GeorgiaDon

Less dramatic than assassinations perhaps, but under the scenario Trump is proposing an outgoing president could openly sell pardons or even top secret military information to the highest bidder, as long as there wasn't enough time left in his term to impeach and convict him. On January 18th he could advertise "going out of business: pardons for sale for only $100,000" and no-one could do anything about it.

I don't agree with the insinuation that only stupid people support Trump. I think there are a lot of reasonably smart people who are more concerned about power and inflicting their priorities on the country than they are about democracy or political/legal "norms". People who see the Handmaid's Tale as aspirational rather than dystopian, such as Michael Johnson. Or people like Ted Cruz or Steve Bannon, who seem (to me anyway) to seek to take advantage of the chaos Trump creates to enhance their own wealth or power.

He's a never-Trumper. Tool of the deep state. In George Soro's pocket.

If the choice is binary, either someone is absolutely perfect or irredeemably corrupt, it seems only perhaps Winsor passes the test. As an imperfect person, I tend to see shades between the two extremes.

I have learned things here, or at least become more aware and understanding of some other points of view. Even if I still disagree with that point of view, I may learn that it isn't as unreasonable as I first thought. It's difficult to discuss some topics at work, and anyway people at work (and my friends too) mostly are academics, and so they tend to lean a certain way. There are a couple who are quite conservative, but I learned long ago that it is best to avoid discussing certain topics with them, and we get along well as long as those topics are avoided. Same-sex marriage, for example, has nothing to do with my work, so it would be stupid to wreck a friendly and productive work partnership over an irrelevant disagreement where we will never change each other's minds. For the same reason I would never bring up these topics at the drop zone. On the other hand I can come to Speaker's Corner and hear a variety of opinions about a lot of topics from people who are for the most part well read and quite articulate. Sometimes quite amusing as well! Even BH occasionally prompts me to go look things up and develop a counter-argument, even if I don't always end up posting it. A very few people would post nothing but irritating drivel, but putting them on "ignore" makes the place much more entertaining.

But what about an actual rainbow, in the sky? Does that mean God has a woke drag-queen agenda? If God was MAGA, wouldn't "rainbows" be red, white, and blue?

They'll just say that's all locker room talk. Don't you have a sense of humor? Also, all "real men" talk like that.

In some of the reports on this, it was alleged that the "friend" was disappointed when the F Zeigler didn't show up, as she was "mostly in it for Bridget". She told the M Zeigler that she wasn't interested, but the M Zeigler didn't take "no" for an answer. If true, there was a history of FF interaction.

I doubt that Thomas and Alito and maybe Gorsuch would have any problem with it. I'd really like to see the woman's lawyers show up dressed in Handmaid's Tale regalia.

The linked article is from November 2016. Back then Trump was constrained by the guardrails (or hockey pads, or whatever) because he was both lazy and ignorant of how the levers of power actually worked. He may still be lazy, and stupid, but now he is surrounded by entities such as the Heritage Foundation who are neither lazy nor ignorant, and they are determined to remake the country as a Frankenstein chimera of 1850s law/society and Christian nationalism.

Perhaps it's asking too much of the Founding Fathers to have anticipated modern weaponry when all their experience was with muskets. I'm quite sure I would not be up to proposing laws to govern use of technology 200 years in the future. Also, at the first census in 1790 the total US population was 3.9 million, of whom 20% were slaves, and mostly people lived in rural areas, not cities. School shootings and other mass murders were non-existent, and I doubt anyone could have anticipated the modern US fascination with guns for guns' sake. In the Founding Fathers day guns were utilitarian tools, like plows and axes, not objects of worship as they are to so many today. Our modern problem with guns is a creature of our own manufacture. There is also a problem that it has become all but impossible to amend the constitution. Again that is not the Founding Fathers fault. They created a system to amend the constitution, and for centuries that was done not infrequently. It was never easy, but if an idea had widespread popular support it could be done. In the last 50+ years it has become effectively impossible to amend, largely due to entrenched political polarization in a two-party system. The interpretation of the 2nd amendment has changed radically in recent decades, away from a view that ties it to participation in militias towards an absolutist right of virtually anyone (including mentally ill people who legally cannot even manage their own financial affairs) to own weapons of almost any description. Most people support some limitations, such as background checks, but it is politically impossible to amend the 2nd to allow any constraints, even if they are widely supported.

Maybe I'm being a bit of a conspiracy theorist here, but it occurs to me that authoritarians need someone to use to scare the citizenry. Hitler had the Jews, Trump has brown people from shithole countries. If Netanyahu didn't have Hamas he would have had to invent something like them. Maybe he tolerated Hamas to a degree because they were useful, until they weren't. For the extreme right wing in Israel, and really anywhere, the worst thing that could happen would be peace. No-one to use as a bogey man.

Ultimately though won't that just force those countries back into the "enemies of Israel" camp? Also I don't see how growing up in a refugee camp in Egypt is any less likely to result in a future terrorist than is growing up in Gaza.

Lets start with a clear statement that Hamas' attack on Israel was an atrocity and a war crime (actually several war crimes, including attacking civilians and taking hostages). Israel has a right, indeed an obligation to respond in order to defend itself, in my opinion. I would agree that the complete removal of Hamas would be desirable. To that end, Israel has invaded Gaza and all the rest, as we all know. Israel has stated several times that they intend to smash Hamas and then exit. Israel has no interest in any presence in, or responsibility for Gaza after their military objectives are achieved. So what happens after that? Interesting article in the current Atlantic. To summarize: Gaza is already on the way to becoming unable to sustain its population. Most of the infrastructure has already been destroyed. By the end of this conflict there will be no electricity, communications, water (desalination plants), most of the hospitals and other medical facilities will have been destroyed, same for schools and roads. A large portion of the surviving population will be homeless, with much of the housing reduced to rubble. About 2 million people will have little or no food, water, shelter, etc. With Hamas gone, who will step up to govern what is left of Gaza ? Israel has made it clear that they are not interested in governing or helping to rebuild. On the other hand the embargo they have had in place for decades will likely continue, making it difficult or impossible to import construction materials Israel considers dual use (both civilian and possibly military use such as building tunnels). Gaza cannot import cement, iron or steel products including rebar, paint, and so on. The PLO has made it clear that they won't do it either. Among other things, they are not interested in being Israel's lackies. They are barely able (or not really able) to manage the West Bank. Egypt? Jordan? Not their responsibility, nor can they afford it. BTW Egypt, Jordan etc are not interested in accepting millions of refugees from Gaza. They already have plenty of refugees from Syria and other conflict zones in the area. So the people of Gaza will continue to be stuck there. If no credible entity steps up, it seems that the long term prognosis for the region is another Islamic extremist group, Hamas II if you will. Only now the population of Gaza will be even more destitute and desperate, and likely to turn to anti-Israel/anti-Jew organizations for leadership. So, any brilliant ideas? Or is the situation just a complete cluster fuck? Another 100 years misery, war, and death?

Some of the interviewers I hear on BBC radio are very tough. They ask pointed questions, and don't accept dissembling answers. I'd love to hear some of them have a go at our US politicians, but of course our politicians are just barely smart enough to never get caught in that position.

When does the aphasia kick in? I can hardly wait!

Not unexpected that a Russian troll wouldn't know that, though.

Oh for fuck's sake! The malignant cancer that is the Republican Party must by now be obvious to all. As much as I would enjoy the irony, Jeffries is not going to become the Speaker. The Democrats should put an end to this charade, if given a chance, by voting for a "less evil" Republican candidate if necessary, or just have enough of their side vote "present" to let the less evil one get a majority. Emmer wasn't great by any means, but he didn't vote against certifying Biden's victory in 2020 and he did vote for the temporary spending bill to prevent a shutdown a few weeks ago, so he isn't completely off the deep end. I suspect that is why the Republicans won't let the vote get to the full House, as the MAGA ones don't want the Democrats to have an opportunity to end this madness. Of course, even if they do find a way to elect a Speaker then the actually tough issues will be in their faces, such as coming up with legislation that can pass in the Senate and be signed into law. Meanwhile the arsonist-in-chief is busy lighting his little dumpster fires to try to burn down the whole country.

Swing and a miss. Shouldn't it be "three strikes and you're out"? I wish some Republican who isn't MAGA-crazy would throw their hat in the ring. Someone who could get votes from both sides, enough to total 217. It would have to be someone who isn't planning on running for re-election though, unfortunately. Too bad Mitt Romney is in the Senate. It says a lot that for Republicans it's career suicide to try to work across the aisle.

If Trump is elected I foresee a pardon and maybe a Medal of Freedom.

It may be harsh, but at this point I think any US citizen (even if they are a dual citizen) who travels to Russia or Iran or North Korea and is taken hostage should be on their own. No way the US should allow itself keep being put on the defensive by such reckless people. It sucks to be unable to visit family, but lots of people get put in that position and deal with it. If someone takes that risk and it blows up in their face they need to own it. There have been plenty of examples of things going sideways, so no-one can claim they didn't know the risks, especially a journalist.

Tommy Tumbleville.

Also it didn't cost 100 million dollars to produce one airplane.

Surely amongst the Republican members of the House there must be some who are sane and reasonable enough to negotiate support from enough Democrats. But, that would require prioritizing legislating over partisan power, so of course it will never happen.