The Frankish Reich

Impressive. Could be big. Likely to be shared in every Trumpy corner of the internets. Persuasive!

From the AP: The [2024] platform committee began its meeting Monday, a week before the start of the Republican National Convention in Wisconsin where Trump is scheduled to accept his third straight nomination for president. The platform is a statement of first principles traditionally written by party activists. In 2016, the platform included an endorsement of a 20-week national ban. Trump had supported federal legislation in 2018 that would have banned abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, though the measure fell short of the necessary support in the Senate. Is it reasonable for pro-abortion rights voters to assume that Trump may flip-flop again, and that he would sign a federal abortion ban if it clears a Republican House and Senate? Of course it is. Is it reasonable for "tough on crime" voters to assume that Kamala's recent emphasis as a tough on crime prosecutor is for election purposes and that it elected she will revert to her 2020 soft on crime stance? Of course it is. These things are so obvious that I don't know why people bother to argue.

That's why it's fun to poke around in this thread's back pages. A lot of people thought he was a serious candidate, a candidate of ideas. And of brain worms and of dead bear cubs in Central Park, etc.,, etc.

Nothing like a little hyperbole to cheer up your Sunday!

What I don't get (among many things) about Trump: he debated Biden under what were understood to be Biden Rules - no live audience, no interrupting (mics off), CNN, no follow-up questions or interruptions or instant fact checks by the moderators. And that debate wound up finishing off Biden. So why not do it again the same way, but on ABC? The "no interruptions" was in his favor. It eliminated the constant interruptions and insults the public dislikes.

I guess it would've been a funny college prank. But Jr. was 60 years old ...

Or a lot wack.

this guy has a point. Why does everything have to be more of the miserable culture wars? It's hot as hell outside. There's something to watch on TV. Good.

That was asking too much.

Awesome! Now please warn all Americans: do NOT travel to Russia, or to its puppet state Belarus.

Right. Deceptive tweet, which is kind of why I can't stand Twitter. But right too: is this in line with Trump's latest position on abortion? Of course not. It's in line with his 2016 Republican Primary position, which is several positions ago.

Mr. Empathy Strikes Again.

Weird Couchromantic wearing long sleeves but no hat in South Texas in August.

Hmm. I guess we don't know then.

As with all such things: it depends. In general, "harboring" an illegal alien is a crime. I don't think a prosecution would ever be brought against an agency that offers shelter to new (illegal) immigrants who'd otherwise be on the street. In fact, the border patrol will often turn over new entrants to agencies like this, so it would be absurd to think they could be prosecuted for harboring. I think the key is, again, whether they are trying to conceal the illegal immigrants, or trying to frustrate law enforcement's attempts to take a particular action, like bringing someone into ICE custody.

Not sure. But it was in at least a couple of sources.

Just a clarification for "Mike Davis." He is mixing up Clinton and Trump. Clinton: rubbed a cigar against Monica Lewinsky's v[u]lva Trump: inserted his (thankfully short) finger(s) into E. Jean Carroll's v[a]gina Accuracy in Alt Media!

I'm Serious Frank this morning. B-Man shamed me into it. Serious answer: charity (taking new border crossers in, feeding them, giving them food and shelter) is not and should never be a crime. We depend on charitable organizations in this country, and they should be honored for their service. There are churches and other organizations that go beyond that and actually try to conceal people they are sheltering from law enforcement. That is a different matter, and these organizations - even if well-meaning - are participants in a violation of the law.

Allow me to explain to those with a poorly developed sense of humor. it is fine to debate what the rules should be for genetic men/women to compete in women's sports. I tend to think it's case by case. A genetic man competing in one of those dorky E-Sport things? Sure, why not. In boxing? No. It is also fine to have opinions about other things relating to trans issues, including the debate about an age of consent to irrevocable medical procedures. But here's the point I'm trying to make with humor: Elon Musk is obviously too deeply invested on a personal/emotional level. He is saying things like "they killed my son." He was an absentee father, and that son (now his trans daughter) basically disowned him. The world's most reason-driven man is a victim of his own very human emotions here. Be a father. Love your child. Even if your child doesn't love you back right now.

I think you are calling yourself swine here. He is sharing his pearls of wisdom with you, which makes you, umm ...

Elon just defensive because he never let his own trans daughter take boxing lessons.

See? The right wing CAN do humor. I approve. Maybe you wanna flip on the news this morning. Biden somehow executed that prisoner exchange. Whether he was an active participant or simply nodded "yes" in between naps, somehow they got it done. The Republic continues to function. Imagine that.

OK, so I looked it up. Yes, the Algerian fighter is genetically male. No, she (I'll use her choice as a courtesy, because my mama taught me to be courteous) doesn't belong in a women's competition. But check out the Irish girl who kicked her ass in Tokyo. This may be unfair and all that, but assuming they're still in the same weight class, this final will be Must See TV!

The late Joe Biden negotiates complex multilateral prisoner exchange. Somehow the U.S. government continues to operate.