The Frankish Reich

Well, that'll be a Mitt Romney moment that is played over and over and over again in the general election run-up. Not really a fair comparison because everything Romney said (about roughly half of the US population not having skin in the game because they already don't pay federal income tax) was basically correct. Trump on the other hand is a mixture of fantasy and "vote for me and I'll make sure rich people do better." Not the best pitch to the working man or woman.

When did he make these remarks? By the way, there it is again: we're gonna cut taxes AND pay off the national debt. As I noted earlier in this thread, this is fantasyland.

And by the way I liked the blood red tree corridor by Melania. I mean, not a main blood red tree with presents under it. I think they had a regular old tree too. But that corridor was kind of cool.

Well, then you are proving my point. People hated on a nice Christmas display because it was associated with Trump. Just like you people are hating on a fun little performance because the group that put it on supports lefty causes.

You mean the one with blood-red trees?

Agreed. But reading down the thread, we see that new Republican Old Fogey-ism had to dig deep to find a reason to object. Is it an objection to having people who "don't look like regular Americans" tap dancing in the White House? Can't come right out and say that. Would be obviously racist, or homophobic, or both. Is it an objection to the desecration of that great gay Russian composer Tchaikovsky? After all Putin still loves him some Tchaikovsky as an example of the greatness of Russia, conveniently ignoring the gay thing. But no, that's not it either. Here's what it is: the dance group that put on the performance supports all manner of progressive causes! In other words, we can't just have fun and watch it; we have to fully investigate the political orientations of the performers before rendering our opinions. In other words, exactly what the other side does when they seek to ban some politically conservative artist from performing on their college campus.

Well played.

Kinda like Jeff Saturday on the Colts last year. Broadcaster to interim coach. Is Lee "Hacksaw" Hamilton available?

What I'm saying is that the House Republicans did some kind of focus group thing and realized that associating "Biden" with the term "Impeachment" helped. So a regular old fashioned congressional hearing is now officially an "Impeachment Inquiry." Go ahead and impeach him if you want. Then they can say both candidates have been impeached. I guess that's what they want, so just do it.

And right on cue: mortgage rates dip back under 7% All this election talk (impeachment inquiry! 91 indictments! abortion back on the stage! Ukraine! Israel!), and yet I have a strong feeling that it will come down to what the economy does. I was with the analysts saying a recession is a near certainty. Now the "soft landing" seems to be solidly back in play. If inflation remains in check going forward, growth stays steady, and everyone's 401k keeps on an upward trend, well, that will create a very different political picture come October when ballots start getting returned. EDIT: 10-year Treasury back under 4 percent too. The bond rally is on!

It was awesome! Fun reactions. But I don't like Josh saying "it was the first time in my life I felt my legs turning" with a little torsion type gesture ....

They were already having hearings. And that's what I thought was appropriate. Hunter was, of course, subpoenad to appear for those hearings, which are now, by the miracle of bs, transformed into an "impeachment inquiry," which is a new term as far as I can tell.

Poyer grew up in the Pacific NW. No snow there, unless you head way uphill. You want experience in a snowball fight. Go with the WNY kids. We can identify a dozen different types of snow and how to use each one.

That seems likely. He comes off as a guy working through some issues from his childhood, and I'm glad to see he's dealt with that (hey, the Ayahuasca is for people with a stronger gut than me, but whatever works) and matured as a man. His wife? She may need a little of that potion too.

Well, yes. By calling it an "impeachment inquiry" the political purpose is now front and center.

tl;dr Jordan struggled with alcoholism. His wife saw something about an Ayahuasca ceremony. He went; she didn't. It changed him. Profoundly. He doesn't drink and has a new understanding of himself and of life in general. He's gone off social media so he won't be getting unsolicited messages from hotties that his wife may see and that may get him in trouble. His wife is all about social media. She has an Only Fans.

Just as a point of interest: I know people who work with the recent arrivals, and they tell me that every single one comes with a cell phone. True. We're talking about net benefits vs. costs. And historically I think there's a good argument that over the long term immigrants have been a benefit. Notice the two qualifiers I put in there: "historically" and "over the long term." Meaning: (1) there may be a difference today as the numbers we're seeing enter now are truly unprecedented. Sure, as a percent of our population not as "large" as in the late 1800s. But that was in a developing USA, not in the mature or even post-industrial economy we have today; (2) there are huge short term costs before we start seeing any long term benefits, and right now states and cities (and their taxpayers!) are being forced to bear those costs. So again: immigration generally good, provided that it is controlled and we are able to plan for it. Right now? Neither.

If you recall, the Republican Party did not put out a platform ahead of the 2020 election. I suppose that's because they had no idea what Trump would be saying as the election approached, and particularly if he won. They also didn't want to be pinned down by stupidity they couldn't defend. But of course that hasn't stopped Trump. Recently he's said not only that he would end the Russia-Ukraine war immediately without saying how (without surrender by Ukraine), but also that it's no problem for a fixer like him to eliminate the federal debt within 4 years. Remember: the federal debt is now $35 trillion. But Trump knows his base isn't very smart, so idiotic promises like this are just fine and dandy. “We’re going to pay off debt — the $35 trillion in debt. We’re going to pay it off. We’re going to get it done fast, too.” How's that gonna work? Economist Scott Sumner tells us: it's idiocy. Current taxes only bring in 1/7 of that per year. You'd have to: (1) stop federal spending entirely; AND (2) raise taxes to previously unheard of levels. Federal revenue is less than $5 trillion per year. Thus even if spending were cut to zero, it would require huge tax increases to pay off the debt in 4 years. But spending cannot be cut to zero, as the government is legally required to pay interest on the debt. That means even more massive tax increases would be needed. One possibility is that Trump is proposing that non-interest spending, including the military and Social Security and Medicare all be reduced to zero for 4 years, and that all of the tax rates be roughly doubled during that period. And even that may not be enough, due to “Laffer Curve” effects. Another possibility is that Trump is not serious; he’s making the promise to repay the national debt because it sounds good. That raises the question of whether any political promise should be taken seriously. Why even watch the debates? One response is that voters are able to distinguish between sincere promises and insincere promises. But I doubt that voters are that smart. I recall back in 2017 chatting with a trucker who was excited about Trump’s promise to rebuild our infrastructure. I was excited by Joe Biden’s promise not to build a wall on the southern border. In fact, Trump never even proposed a major infrastructure initiative. Biden abandoned his promise not to build a wall. And yet these promises initially seemed much more plausible than the promise to repay the entire national debt. https://www.econlib.org/how-important-are-the-issues/

I'm on record here as stating that I believe a Congressional investigation of Biden is warranted. There's a lot of smoke out there, but no fire yet. And it's telling that the House Republicans had no answer when asked, point blank, what high crimes or misdemeanors they believe the President may have committed. So calling it an "impeachment inquiry" at this time is a purely political move. Whatever. I do believe that at this time the Republicans need to state what they believe Joe Biden did and when they believe he did it. I'm seeing a lot of things about what private citizen Biden did in 2018. Is it their theory that any of these things could be considered the basis for an impeachment? If so, why? Is it about things that he did as Vice President? If so, what? If it has to do with the money set aside for the Big Guy, well, come right out and say it. And call Hunter's bluff re: public testimony. With the new charges against him, he'd pretty much have to take the 5th if asked about anything that has to do with income.

"280 pound recovering drug addict, taking prescription amphetamines, trampled to death in human stampede that she encouraged, willingly participated in"

The obvious question: if Trump's lawyers believe that the Supreme Court will buy his immunity claim, why would they be opposing Smith's petition to the Supreme Court asking them to decide that claim now? If Trump's lawyers are correct, presumably the entire case has to be dismissed. The obvious answer: Trump's lawyers understand that their immunity claim in nonsense.

You can't drop it if you don't get open. "Gabe's mom" [maybe a little input from Gabe himself there?] ignores his blocking. That appears to be his primary role now.

We would first have to know whether: 1. The prosecution intends to offer that testimony from Hutchinson at the trial. 2. What their stated purpose is for offering that testimony. It is hearsay if it is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted - that is, the statement of the Secret Service officer that Trump lunged toward the wheel as if trying to grab it. I doubt they'll offer it, since it doesn't really prove anything relevant to the case; it was just the most interesting anecdote she had to tell. You could argue it both ways: Trump was attempting to go to the Capitol to egg on the rioters. Or maybe Trump was avoiding going to the Capitol to maintain some distance between himself and the rioters. Or maybe he wanted to go to the Capitol to continue the peaceful demonstrations. Whatever. It doesn't prove anything unless it is closely tied to something else. Here's the Evidence 101 trick though: sometimes you say it's not to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that Trump did indeed lunge toward the steering wheel to try to commandeer the vehicle); it's to prove state of mind (Trump was extremely agitated!) or something else. In that case the judge has to decide whether the hearsay purpose (to prove that's what actually happened) outweighs the proper purpose (to prove that everyone saw that Trump was losing it). That's why they pay the judges the not-really-that-big bucks.

So B Man is sitting in his recliner listening to talk radio and buying the gold Peter Schiff pimps. Let me guess: in his My Slippers by My Pillow.

A quick primer on hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered (in court) to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It is not testimony about what someone else was doing (something observed by your own eyes) at a particular time. So "he was watching on Fox TV as they showed live footage of the riot" is not hearsay. Also not hearsay: testimony going to someone's state of mind rather than to prove the truth of what that person said. The general rule is that hearsay is not admissible. That's what you learn in the first day of Evidence class. Then you spend the rest of the year learning that most things aren't hearsay at all, and that even if they are hearsay, they may very well fall within one of the hearsay exceptions.