took as president, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.
Trump - who controls loyal right wing paramilitary groups - can now legally use death squads against people he does not like.
Congratulations right wingers, you now have the racist dictatorship You've always wanted.
But be warned.
Germans who voted for Hitler thought the gestapo would only be used against Jews. The people they hated.
The gestapo was for everyone.
Americans who vote for trump think MAGA will only be for Hispanics gays woke feminists and blacks. The people they hate.
MAGA will be for everyone.
It's also the racist dictatorship that the 1% always wanted.
When society starts to unravel with the next food shortage, heat dome, or pandemic the rich and the powerful now have the the legal tool that allows the government to clamp down, gun down protesters and make dissidents disappear.
You might not believe this is coming, but the elite do.
Which is why they are building survival bunkers.
Well, that is quite the promotion!
"I have no reason to continue engaging with a living horror like MCS."
From insignificant pest to Living Horror!
The Stephanie Miller show is suggesting the same thing I was feeling, although I know this particular president will unfortunately never do it. President Biden should immediately use his newfound kingly powers to combat a clear and present danger to the United States, that danger being Donald Trump.
My point--as opposed to theirs--is not that Biden should do mean things to Trump, but that Biden should force the Republicans to recognize that they can't oppose things that he does without refuting the notion of presidential immunity.
Der Oger:
The last British king with the title "King of France" was George III
Heh. I suppose it's lucky for him that he wasn't visiting that domain in 1789.
@ DP
It's also the racist dictatorship that the 1% always wanted.
If peaceful transfers of power have become a thing of the past, the newly crowned emperors tend to develop paranoid tendencies. See the Night of the Long Knives, see how many siloviki have been suicided during the last few years.
@Larry
WTF am I missing?
Maybe he has talked in private with some supreme court justices that the whole affair was "official". Or he just tries to desperately lie and cheat his way out of this one.
Stonekettle on Threads:
https://www.threads.net/@stonekettle
Somewhere, right now, Richard Nixon is like, "MOTHERFU...!"
Interesting, AFAIK, Trump is still free on bail, in spite of the SCOTUS ruling on Presidential immunity. This implies a very old school sort of conservatism on Biden's actions, a fear of degrading the office and therefore tarnishing the United States in the eyes of the world.
Tim H:
This implies a very old school sort of conservatism on Biden's actions,
Like Edith Keeler, President Biden is right, but at the wrong time. His dignified actions could delay entry into the war and give Republicans time to complete their heavy water experiments.
Heh. I suppose it's lucky for him that he wasn't visiting that domain in 1789.
Wonder what he thought about it. After the French crown helping you in your war of independence, it would not be out of place for him ordering a bottle of champaign. "I may have lost my colonies, but you, you first lost your gold, then your crown, then your head."
The more I think about the recent supreme court rulings that rival Plessy vs Ferguson for venality and illogic, the more my reaction is:
"When in the course of human events..."
How does this even make sense?
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Jul02-1.html
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA): Today's ruling by the Court is a victory for former President Trump and all future presidents, and another defeat for President Biden's weaponized Department of Justice and Jack Smith.
Didn't the supreme court just explicitly legalize weaponizing the DOJ ?
How does a decision about increasing presidential power different for Biden than it is for "Trump and all future presidents"?
I suspect Speaker of the House Johnson expects that this ruling is for Republican Presidents only.
Tim H:
I suspect Speaker of the House Johnson expects that this ruling is for Republican Presidents only.
Yes, just as he apparently expects "all future presidents" to be Republican.
It's like Trump in the same breath insisting that the Jan 6 rioters were exercising protected First Amendment rights while claiming that he'll invoke the Insurrection Act to put down protesters if he's elected. So a real insurrection is considered legal, but legal protests are considered an insurrection. Real 1984 stuff.
Ya think?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/30/opinion/moyle-idaho-abortion-emtala.html
...
Under Tennessee’s stand-your-ground law, a person is entitled to presume that there is a threat of imminent death or bodily harm when someone “unlawfully and forcibly enters” another person’s “residence, business, dwelling or vehicle.”
I’m referring to this law because, if you believe, as I do, that an unborn child is a separate human life, then the longstanding legal rules that govern when we can lawfully take another life are quite relevant to the debate, and a nation that tells a citizen that he can open fire the instant he reasonably believes he is in serious danger but tells a pregnant woman that she has to be objectively on the verge of death before she can abort her child is a nation that treats pregnant women as second-class citizens.
...
Larry Hart: Real 1984 stuff
It certainly is getting surreal. A modern, technological Empire, complete with an Imperial high court. This is really starting to go "Foundationy". I don't think they fully comprehend what they're hatching. We don't have Asimov anymore, I'm glad we do have OGH.
scidata - these people know exactly what they are doing.
They've played the long game and performed a slow moving coup.
Hey “Ian”. Is something missing? Like the “v” in “Ivan”, you blatant Kremlin basement troll?
I've been mocked for asserting for years that blackmail - not mere 'corruption' or dogmatism - is the only possible explanation for the monstrously treasonous behavior of high level Republicans. But folks are coming around, especially in light of the new 'ruling' by the Supreme Court majority, granting presidents absolute immunity for anything remotely deemable as 'official acts.'
At this point, the notion that Roberts & Kavanaugh and likely Gorsuch are NOT blackmailed shills obedient to a foreign power is beyond absurd.
Note the universal rejection of this latest travesty by Democrats has a subtext: "We would not abuse this power and we don't need it or want it!" Implicit is the sure confidence - on the part of Republicans - that Joe Biden will NOT hurry forth to arrest or kill opponents, or do anything else felonious. And hence, this ruling will not only protect Trump from past crimes but enable more, if he returns to office.
It is time to declare the SC an illegitimate partisan 'institution' and that henceforth any rulings by the DC Court of Appeals will be deemed the highest judgements in the land.
“It's also the racist dictatorship that the 1% always wanted.”
Nah. It’s the 0.01% (one percent includes all the upper middle class dentists and doctors and professionals. Nope.) And the top 0.01% USE racism to rile MAGA morons… but are mostly not racist themselves. Their enemies are nerds, the one force blocking return to feudalism.
“MCS: Well, that is quite the promotion! "I have no reason to continue engaging with a living horror like MCS." From insignificant pest to Living Horror!
You WISH, you boring imbecile. Both can be tr….zzzzzzz
Oh, since we have trolls, this time, I quick skimmed lame-o-ranch’s asserted ‘four facts.’ Hey dope. Not one of those is a ‘fact’ and I’ll put money on it. There’s no ‘replacement’ plot. Though yes, demographics are shifting BECAUSE your lords crippled immigration reform for decades in order to keep up their supply of cheap labor. Have your atty contact me when you’ve escrowed wager stakes that… sigh… stop… feeding … trolls…
Dr Brin:
Like the “v” in “Ivan”,
Heh. I was going to go there myself, but he didn't even give a good line to reply to.
It is time to declare the SC an illegitimate partisan 'institution' and that henceforth any rulings by the DC Court of Appeals will be deemed the highest judgements in the land.
And didn't the supreme court just declare that President Biden can do that. It would be an "official act" after all.
Note the universal rejection of this latest travesty by Democrats has a subtext: "We would not abuse this power and we don't need it or want it!"
I said above, but will say again, Biden is being Edith Keeler here. He's right, but at the wrong time. The moment calls for a Democratic Chris Christie. Exercise those king powers, not to achieve policy goals but to demonstrate that the wheels have fallen off the bandwagon. Force Republicans to repudiate the unitary executive notion in order hide behind every tree in England.
Note, this is not a call for Biden not to run in November. That's too late. We need him to channel his Dark Brandon, now!
Their enemies are nerds, the one force blocking return to feudalism.
Some of whom know to use arms, lead and train troops, and conduct intelligence operations.
If only 1% of federal agents, officers and enlisted men are pissed of enough to deliver resistance - you suddenly have an army of tens of thousands of guerilla fighters. Have they thought this through? I doubt.
Der Oger:
Have they thought this through? I doubt.
They seem to assume that all the "tough people" are on their side. That's why Trump always praises rogue cops and pardons war criminals.
Der Oger: "Have they thought this through? I doubt."
This is a feature, not a bug. They know they cannot take over America for extended periods. Their objective is flames.
Larry,
...Biden is being Edith Keeler here.
Eh. No.
Biden took the Oath and no SCOTUS ruling relieves him of that. His obligation is to defend the Constitution... not to do what the SCOTUS says he can.
It is important that people see the Oath in action. Integrity is something that has to be seen to be believed.
Since we're all trying to scare each other, here's the first piece of A.I. that actually gave me chills. A screenplay written by ChatGPT4 and produced by meatbags.
https://lastscreenwriter.com/
Also, I neither endorse nor vouche for The Last Screenwriter. I was interested however, that it was pulled from theatres due to screenwriters' outrage.
Alfred Differ:
Integrity is something that has to be seen to be believed.
Edith Keeler was right too, but at the wrong time. It might not help to remain above the fray while the Nazis perfect their A-Bombs and the V2s to carry them.
I want to agree with you. I want integrity to be a winning strategy. I want to still be the good guys when we win.
What I don't want is to still be the good guys when we lose.
scidata:
Since we're all trying to scare each other
I know we're supposed to be terrified of runaway AI, but Republicans are much more horrifying.
I wish the biggest concern today was whether screenwriters would continue to have jobs.
Post a Comment