The Frankish Reich

This is old, but good evidence of how our expectations have changed over time: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-us-homes-today-are-1000-square-feet-larger-than-in-1973-and-living-space-per-person-has-nearly-doubled/#:~:text=Over the last 42 years,2%2C687 square feet last year. Nearly double the square footage per person than when I was a kid! Sure, there's skimpflation now. My potato chip bag is only 10 ounces, not 12. But the median American is ridiculously better off than they were 50 years ago when you take into account how many additional amenities the average person has: housing, internet, flat screen TVs in every room, better vehicle stock than ever before (what happened to all the rusty old cars I used to see straight through the 80s?), etc., etc. EDIT: it's hot outside today. I had to flip the thermostat to "cool." I'll probably run the A/C in the car. There was no air conditioning in homes when I was a kid! And I didn't have a car with A/C until I was well into my 30s. It's so hot I may cook outdoors. On a really nice gas grill. No waiting half an hour for the charcoal to get hot enough. Just press a button and go. Side burner to warm up the baked beans. Life is good!

And there you have it. But I have a right to a 1500 calorie Chipotle burrito for dinner. And for a late-night chip and dip snack. And Lay's, not the store brand.

People just have more expensive tastes than they used to. Costco $4.99 rotisserie chicken and ridiculously huge $12 mac and cheese = feed a family of 4 for $17. We had a comment in another thread ("how much did you pay for gas and groceries?) where one poster was complaining about the high cost of steak. You know how many times we ate steak for dinner when I was a kid? Not to mention the high cost of travel to places I never went when I was a kid. You can buy my 1300 square foot Buffalo childhood home for a monthly payment of under $2000. I work with a lot of 20 and 30 somethings decrying the out-of-reach cost of a home here in Colorado. We have an office in Buffalo. I ask them: why not move to Buffalo? At our pay rate, you could easily afford the home my parents had at your age." They are not interested. They don't want to live in Buffalo, and they think they deserve a nice suburban McMansion or a totally rehabbed historic home in a nice urban neighborhood.

It's no different than what I always hear from the right: "Liberals want to boycott travel to Florida over gay rights issues, but they're perfectly fine with taking a safari trip to Kenya, where being gay is a crime." Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind I guess.

You are correct. But the point: which one has the highest IQ? I doubt there's any real debate. It's Clinton now, it was Clinton then, it will be Clinton next year. Would she make the best President? America said "no." This is an interesting debate. Me in 1980: how could anyone vote for Reagan? He's dumb! Me in 1988: maybe being smart (or smarter than the opposition) isn't really that important in a president. Me in 2008: Good Lord, a dumb President can get us in a lot of trouble

https://www.mastercardservices.com/en/reports-insights/economics-institute/travel-industry-trends-2023#:~:text=Travelers are increasingly seeking unique,2019 as of March 2023.&text=The economy's mixed signals create,both leisure and business trips. Again, revealed preferences. In general, travel spending (very highly discretionary, with business travel way down it's mostly leisure travel) way up, spending on "things" down. Willingness to spend (whether savings or borrowing/on credit cards) typically = optimism about the future. Off-topic, but interesting: leading foreign travel destinations for Americans - 1. Mexico. By a lot. We can agree that most Americans, and an overwhelming majority of Republicans, think Mexico isn't even trying to stem migration through its countries by huge groups of Central Americans, Venezuelans, etc. So where's the boycott on travel to Cabo?

Well, true. Still: Clinton is clearly the most "intelligent" of the 3. The loser of the 3, but the most intelligent. So we are concerned about intelligence of our Presidents and whether Biden is slipping (quickly or gradually) because ... why?

The Democratic election machine seems to have noticed something (and remember: they're pretty good at this!). There's polling on popular sentiment, and that still shows pessimism about the economy. I'm no economist, but I read a lot on what economists called "revealed preferences." In other words, what people tell you vs. how they actually act. And here's a couple things: - the "Greed vs. Fear Index" - this is mostly a stock market measure; are investors (institutional and individual) betting on gains or losses? And it is squarely in the Greed zone now. - Consumer spending vs. Savings - if people are really (not what they say, what they do) concerned about an uncertain economic future, they save more and spend less. And the trend now? Spend, spend, spend! On the purely anecdotal level, I just got back from a trip to Europe. Packed. To. The. Brim. With. Americans. Biden and the Dems were running away from the economy. It was all fear about abortion rights, fear about Trumpism, etc., etc. I suspect some focus groups have them taking some initial steps in the other direction, trying to turn those revealed preferences into voting booth preferences. It's a dangerous game this early in the season since a spike in inflation or the unemployment rate can undo all of that. But still, it's a thing, and it's happening.

All true. And that's why no one really knows anything about how the 2024 elections will go. A "soft landing" is now a much more real possibility than it was six months ago, and that would no doubt give the Dems a huge boost. But a recession is (in my estimate) still more likely, with a malaise factor giving rise to a throw the bums out mentality. November 2024 is still 16 months away, who knows where we'll be?

I don't deny there are problems out there. Real wages, taking inflation into account, were still moving in the wrong direction over the last year+. And that is a serious issue. I think the economy is heading toward a new equilibrium where we'll see that reverse. So I am not intending to minimize anyone's personal situation. But I've lived through all the things I mentioned in my earlier post (runaway inflation, extremely deep recessions, etc.) in which no one with an ordinary job could even dream of buying a home, in which lots of able-bodied willing workers had no chance of finding a job, etc. And the economic problems we have today just aren't anywhere close to that.

https://www.axios.com/2023/06/29/biden-speech-chicago-bidenomics Republicans biggest fear: the economy will keep humming along, avoiding recession or another bout of inflation, straight through to election day 2024. There is a perfectly good chance this will happen ... [I still think a recession is inevitable, but I'm not so sure anymore that it'll hit before November 2024, and the various indicators like the bond markets show a similar confidence in the short term]

Why would you say it's the worst economy in the last 50 years when absolutely every objective measure says that's a LOL statement? Meanwhile, another poster who responded with an LOL is probably living in a van down by the river, posting on the free Burger King Wifi.

How so? Inflation is now running at approximately 4 percent. Unemployment is virtually nonexistent in most of the country. The stock market is up 14% YTD. Americans are going on vacation like they never have before, such that the problem is over-stressed airports. People are partying like it's 1999. And still ... the "worst economy" since 1973? You (as a little one, admittedly) lived through the two oil crises of the 1970s, inlfation running in the mid-teens in the late 70s, the deep recession of the early 80s, the Great Recession of 2008 (which took years to rebound fully from), the COVID shutdown, etc, etc. Really, people need to get a grip. Is this sustainable? I say no. I expect a recession, and the longer it goes without having one, the deeper the recession will be. But right now? Good times!

The article said it appeared to be a small flashlight, not a diazepam pen. At any rate, you're missing the point: with Hillary, the Republican fake news generators tried to drum up a story that she was so medically incapacitated that she would never be able to fulfill a 4 year presidential terms. That was 7 years ago .... so maybe a bit of skepticism about their current focus on Biden is in order? What would we do without the Hot Take Machine? So what is this "article" from the Republican press machine? Nothing more than some "reporter" googling the following: Sleep Apnea Dementia. And then "reporting" it as if it's, you know, actual journalism. Thank you, "Free Beacon," I am quite capable of googling things myself.

there's some things a dad - even a dad who is a leading politician - can't control. If Hunter wants to cash in on his name and perceived connections to the VP, well, all dad can do is tell him that he'd really wish that he'd keep away from lobbying/influence type activity. What the dad doesn't have to do is give his implicit assent to this kind of behavior, which is what I think Joe did do after the 2016 election. Joe thought that was it, his last act, he was going off to the private sector to write boring memoirs, give commencement speeches, and secure a really nice nest egg for his family. I don't know if he did anything illegal, but he certainly did some things that were at least unsavory and unbecoming a former Vice President.

A feeling of deja vu sweeps over me. But why? Oh, now I remember. Different "leading Fox News commenter." Different election. Same thing as the new former leading Fox News commenter. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/11/in-prime-time-sean-hannity-carries-out-a-clinton-medical-investigation/ Hannity brought another fishy analysis into the conversation by asking if a viral photo of Clinton and Secret Service agent Todd Madison revealed a diazepam pen, used to treat seizures. "What about this photo that the Gateway Pundit had up today?" Hannity asked. "Hillary's handler gets caught with a diazepam pen. What would that be for?" "Someone is carrying a pen that you'd use in case of a seizure, a Valium pen — that makes me wonder about that," Siegel said. In fact, as the fact-checking site Snopes later uncovered, the agent was holding what appeared to be a small flashlight That was 7 years ago. Hillary was either on her deathbed or soon would be incapacitated due to a Really Really Bad Seizure Disorder. Hillary Clinton is still alive today and seemingly well. And I have no doubt she would go all James Holzhauer on Biden and Trump in Presidential Candidate Jeopardy.

I have spent a lot of time around 80-somethings in recent years (that has something to do with my own stage in life), and I can tell you that what I see with Biden is consistent with what I've seen with every single other one. But o.k., let's say his decline is unusually rapid. Many people (me included) thought Reagan was losing it at a very fast pace in his run-up to the 1980 presidential election. And then it became clear to many more people that he was losing it by the time of his second term, say in 1987. He was 76 in 1987. And while we don't know for sure (no one can) whether that was the early stages of Alzheimer's, given that he was later diagnosed with it I think it's a fair to assume that. Q. So how long did early-stage Alzheimer's Reagan live after beginning to show signs of that disease (being charitable, from 1987 on)? A. 17 years. My point: even if Biden's doddering behavior means the worst possible diagnosis - Alzheimer's - that's extraordinarily unlikely to kill him in the next few years. So that over/under of 8.5 years based on the actuarial tables? No reason to second guess it here. Now could it be that like Reagan he is (or soon will become) unable to handle the job of President without effectively turning it over to an armada of advisors? Sure. Reagan did that, and the impression of those advisors that he was checked out probably contributed to some really bad ideas like Iran-Contra. Did the Republic survive? Yep. My second point: when dealing with a cognitively challenged president, or one who exhibits extremely poor judgement, the best thing is to have a stable team of level-headed advisors in place. In fact, a stable team of level-headed advisors is often preferable to a high-functioning know-it-all who refuses to take advice from persons with expertise in a particular area.

It is not a talking point for Trump's defense team, or even a talking point for lawyers or those who've reasonably looked into the law as it pertains to this case. It is a talking point for partisan supporters who are looking for any basis to yell UNFAIR! Regardless of the merits of the talking point. Really, do you think this type of person reads beyond tweets from Julie Kelly or articles from right-wing media?

Yes, there is. But other than the medical records the White House releases (which may, of course, be somewhat selective) we have no reason to believe that Biden has any unusual condition that would cause us to deviate from the average. In other words, the over/under is 8.5 more years of life. Now if you know any insider information like "my cousin's wife is a nurse at Walter Reed, and she saw a report showing that Biden is being treated for chronic kidney disease," feel free to bet the under. Anecdotal stuff like "Biden sure seems to be slowing down physically and mentally" wouldn't change my assessment of the odds. It's akin to "Hillary stumbled badly trying to get into that limo, she probably has serious brain damage and won't be able to serve out her term." Or "why does Trump need to hold a water glass with two hands."

And of course people are free to vote based on their assessment of Biden's mental and physical state. My comment here was limited to the actual actuarial odds of Biden surviving until the end of a second term. And on that, it's basically 60/40 (survive/not survive).

And yes, it would need to be charged in New Jersey. Which raises the possibility of another prosecution in the District of New Jersey, I suppose. And yes, this Julie Kelly is the dumb conspiracist's idea of a smart person.

Good summary of the IRS agents (there's two) claim that their investigation was thwarted (it is important to note that the key events happened in the Trump/Barr administration!): https://www.wsj.com/articles/throw-hunters-plea-in-the-trash-irs-justice-sabotage-shapley-4ae9aef0?mod=trending_now_opn_2 I basically agree with this take (so the tired old partisan responses would be, umm, particularly idiotic here), which is from Bush 43's head of DOJ's Tax Division. Paywalled, so here's a key part: By June 2021, Mr. Weiss’s prosecution team had gathered enough evidence to understand that Delaware wasn’t the proper venue in which to prosecute Hunter Biden’s tax crimes. Crimes allegedly committed in 2014 and 2015 would have to be charged in the District of Columbia and those allegedly committed 2016-19 would have to be charged in the Central District of California. According to the whistleblowers’ testimony, the U.S. attorneys in the capital and Central California refused Mr. Weiss’s requests to charge Hunter Biden in their districts. Mr. Shapley testified that Mr. Weiss then asked “Main DOJ” to name him special counsel and was denied—possibly not for the first time. In March testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee the attorney general said that although he hadn’t made Mr. Weiss special counsel, he had given Mr. Weiss all the authority he needed to bring charges in any district he deemed appropriate. But on Oct. 7, 2022, Mr. Shapley claims, Mr. Weiss declared in a meeting of the prosecution team that in fact he wasn’t the final decision maker with respect to charges that might be brought against Hunter Biden. It was this statement that shocked and troubled Mr. Shapley such that he braved the consequences of becoming a whistleblower and sought legal counsel on how to do so.

True. It is the perfect gift to a prosecutor. It is so incredibly stupid of Trump to do this - at the time he had already been notified that the National Archives was demanding return of presidential records, and yet there he is, being recorded (by a journalist who almost certainly asked him "ok if we record this"), saying that he is knowingly retaining classified records. If he weren't running for President, his best defense would be that he's now so mentally compromised that he lacked the ability to understand what he was doing.

Maybe Ukraine is in just a slightly different situation now than the one Russia was in when it "allowed" Putin to stay in charge? Maybe one country is the subject of an active invasion and daily bombings of its population centers while the other is actually conducting the invasion/bombings? But no. To Glenn Greenwald - the absolutely favorite gay expatriate socialist of Carlsonian "Conservative" White Nationalists - sees no difference whatsoever.

The Republicans control the House. They promised investigations. If Hunter plea deal is accepted by the judge, that part is over. Let the congressional investigation begin. Really. I'm not being facetious here. There is enough out there for a serious, well organized hearing (not this Boebert premature impeachment resolution silliness). Hunter clearly benefited materially by at least implying that by retaining him, his father's clout would be part of the deal. And I suspect that Joe Biden DID profit, directly or indirectly, from Hunter's sleazy dealings, but that's all it is: a suspicion.