The Frankish Reich

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.

Not liable for rape-by-penis (remember, it was pre-Viagra). Liable for finger banging without consent. Tommy, you may want to join his appeal team. Your "he was really just an old softie" approach may just be the winning ticket!

Hey, thanks for the link. I'll have to watch. It's what I've been saying ever since I stumbled across DR's "The Deep State War Warms Up" 600-page thread. That's all the convincing I needed. Two cheers for the Deep State!

I'm staying in America, where there is currently zero chance that my wife will find our presidential candidates hotter than me.

I hope you're sitting down, Tommy Boy ... ... this is outrageous. If the article is to be believed (and yes, it's based on apparently good journalistic work in a credible source), the outrage is not that the killer hasn't been charged. The article says the only person able to ID him won't cooperate, so the investigation continues. Sometimes that happens and you've got to rely on other evidence (ballistics reports, camera footage, whatever). You can't get to the grand jury right away. So let's hope that's the case. Here's what is outrageous: after being caught illegally in possession of a firearm, he needed to be detained by ICE. Probably Cook County - a sanctuary jurisdiction - has a policy against cooperating with ICE. That policy probably exempts dangerous or violent crimes, but I bet the policy says "alien in illegal possession of a firearm" doesn't count. Say what you will about sanctuary policies in general (I think they're stupid), at a minimum a gun offense should be an exemption. Isn't it liberal governments that want to control guns? It starts with punishing the gun offenses that are already on the books. So ... outrageous. And he really shouldn't be released from custody - ICE or criminal - until we've had a full evidentiary hearing on who he is, what his affiliations (gang or otherwise) are, etc.,, etc. This is the way it used to work, all the way up through Obama's first term, when all of a sudden the immigration world went nutso as soon as Obama was dubbed "deporter in Chief."

Weird, I can't find the score. But anyway: why do we have separate men's and women's tournaments? The only question is where to set the tee, right? And why do we have men's and women's chess tournaments? Just spitballin here

I think the issue here is that NY law at the time of the alleged assault used something like the "penetration by penis" common law definition. So he didn't commit "rape" under that definition, but it sure counts as "rape" under (I think) all modern state definitions. But George Conway is right: the "I'm just a (thankfully) short-fingered vulgarian" defense doesn't sound like a winner.

Much improved over that "[fill in the blank] called, the want their [fill in the blank] back" attempt.

Well that's a whole different story, isn't it ...

Not sure what "handouts" those would be. Certainly not student loan forgiveness, which I never had. I finally paid off my student loans a few years ago. At the age of 54 ...

American here. My wife thinks he's hot. I hate that.

No argument there. You can search every post of mine on PPP and never find one that could be construed as soft on crime.

It's called a joke. Don't you go all woke on me. The fact that you thought it was a slur says more about your attitudes than mine ... And yes, you are better off today. I am, so (I would imagine) are the vast majority of this little club. That's what people mean when they say the numbers don't make sense right now. The majority of Americans say they personally are better off, but that the economy in general is bad. My guess: this will even out. Will it come in time to save Biden? Who knows.

Yes, it was. Since when do we equate the amount of destruction with the target of the destruction? Oh, because you've never seen that interview. Never mind. Here you go.

You mean the subsidy that already exists for US-produced EVs? What about the infamous chicken tax that makes pickups more expensive for Americans to buy?

So let's go to a different one: what does "I will be a dictator on Day One" mean? Because it's pretty obvious to me that it means "I won't be constrained by the constitution when I issue Executive Orders."

Right. Think about this one: "I will be a dictator on day one." Wonderful. We can talk about what he means (is he literally going to circumvent the constitution, or was this just another example of Trump trolling the libs?) But let's say he gets elected and on Day One he issues an Executive Order similar to (but more expansive than) he ill-fated "Muslim Ban." The lawsuits come the next day. And what do the lawsuits cite? TRUMP's OWN WORDS in which he admitted he'd be a "dictator" (read: a violator of constitutional separation of powers) on Day One. Is he doing this because he expects - maybe even wants? - courts to stop his own stupidity? Is he doing it because all he cares about is getting elected and he thinks this sounds appealing to his base? Because the conclusion is now obvious: any EO he issues on Day One is presumptively unconstitutional. Because he said as much. Hell, I'll work on that lawsuit; it'll be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Absolutely. We are now in a political environment in which the parties are fighting over who can be more protectionist. And think about what we're doing: tariffs on steel and aluminum. Great for domestic steel/aluminum production I guess, because it raises the price of steel and aluminum. Which means that US auto producers pay more for steel and aluminum, which is bad for them. Which in turn given imported vehicles a price advantage. Which means that candidates say we need new tariffs on imported vehicles. See what I mean?

This is a Steve Rattner presentation. Rattner knows what he's talking about. He was a former Treasury top official, and when not in the government he manages Mike Bloomberg's money. And Mike Bloomberg's money has been well-managed to say the least. Let me ask you, @Tommy Callahan ... are you better off than you were 4 years ago? If not, why not?

What about adding new tariffs? And what about Chinese direct investment in Mexico to produce cars there? That's what Trump seems to have a bug up his ass about.

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/steve-rattner-fact-checks-trump-s-favorite-attack-lines-against-biden-206504517649 Steve Rattner on how the actual numbers refute some of those key Trump talking points: - U.S. energy production is at an all time high. There is no war on drilling for oil - Trump says he'll make the U.S. energy independent. We are already a net exporter, which is kind of the definition of energy independence - Trump says he is a born again deficit hawk. Well maybe, but Trump the President was a deficit dove the likes of which we'd never seen before. - Trump says crime is at an all-time high. Violent crime isn't. Property crime also shows a drop from peak 2020-21 (although here I will say that my experience is a lot of property crime goes unreported, so I'm not sold on that one) - Growth rates? Not in this clip, but U.S. growth under Biden far exceeds that of our economic competitors. It is objectively strong, and comparatively even stronger.

The question here is Chinese investment in Mexico to produce cars there. There is a game theoretic approach that is at least defensible. In other words, we threaten (and Trump is the Threatener in Chief) tariffs/trade restrictions with the ultimate goal of reaching a deal that the U.S. and China can both live with. So I get that. But let's not lose sight of the goal: the furtherance of free and fair trade, not some kind of Fortress America.

The UAW is for it. I am against hiking tariffs regardless of whether they are proposed by the left or the right. Any economist would agree.

Right. The Chinese EV will undercut and ultimately outcompete Tesla. Would I buy one? Probably.