The Frankish Reich

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.

And to think that I'll wake up tomorrow to hear "Tyreek Hill, high ankle sprain, 4-6 weeks."

Most insane and BEST 4th quarter ever.

Exactly. Why would the NFL want to see the Dolphins waltz into the #1 seed, with that Week 18 meeting against us meaningless (at least for them?)

May I interest you in Chargers - Raiders on TNF?

He bet the money line. On the dolphins.

You seem to have forgotten Skylar Thompson.

Reid Ferguson would never do that.

Purdy! McCaffrey!!

Damn. Starting to hate replay.

But there is a special day every 4 years when a newly elected King can do whatever he wants.

Him: homes are too expensive! Lots of people can't afford to buy a house. Me: yeah, but the people selling a house are making a mint. Him: hah! Home prices are down 4%, so what mint? You have a point. "Generational wealth" - I'm friends with a member of my state legislature. She represents a mostly Hispanic district - not new immigrants, but the Spanish heritage folks who've lived in the southwest for generations. Some "progressive" (they even call themselves Democratic socialists) members of the legislature are trying to propose limits on scrape-offs, home additions, etc to halt gentrification of these areas. My friend tells me her constituents hate that idea. Many times they bought their houses 35 years ago for $70,000. They're now worth a million. They want to be able to sell and pocket that "generational wealth!"

Got that AP story? The quote cut it off: "... but voters still feel" like they're not doing well, or as well as they think they have a right to be doing. It's that word again: feel. I don't deny "feelings" are important in politics. Example: 1992 "Town Hall" Presidential debate. Bush 41 (a very fine President and a great American) vs. smarmy Bill Clinton. I think Ross Perot was there too, but I'm not sure. Voter asks incoherent question to the candidates: "How has the deficit affected you personally." (I think she meant to say "inflation" not "deficit." Bush 41 tries to be nice and say something about the deficit. Deficits making it impossible to take on other challenges, blah, blah, blah, government-ese babble ... Clinton steps up to the mic: "I feel your pain." Total b.s. about feelings. About how the deficit has impacted him personally? My point (and you can tell what I thought of Bush vs Clinton in that year): it used to be that Republicans were the numbers guys, the technocrats, the analysts, the think-like-a-manager types. They would mock appeals to "feelings." Mitt Romney was the last gasp of that type of Republican. The new ones are all about damn-your-data I don't feel wealthy enough and I have a right to be doing better."

One man's pricey housing market is another man's generational wealth accumulation.

I apologize. It appears I have hurt your feelings.

We know you love you some Trump. Other than those tremendous 4 years, what other President do you admire? I mean, he was all about Making America Great Again, so that presupposes some earlier golden age. Is it the 4.1% inflation rate at the end of Reagan's second term? Is it the 4.1% inflation rate just before the 2008 election when Obama won? Because then surely you'll love today's 3.24% rate!

I know that's how you feel. But you are objectively wrong. Again.

What do you call a Democrat who is planning to vote for Trump? A new-style Republican. Feelings. Whoa, whoa, whoa, feelings ...