SectionC3

Agreed on 11th hour. Kavanaugh is a d-bag, but the time to try to play that card against him had passed. Elections have consequences, and the Republicans got to pick their guy. That’s the way it goes. Disagreed on “real evidence.” She had her (powerful) testimony, which in many cases like this is just about all that the victim can come up with.

Personally I think Kavanaugh is a partisan d-bag, but I will agree with you that he was smeared and that what happened there was wrong. Elections have consequences, and they were entitled to their judge.

Border wall national emergency declaration to secure funds Congress wouldn’t approve. It’s a travesty. Stuff like (admittedly I don’t have more specifics here) the late-night firing of an Inspector General. The shenanigans described in Volume II of the Mueller report (that’s not a political statement; just read the report - what he did was BS from a rule of law perspective). Toeing the line on the emoluments clause. The “absolute authority” nonsense. His “fake news” tropes to fool his followers. Attaching his name to the recent stimulus checks. The fascination with strongmen like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un (and comments made in support thereof). And that’s just ff the top of my head. *** I don’t detest this guy because of policy. I don’t necessarily like all of his policies, but that’s how things work in this country. We don’t agree on everything all of the time. I detest this guy because the truth is a matter of convenience for him. And what he’s done with respect to the truth and the usurpation of presidential power strikes at the core of of our democracy. I appreciate that his views on wedge issues and economics have caused some to hold their noses and support this guy. But the price of victory should be too great for those people given that it shakes the foundations of our democracy. I’m sorry but you’re just flat wrong and miles out of your depth. The declaration was used to reappropriate funds for border wall construction that Congress had approved for purposes other than the wall. The first article of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. Congress had to approve funds for wall construction. It didn’t. So the prez tried to backdoor the money through the NEA. That approach simply is not constitutional.

We can disagree on policy, you and I, but we agree on doing the mechanics the right way. Great post.

The border wall national emergency maneuver is a quintessential overreach and a trampling of the United States constitution. Facilitated by a dumb law, to be sure, but still an overreach.

Thanks. We’ll see how it plays out. This is such a bizarre year. Joe Biden from 10 years ago would have been a great candidate. This version of Joe . . . It’s sort of sad that the Democrats couldn’t come up with a transformational or even marginally better candidate to run against one of the most divisive figures in our country’s history. It’s even stranger that Biden is holding his own simply by sitting at home. But ultimately the fact that Biden came out of the primaries probably says that middle America wants someone who is reasonable, moderate, and “straight” (in a political and ethical context) to take the reigns. Time will tell. Ultimately I think the whole thing turns on how things are in October with respect to the pandemic and the economy. If things are looking up on those fronts, Trump might squeak by. If not, a scarecrow running against him would win. And even if the economy and the pandemic are “good,” there might be enough people in the “middle” who are sick enough of the BS for Biden to sneak in.

The trajectory of her polling data by mid-summer will dictate whether she is the pick. Biden has a bit of a dilemma on his hands. He has to pick a female running mate, both for practical reasons and because he locked himself in there. He owes the African-American community for his miraculous turnaround in the primaries, and he probably should pick an African-American running mate for that reason. The most palatable one to the broadest group of people probably is Kamala Harris, but she isn’t going to deliver a state. If Stacey Abrams could so deliver, she probably would have won Georgia. But Whitmer might be able to deliver Michigan, and Biden probably can deliver African-Americans on his own. If the polls suggest as much for Whitmer, she might be the pick. All this said, I’d try to find an Hispanic woman to put on the ticket, hope Biden can do the work in the Great Lakes, and make Trump play defense in Texas, Arizona, and Florida. But Biden has to be confident in his ability to win one or both of Pennsylvania and Michigan on his own, and to deliver Obama-ish African-American turnout, for that to happen.

About the veracity issue and the character question my responses would be the same. This guy is a scumbag. On the policy issues . . . I don’t think there’s room for conversation on some of his planks because they never would have survived the scrutiny of a Democratic primary (e.g., sea to sea border wall, protectionism, “spend and hope” economics, repeal and replace).

I couldn’t care less about Trump’s finances. What I care about is having a leader who tells the truth. The return issue has the stench of another instance in which this guy is not telling the truth.

I think Trump himself said in 2016 that he pays no income taxes. “Because I’m smart!” Was the explanation, if I recall correctly. They’ll show he’s not earning nearly as much as he has suggested. Which will be another link the Trump is a fraud chain.

This is where we part ways. The “ahead of his skis” could occur after initially referring to the drug, perhaps in having Jared buy millions of doses on spec, or perhaps in taking it as a prophylactic when there’s not thing to suggest that it’s a good idea for him. Bottom line: he took a shot on something unproven when he first took an interest in the pandemic. There’s nothing wrong with that. But then when it turned out that the efficacy of the drug is limited at best in this context, instead of admitting he chased a ghost he doubled down. And that’s where he got himself in (even more) trouble. The AZ docs are part of a group with some questionable theories. Take it for what it’s worth.

I agree with just about all of this. I appreciate that there is a cost/benefit to HCQ and, after careful medical consideration, for some the potential benefit may outweigh the potential cost. I also appreciate the acknowledgment over the partisan histrionics. My issue isn't with HCQ, it's the clinging to the lie about the efficacy of the drug. You're right; Trump is partisan in his support for something on which he obviously got ahead of his skis, and the other side probably harps on it more than is necessary because it's an easy way to illustrate and to take issue with his BS.

There are some dumb doctors out there. Google Eugene Gosy. I know better than that guy, having dealt with him in the past. I recognize the obvious dangers of opioid addiction. He did not. Here, Trump's physician seems to be taking a minority approach to the prophylactic issue, which is especially questionable given that it is a preventative measure for a condition that has not yet arisen, rather than a treatment option for an existing condition. Frankly, the physician should recommend that Trump also take additional, more conservative precautions, such as practicing social distancing and wearing an appropriate mask. It's odd that the physician will (apparently) recommend a precaution that increases the risk of heart attack (to my knowledge), but seemingly hasn't pushed Trump to use the aforementioned precautions that do not have potentially deadly side effects. Short answer: in this instance, Internet message board guy has a better plan that Trump's physician. For sure.

"Heard" is the problem that I have with it. Heard, to me, sounds anecdotal. And anecdotal use might result in unintended consequences (e.g., a person who might be at greater risk for a known side effect takes HCQ prophylactically and ends up having a heart attack or a stroke or something worse than COVID). I'm a lawyer, not a scientist, but I believe that things should be done scientifically. For the average person to whack some of this stuff down prophylactically flirts with irresponsibility. And for Trump to model it . . . enough said.

That is excellent (sans the steak for me, despite how much I used to enjoy it). I try the zucchini with squash with it, too. Haven't tried eggplant on the grill yet, but want to get there.

The non-fake convictions. The ones in which the defendant either admitted guilt or was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.

Copying the libs to own the libs. Sad! I’m sorry to hear that you believe Trumpers to be criminals. And that you don’t believe in certain fundamental rights that lie at the core of our society. It’s a twisted take on the rule of law, but such things are to be expected from the trumper crowd.

So you believe HCQ should be taken as a prophylactic measure? Maybe in a clinical study. But not on a lark. Like trump is doing.

Spread rapidly like the pandemic that was supposed to have just disappeared by now? So has Mike Flynn's sentencing following his guilty plea.

Your bottle of prophylactic hydroxychloroquine, of course. And yet about 38% of the country will lap up whatever nonsense these people come up with. You can fool some of the people all of the time.

Link 1 involves a know your rights campaign. I'm not selective about when people in this country can and cannot exercise their rights. Maybe you are. Link 2 is blocked by a paywall and appears to involve but one Democrat. Let's just say for fun that your fallacy of extrapolation holds water here. By the same logic, because eight Trumpers have pleaded guilty to various crimes as a result of the Mueller investigation, Trumpers are criminals who undermine the rule of law. I don't believe in painting with broad strokes like that, but since you do I guess you're stuck in a reality in which Trumpers are criminals who do not support the rule of law. So, although I wish it wasn't the case, it seems as if you're characterizing Trumpers as criminals. A bit harsh, in my view, but if that's where you want to take a stand I'm not going to get in your way. Fake news. The libs own you.

Fake news. The only deflector is you because you can't provide any names. Section C3, 1; Golden Goat, 0.

Kind of like how taking it as a preventative measure is only for stupid Trumpers. Got it.

Those are fake jelly rolls.

He’s beefcake!