The Frankish Reich

Excellent point. Now, for the 2nd Amendment ... that's one of the "right of the people" ones. Traditionally there's been a lot of confusion about that. When it comes to the 4th Amendment's prohibition on illegal search and seizure, courts have treated "the people" as something that extends to citizens, permanent residents, and other aliens alike. When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, we've always treated non-permanent resident aliens differently; they don't have a right to bear arms. Until now? [this is the mess that the Supreme Court decisions have created ... no aliens in the militia, hence no right to bear arms for aliens. At least that's how it should have been decided]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/19/jared-kushner-gaza-waterfront-property-israel-negev Sometimes just keeping your mouth shut is the greatest skill of all, Jared.

Meanwhile, Trump drew probably the biggest Trump loyalist on the entire federal bench for his classified documents trail in Florida, and she continues to issue headscratchers of rulings that any fair observer can only describe as "results oriented."

As for "smart" -- believe me, I know there are different kinds of intelligence. My dad was very good at business deal making, and made a good (albeit not exactly Trumpian) career our of it. I have always been acutely aware that I did not inherit the genes for that. It's just never been in my skill set. But I think a lot of people made a mistake - not the least Trump himself - of thinking that business/property development deal-making skills translate to U.S. governmental and international relations. Ross Perot, Michael Bloomberg ... they didn't have a chance to demonstrate that they don't (most notably because they learned that their skills don't translate into "running a political campaign"), but Trump has. And he hasn't learned. This is a long read, ostensibly a very late-in-the-game book review of The Art of the Deal. I found it pretty convincing with respect to what Trump does remarkably well, and why it doesn't necessarily translate into other arenas: https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/03/19/book-review-the-art-of-the-deal/ Overall the effect was that of an infodump from an autistic child with a special interest in real estate development, which was both oddly endearing and not-so-oddly very boring. I started the book with the question: what exactly do real estate developers do? They don’t design buildings; they hire an architect for that part. They don’t construct the buildings; they hire a construction company for that part. They don’t manage the buildings; they hire a management company for that part. They’re not even the capitalist who funds the whole thing; they get a loan from a bank for that. So what do they do? Why don’t you or I take out a $100 million loan from a bank, hire a company to build a $100 million skyscraper, and then rent it out for somewhat more than $100 million and become rich? As best I can tell, the developer’s job is coordination. This often means blatant lies. The usual process goes like this: the bank would be happy to lend you the money as long as you have guaranteed renters. The renters would be happy to sign up as long as you show them a design. The architect would be happy to design the building as long as you tell them what the government’s allowing. The government would be happy to give you your permit as long as you have a construction company lined up. And the construction company would be happy to sign on with you as long as you have the money from the bank in your pocket. Or some kind of complicated multi-step catch-22 like that. The solution – or at least Trump’s solution – is to tell everybody that all the other players have agreed and the deal is completely done except for their signature. The trick is to lie to the right people in the right order, so that by the time somebody checks to see whether they’ve been conned, you actually do have the signatures you told them that you had. The whole thing sounds very stressful. The developer’s other job is dealing with regulations. The way Trump tells it, there are so many regulations on development in New York City in particular and America in general that erecting anything larger than a folding chair requires the full resources of a multibillion dollar company and half the law firms in Manhattan. Once the government grants approval it’s likely to add on new conditions when you’re halfway done building the skyscraper, insist on bizarre provisions that gain it nothing but completely ruin your chance of making a profit, or just stonewall you for the heck of it if you didn’t donate to the right people’s campaigns last year. Reading about the system makes me both grateful and astonished that any structures have ever been erected in the United States at all, and somewhat worried that if anything ever happens to Donald Trump and a few of his close friends, the country will lose the ability to legally construct artificial shelter and we will all have to go back to living in caves.

This is beautiful. We have, in just a few short pages, the classic Trump Descending Scale of Excuses. First: he didn't do it! He doesn't even know her! She wanted fame and to ruin Trump and a bunch of activists put her up to this. Second: he didn't "rape" her! He was found not liable for rape!! [upon being reminded that he was found liable for sexual assault by fat finger] Third: NY jurors are a bunch of Democratic Trump haters!! They'd find him guilty of anything put in front of them, regardless of the evidence!! Fourth: But Hillary! But Bill!! Finally (after NC Lab Tech finally fesses up that he is performatively "ignoring" me): You're a Commie !@#$ stain groomer pedo!!

Bump. See just below the part circled in red. Donald Trump sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll. X Yes.

Sherpa, Tiberius: I think both of you make some good contributions to this board. Let's maybe try to keep the insults limited to our pre-existing insult comics?

Well ... I guess it could be like this: I don't agree with allowing transgenders to play in women's tournaments. But as long as it's allowed, I'm gonna take advantage of it. Kind of like a person of color who doesn't agree with affirmative action, but isn't going to turn down a spot at Harvard that may or may not have been offered in part based on her race.

Yeah, I get a lot of that "you guys" about me. So I'll try to avoid that. It is hyperbole. I get that. It is his style of doing business, the old start the bargaining with an outrageous proposal, threaten to leave the deal, then hammer out a decent deal. But we've seen it not work so well in government. The judicial branch enjoins it and says Congress needs to authorize it. The legislative branch won't legislate it. International allies won't back it. The proposal is so out there that you can't get clear majority support with the voters. And so it's chaos. Again. I don't like chaos. Some people apparently do.

Umm, right. That's why OJ didn't go to jail. And didn't have a judgment against him until a separate civil suit was brought. And why his #32 still hangs from the rafters. Wait a minute, that last one doesn't follow, does it ...

Yes, I would agree that it is said at least half tongue-in-cheek. And there is something of a stand-up (sit down here) comedian to his act. People love it, and even I thought it could be fun at the start but that it's worn awfully thin by now. And to be honest, I'm not that worked up about this one. But as I said: this is fodder for any litigants that want to use to enjoin whatever he might issue on "Day One" (and probably Day Two, Three, and beyond). There's really no escaping that. So he's shooting his prospective administration in the foot before it even begins. You mean there's not a way to fire up your base without promising that you'd violate the constitution? These are the things that make me think he's just not very smart. And/or that all he cares about is winning the election, not actually governing.

Still different. Did Obama say "I will be a dictator." Did he say "I don't care about separation of powers, I will do what I want." I was no fan of Obama's "executive actions," particularly as they related to immigration. They went up to (and in my opinion, beyond) what was generally accepted as the outer limit of presidential authority. But they were supported by legal arguments for that authority, not a claim that he didn't give a crap about what his authority was, and that he was going to do it anyway. You guys love Trump as a breaker of norms, but then strenuously argue that he isn't breaking any norms. Even when he flat-out tells you that that's exactly what he intends to do. Make up your mind.

The hoops these people will jump through to try to do immediate revisionist history on Trump's idiotic quips never ceases to amaze me. Here's exactly what he said (from the AP, and I've watched the clip and it is completely accurate): Fox News host Sean Hannity gave his longtime friend a chance to assure the American people that he wouldn’t abuse power or seek retribution if he wins a second term. But instead of offering a perfunctory answer brushing off the warnings, Trump stoked the fire. “Except for day one,” the GOP front-runner said Tuesday night before a live audience in Davenport, Iowa. “I want to close the border, and I want to drill, drill, drill.” And in case anyone missed it, he reenacted the exchange. “We love this guy,” Trump said of Hannity. “He says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’ I said: ‘No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border, and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.’” Here's some random fool trying to explain it away. Lab techs generally don't take Philosophy 201, Logic, so I'll help: "I will not be a dictator unless and only unless it is Day One of my presidency" is logically equivalent to "I will be a dictator on Day One of my presidency."

You could say this in nearly all rape cases. Here we had testimony from another witness who said Carroll described the encounter to her shortly after it happened. That's the type of corroborating evidence that is typical in a sexual assault case. I will agree, it wasn't the strongest case (and I have issues with the underlying premise of "you defamed me by denying that you raped me") But in this country we accept jury verdicts as establishing the truth, unless or until they are overturned on appeal.

Oh, I'm not so sure about that when it comes to our Trump lovers ...

He is! That's why I'm providing these reminders.

Ask your NC friend why he's obsessed with homoerotic images of Trump dressed in historical garb.

Many Conservative Mom Bloggers Fail to Acknowledge that the Modern Day Donald Trump Resembles a Very Different Dignitary

OF COURSE they'd be doing it to get around the current tariffs. They aren't stupid. The rebates on EVs are now ridiculously complicated under the IRA rules, so we'd have to see how any Chinese company Mexican production facility would fit within them. But the point is they'd be manufactured not in China, but in MEXICO. And to qualify under post-NAFTA USCANMEX rules, they'd have to comply with minimum requirements (as they relate to work conditions) set forth in that treaty. TRUMP negotiated that treaty. If it was a bad treaty, if it allowed for foreign direct investment by China in Mexico to benefit under its terms, then that's on him. People really have a problem with comprehension.

At least it's iron, not soft like pre-Viagra Trump.

You can't hold two different thoughts in your head at the same time? A. He was found not liable for rape as it was defined by NY law in 1996. B. He was found liable for sexual assault of a type that would be considered rape under current NY law. That's just factual. In fact, it was in one of the judge's post-verdict orders. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

I will keep that one handy just in case you're trying to watch pr0n in a different tab.

The Google is your friend. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/ira-ev-tax-credits/

No, this is where a sensible, non-apologist for anyone points out that Biden's Day One executive orders were issued in accord with legal opinions that supported them as valid exercises of executive authority. And the Supreme Court ultimately agreed on the immigration ones: https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-allows-bidens-shift-immigration-enforcement-2023-06-23/ This is also where I remind some aging embittered lab tech that The Conservative Media Often Fails to Mention That Donald Trump Looks Great in His Workout Clothes

Oh! I see. So a smart Trump won't drop any Day One Executive Orders since those would be presumptively unconstitutional. Meanwhile: It is often forgotten that Trump and Putin enjoy some of the same leisure-time activities.