The Frankish Reich

And succeeds in waking up all of those apolitical freshmen trying to get a decent nights' sleep before finals.

This is the stupidest "there must have been fraud" theory ever. How many people flocked to Eugene McCarthy rallies in 1968? George Wallace rallies that same year? As opposed to Nixon rallies. Did more people show up for Bernie vs. Hillary? What makes anyone think that those who attend rallies are representative of the electorate in general?

Probably. This could get interesting. As many of you know, I've been waiting for the testimony about Trump's penis. The judge seems to have just ruled that out. For now. If the defense starts asking questions about exactly what happens, that door can open ...

From the deleted Trump post: "no time for lawyers to prepare." What? No time to prepare for something they knew was coming for at least a year?

I vote for the first option. And I might add: a damn fool.

I respectfully decline to answer. But I will say that Ozempic is a human rights violation.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2006/february/food-stamps-and-obesity-ironic-twist-or-complex-puzzle/#:~:text=Weight differences were especially striking,incomes above the eligibility limit. What percentage of people on SNAP are obese? Weight differences were especially striking for women; 42 percent of women who participated in food stamps were obese, compared with 30 percent of eligible nonparticipating women and 22 percent of women with incomes above the eligibility limit.

You mean 3 fewer sacks? 😁 Actually, this is a tricky one. Since you can be credited with a half sack, maybe it should be less.

Yeah, but he didn't shoot Commander. Or Major. And he never banged Corey Lewandowski.

You need to focus on the elements that will be in the judge's jury instructions. Of course, we don't have those yet. But we know it will include things like this: - were business records falsified? This one is a no-brainer. - did Trump cause those records to be falsified? There's some wiggle room there. The accountant did it at Cohen's urging, etc, with Trump strangely unaware. - was it done for the purpose of influencing the election? There's a lot of room there. Following generally, I see that Hope Hicks (a prosecution witness) testified that at one point Trump was calling her about whether the Stormy thing had hit the press and had stopped having the newspaper delivered to his residence in the hope that if it was, at least Melania wouldn't see it. So the defense can argue that Trump's motivation - even if they establish the other elements - was primarily to protect his family from embarrassment. The prosecution will, of course, argue that the furious activity right after the "grab 'em by the p[]ssy" tape - the expressed need to get it done immediately - shows that the election was the primary purpose. As I said above, I think the prosecution has already put on enough evidence for a reasonable juror to infer from the circumstantial evidence that the charge has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. There's also enough for the defense to argue that it hasn't. - here's where the jury instructions will be critical: is it enough that the prosecution shows that influencing the election was one purpose of the scheme, even if there were others? That's the most favorable instruction for the prosecution. Or maybe it has to be the primary purpose, or even the sole purpose; the defense would love that. I just don't know the law here since it hinges largely on NY State decisions (not my turf) and how much will fall on the judge vs. established case law. When the case was brought, I thought the legal theory was kind of a stretch. I think they've convinced me it's pretty solid, and that the verdict will turn on the instructions and how the 12 jurors make inferences from circumstantial evidence.

Good Lord. Citing Rasmussen. Used to be a quasi-legit polling firm with a strong Republican bias, but as I understand it Mr. Rasmussen itself sold out and now it's nothing more than a propaganda machine.

The Massage Therapist needs to actually read Marx. Don't get that massage oil on your copy of Das Kapital.

Whoa, look at the timeline here.* Someone's got a dummy account and is actually reading my posts!! *note that nobody quoted me before he posted this pointless emoji Absolutely no one but these "give them what they want to hear" hacks thinks this is going well for Trump. And it got worse today when Hope Hicks provided enough for any juror to infer that Trump was fully in the loop. The prosecution could actually rest now, but I imagine there's more to come.

Hope Hicks on now. And any idea that she might not give the DA what he expected is out the window. News on cross-examination of Hicks: defense seems to be violating the old rule of "ask your one or two questions, then sit down!" The one question here would be: "Donald Trump never told you that he would pay off anyone to keep other embarrassing stories out of the news, right?" Answer (I assume): Correct. They seem to be making things worse by prolonging the agony ...

Bigger lesson from Kristi Noem's self immolation: never be seen a wanting the VP job too much.

I thought he "owned it" Read the link I posted, not just for info on how one moronic sheep got duped this one time, but about the chain of tweets and retweets that keep the sheep manure coming. tl;dr 1. A liberal satire site, with a disclaimer saying "nothing on this site is true," runs a silly fake story. It seems that the purpose of this was to bait the fake news right-wing media into repeating it. No one would be so stupid as to do that, right? Wrong. 2. That satirical post was then reposted by a guy in Pakistan (feeding himself on clicks), removing the "satire" disclaimer 3. That was then tweeted by one of his fave "news" sources, someone never has heard of who calls himself "Mike Netter" 4. And the NC Bills reposts it here. Without checking on the origins. Without even googling whether it is real (wouldn't Denzel/Stallone put out press releases?) That then winds up here. Nice work. And sadly typical. Ladies and gentlemen, the right-wing echosphere in a nutshell. Origins of the claim ALLOD This site is part of the "America's Last Line of Defense" network of satire websites run by self-professed liberal troll Christopher Blair from Maine along with a loose confederation of friends and allies. He runs several websites and Facebook pages with visible satire disclaimers everywhere. They mostly publish made-up stories with headlines specifically created to trigger Republicans, conservatives and evangelical Christians into angrily sharing or commenting on the story on Facebook without actually reading the full article, exposing them to mockery and ridicule by fans of the sites and pages. Every site in the network has an About page that reads (in part): About Satire Before you complain and decide satire is synonymous with "comedy": sat·ire ˈsaˌtī(ə)r noun The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. Everything on this website is fiction. It is not a lie and it is not fake news because it is not real. If you believe that it is real, you should have your head examined. Any similarities between this site's pure fantasy and actual people, places, and events are purely coincidental and all images should be considered altered and satirical. See above if you're still having an issue with that satire thing. Articles from Blair's sites frequently get copied by "real" fake news sites that omit the satire disclaimer and other hints the stories are fake. One of the most persistent networks of such sites is run by a man from Pakistan named Kashif Shahzad Khokhar (aka "DashiKashi"), who has spammed hundreds of such stolen stories into conservative and right-wing Facebook pages in order to profit from the ad revenue.

In other words, he just posts crap that comes in on his Twitter feed! But other than that, he is scrupulous about his self fact-checking. https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2024/05/fact-check-denzel-wahlberg-sly-did-not-quit-sag-to-form-no-woke-actors-union.html

Those boots were made for walkin' Choosing DeSantis would require Trump to change his official residence back to NY or to NJ in order to bypass the constitutional requirement that the Pres and VP must be from different states. Plus the recent 6 week FL abortion law would bring that issue front and center, which they'll want to avoid. So I don't see it.

Guess who lied about meeting Kim Jon Un? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/03/kristi-noem-kim-jong-un The most astonishing, stupid self-disqualifying book ever.

Mass trespassing. Columbia allowed them onto the quad, allowed them to pitch tents, supported their right to exercise their freedom of speech. A lot of them wandered inside as a continuation of the free speech demonstration. Video doesn't show anyone trying to physically bar them. Plus some obviously non-student type agitators dressed in remarkably clean khakis were seen whispering sweet nothings in their ears before they entered the building. They weren't "camping" anywhere. They were obviously government informants urging these kids on. Any kids who are arrested should be considered patriots. No, not just patriots. Political prisoners.

I was under the impression that they were putting up a fight to save their own country. Now I realize Biden has drafted them into service.

I'm with you on that. Just go back to Bill Clinton or Biden the crime bill guy. Policy wise I don't think I've changed much at all. First the Democrats tacked sharply left, then the Republicans (and I voted for Romney) tacked sharply nuts.

The thing is not so much that she shot the dog (if she even did). It's that she somehow thought this story would help her. It hasn't, and it won't. It was a ridiculous own goal. I can get "taking that old dog out back and shooting it to put him out of his misery." This is not that.

Flawed logic rules! I'll help. See if you can follow. My point: polls say the college educated tilt strongly Democratic. Your response: polls/schmolls. You can't trust 'em. My rejoinder: precinct level data support the validity of the polls here. Precincts with high percentages of the college educated vote strongly Democratic. You response: most highly Democratic areas are in inner cities (euphemism for majority-minority) Hmm ... I'll wait

Neither a Platonic essentialist nor a Wittgensteinian I see. More of a Harveyist. Steve Harvey, that is. Family Feud School of Philosophy. Survey says ...?