Saturday, July 01, 2023

The Top Two GOP Presidential Candidates

The clueless fighting to the death with the ignorant.

May the dumbest person win.
Posted by at No comments:

How Long, O Lord, How Long?

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, when will you be satisfied? We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. 
We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: for whites only. 
We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote.
We’ve removed the signs and kept the sentiment. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 took care of the signs. The Voting Rights Act of  1965 took care of the vote. But we couldn’t have that, so the 15th Amendment gave way to states rights. The affirmative remedies of the VRA could not stand. And now neither can affirmative action. The more things change, the more they remain the same.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.
Funny how context changes the character and meaning of misquote. Dr. King was not speaking in vague and glittering generalities. He was talking specifically about his children. Then as now whites judge blacks on the color of their skin; indeed, they still make skin color the content of their character. George Floyd. Black Lives Matter. That simple assertion outrages whites. Our character, we still insist, is pure. The character of nun-whites is still suspect.

We brought slavery to this continent when Columbus landed. We turned it into a business in itself. We built an international commerce in human beings. We even wrote it into our founding documents and our laws, until 1964. And yet we still can’t face that reality.

What King dreamed of still hasn’t come true. But white people absolve themselves of the sins of their history, and insist our evil has been undone in only 50 years. We defenestrate King’s words so we can feel better about ourselves. And then we insist any further correction of the evil we did and are heir to is a greater evil than ours.

We are nowhere near seeing Dr. King’s dream. We are moving in the opposite direction.
Tell me I’m wrong.
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, June 30, 2023

So I Can Still Reserve The Right To Refuse Service *

*A staple of the civil rights movement/pre-Civil Rights Act era. In the movie “Giant,” when Bick Bendict gets the shit kicked out of him by the owner of a diner who refuses to serve his Mexican daughter-in-law, the owner tosses that sign on Benedict as he lies beaten on the floor. The’64 Civil Rights Act slowly made those signs obsolete.

Please note that, thanks to that Act, you can’t refuse to host and/or make a website for a customer based on race. Sexual orientation? Your prejudice is protected by the 1st amendment.

Is this a great country, or what?

(The tweet frames the issue very badly. The question is not: can the government force you to create websites bearing messages you disagree with. The issue is: can the government stand by and allow you to refuse your services in interstate commerce to anyone whose message you don’t like?

(In the cases where the Supremes decided racial covenants that run with the land cannot be enforced, the Court held that the judiciary could not participate in enforcing such covenants because racism is a pernicious evil the courts could not endorse, even if the courts didn’t write the covenants (i.e., were not directly responsible for them).

(Bias against sexual preference has never been recognized as a pernicious evil by the courts. Then again, it took until the 1960’s to recognize racism in law was pernicious (yes, that’s a term of art). Before that? Eh, not so much.

(The state of Colorado was not forcing anyone to provide website services to the public. It simply said: if you do, you can’t discriminate in who you offer your services to. 

(But the Civil Rights Act (‘64) doesn’t protect sexual preference. So the court reached for the First Amendment. Raising the question: if Congress amended the ‘64 CRA, would this Court say: “Well, that’s different!” Or would it say: “First Amendment rules!”

(Because, you know, refusing to build a website and add your proprietary touches to it, is different than: “We don’t serve your kind.” One is free speech, and the other is just…not?

(Yeah, I don’t understand it, either. But now I’m wondering how long it will take to challenge Civil Rights Act precedent as now violations of the first amendment?

(I mean, if the reasoning of that tweet is valid…)
Posted by at No comments:

This “Argument” Is Making The Rounds

It took me a moment to realize it was completely wrong.
Long before the Supreme Court took up one of the last remaining cases it will decide this session—the 303 Creative v. Elenis case, concerning a Colorado web designer named Lorie Smith who refuses to make websites for same-sex weddings and seeks an exemption from anti-discrimination laws—there was a couple named Stewart and Mike. According to court filings from the plaintiff, Stewart contacted Smith in September 2016 about his wedding to Mike “early next year.” He wrote that they “would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website.” Stewart included his phone number, email address, and the URL of his own website—he was a designer too, the site showed. 
This week, I decided to call Stewart and ask him about his inquiry. 
The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its opinion in a case in which Stewart plays a minor role, a case that could be, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated by way of a question at oral argument in December, “the first time in the Court’s history … [that] a commercial business open to the public, serving the public, that it could refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.” (Update: On Friday, the court ruled 6-3 in the web designer’s favor.) It took just a few minutes to reach him. I assumed at least some reporters over the years had contacted him about his website inquiry to 303 Creative—his contact information wasn’t redacted in the filing. But my call, he said, was “the very first time I’ve heard of it.”
A) assuming arguendo this is true, somebody did some very sloppy work at the trial level, and somebody else failed to check the factual basis of the plaintiff’s complaint. [But, as I finally realized, this is not true. But let me continue with my original argument, so you can go where I went.]

I’d say that was on the trial court, but it isn’t. It’s on the parties. I once spent months on a case working to force an individual plaintiff to reveal the other parties he was representing in the suit. You can’t take any material factual claims for granted, as a lawyer representing a client.

Should the Supremes have known this? No. They don’t review and examine the veracity of the facts of a case; they only review the law as applied to the facts in the record. They can’t review the facts for accuracy, or ask if Mr. Stewart actually made the request that gives this case a legitimate controversy. Which, it turns out, it doesn’t have.

B) Courts are not supposed to issue “advisory opinions.” That, they aren’t supposed to rule on whether something is, say, unconstitutional in the abstract. The question only really arises in the concrete, when there are facts to apply.

C) The other curious thing is, the majority opinion makes no reference to Mr. Stewart’s fictional claim in what is a very brief recital of the facts of the case:
Lorie Smith wants to expand her graphic design business, 303 Creative LLC, to include services for couples seeking wedding websites. But Ms. Smith worries that Colorado will use the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to compel her—in violation of the First Amendment—to cre- ate websites celebrating marriages she does not endorse. To clarify her rights, Ms. Smith filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent the State from forcing her to create websites celebrating marriages that defy her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman.
Sounds like she sought a declaratory judgment, which is a statutory way of getting an advisory opinion from the court. [But plaintiff sought an injunction, not a judgment.]

But none of this is relevant to the Supreme Court’s decision. There is no mention of it in the majority opinion. The New Republic article points out it was the basis for a publicity campaign by the plaintiff after the trial court ruled. The article makes much of this false story rattling around in the court record. It does, but mostly it is important because NR wants to justify being the only journalist to contact Mr. Stewart. He’s a real person, his phone number was accurately in the record. Scoop! news!

No; not really.

The trial court considered the Stewart story, such as it ever was, and dismissed the so-called Stewart claim as unsubstantiated and unimportant. Yes, it remains in the court record; but no, the Supreme Court didn’t rely on it even in dicta. It was dismissed by the trial court; that dismissed it for the Supreme Court. Had the Court relied on it anyway, that would be a serious problem. As it is, there is no “here,” here.

This opinion can be criticized for its reasoning and results. But it can’t be criticized as improvidently granted. Stick to the facts. Making up more convenient ones does not make a sound argument.
I mean, I don’t like this Court either; but the solution is not making up reasons to despise it that aren’t true themselves. The view of history is skewed, yes; but welcome to America. We’ve been skewing history from our beginning “Standing” is a legal argument, and should be fought as one. “Verifiably false claims”? If you mean this case, there is only one verifiably false claim. And I’m pretty sure it’s not the one you mean.
Posted by at No comments:

Ein Volk, Ein Race, Ein Color

I suppose if we called legacies "affirmative action" instead, that would make them problematic? Or not, because "white" is not a race?

And under the 14th Amendment, according to the Roberts court, we are all white now.


Posted by at No comments:

"Stollen Election"

If we'd elected a German Christmas bread as POTUS, it still would have done a better job than Trump did.
Posted by at No comments:

“White” Is Not A Race

Stern: Well, Jackson’s whole argument is that you cannot distinguish the individual’s experience as a person from the individual’s race! The two are intertwined! The chief justice is running headlong into his own racial ignorance, his own inability to understand why a first-generation Black applicant to UNC would view his race and his identity as intertwined, and would view his own life experiences and his racial identity as, in many ways, one in the same. The chief can’t wrap his head around it, which is pathetic, because there have been so many briefs in these cases, so many arguments at the lectern, so many brilliant points in both dissents trying again and again to make the chief just get this. And he just doesn’t.
So if we just declare everyone white, problem solved, right?
Posted by at No comments:

My Advice Would Be…

And on the basis of something that never happened; but might! Someday!

I was pretty sure the courts weren’t supposed to issue advisory opinions.
Posted by at No comments:

Answers Worth What You Pay For Them

The short retort is: probably. Followed by: if it was that simple, nobody would ever go to trial. But to answer a previous question:
Not sure if you know, but I certainly have been confused about rules/procedures regarding how the separate charges against multiple defendants in a single indictment work. He and Nauta are listed as co-defendants on a few of the obstruction/conspiracy/conceal charges, but Trump is the only one for the willful retention counts and a false statement charge. Can he not be tried just for those, independent of whatever goes on with Nauta, or are they intrinsically linked?
The short answer is: there is no short answer. Hey, it’s the law. Legal reasoning is an arcane process comprised of tradition, precedent constitutional law, statutes, and rules. Which is why there is no short answer.

But I don’t know criminal procedure, so I have to speak in generalities and what I remember from civil practice.

I worked a case as a legal assistant with two defendants. Generally the principle of judicial economy directs as few trials as possible. These two defendants didn’t have any reason to object to one trial. Their exposure arose from the same set of facts, and liability for one wasn’t affected by the liability of the other. Had there been a conflict, a matter where, arguably, one defendant couldn’t receive a fair trial because the defense (or case against) would unduly prejudice the other defendant. It’s a fact based argument, so I can’t be much more specific. Basically, if a defendant can show the joint trial unfairly prejudices a defendant, that a fair trial is impossible, there can be two trials. But it is a high bar, because judicial economy sets the baseline.

So can Nauta be separated? I think if he takes too long to get counsel, it could probably support a motion to sever him, again basically for judicial economy. In this case that seems likely, because Nauta is facing 3 (IIRC) charges, . He’s in this mainly so the prosecution doesn’t have to prove the base accusations twice: once to prosecute Trump, and again to prosecute Nauta.

The more likely course is that the court appoints Nauta counsel, for the simple reason the court won’t brook delays that are simply delaying tactics. Judicial economy underlies all of this.

Then again, there are reports of a possible superseding indictment in Florida, which might bring in more defendants, but would certainly bring more charges against Trump. And argue even more strongly for severance of the cases. Or, again more likely, that Nauta gets a lawyer assigned, because the case against Trump is the case against Nauta. And that case should not be delayed (the government has legitimate interests in justice delayed being a bad thing), nor should the government be forced to try its case twice.

In the end it’s less the language of a rule than it is the decision (and discretion) of the court, as is true in all matters legal. That’s why you can seldom say “This is how it must be.” I think Cannon’s previous abuse of process (the court’s lack of jurisdiction in the documents dispute. Jurisdiction is like pregnancy; it’s there, or it isn’t. There is no “a little bit” about it.) was clear cut; but it took months to resolve. Still, in the end, it moved rapidly. The 11th circuit didn’t like what it saw, and took care of it. I thought all along the rules were clear. But it took a court ruling to make it so. That was how it must be, but it didn’t move at the speed of a breaking news cycle.

In the end, will there be delays in Florida? Not, I think, because of Nauta. If the court severs him and Trump loses in trial (as he will), is Trump still disposed to pay Nauta’s legal fees? That’s a practical consideration for Nauta. He might even get counsel who urges him to take a plea deal, which would undoubtedly set him at odds with his sugar daddy.

There’s a lot that can happen here, very little of it likely to get Trump a trial postponement until 2025.


Posted by at 1 comment:

Well, Not Bad…

 Raises one question:

Yet I also believe that affirmative action — though necessary — has inadvertently helped create a warped and race-obsessed American university culture. Before students ever step foot on a rolling green, they are encouraged to see racial identity as the most salient aspect of their personhood, inextricable from their value and merit.
When, pray tell, was any aspect of American life not race-obsessed?

American universities were once gender obsessed, by this argument. Harvard was for men, Radcliffe for women. The church I pastored as a seminary student could recall when men sat on side of the church (the pulpit side) and women and children on the other. Blacks were not citizens but apportioned as 3/5ths of a person until the 13th Amendment. But no Constitutional Amendment banned segregation laws, and those laws only finally started to fall in 1964. 59 years ago, if you’re counting.

“Race obsessed” didn’t start in the 1970’s. Don’t pretend it did, or that it can be discarded by judicial, or op-ed, fiat.
Many prestigious institutions have themselves racially gamified the admissions process, finding ways to maximize diversity without making dents in their endowments. For example, some colleges and universities boost diversity statistics on the cheap by accepting minority students who can pay full freight. And even purportedly need-blind institutions seem to have a remarkable track record of recruiting minority students who don’t need financial aid. (By some estimates, over 70 percent of Harvard’s Black, Latino and Native American students have college-educated parents with incomes above the national median.)
What, exactly, is the point here? Harvard has a notoriously rigorous curriculum. Students from families with no college background would probably find it overwhelming. And the assumption that every student in America needs to at least be able to get into Harvard is dubious at best. Considering the caliber of who the Ivies produce (Cruz and DeSantis spring to mind), I’m having trouble seeing the absolute advantage of them. But Harvard wants its students to succeed, as any good school does (what’s the point in flunking everyone out? You can’t really sustain an educational program like that for long.). It makes sense to bring in students who have the ability to succeed. Why admit students who don’t have the support system, especially far from home?

Granted, she gets there in the end:
Remember that racial gamification is just that: a game. Ignore anyone who would have you believe that attending Ivy League universities — with their endowments as large as a reasonably sized country’s nominal G.D.P. — is the only path to happiness or success or racial equality. Civil rights leaders did not endure the dogs and the cold baptism of the fire hoses in the hopes that one day their children’s children could become Ivy-minted venture capitalists and management consultants. Remember that Martin Luther King Jr. did not dream of a multiracial oligarchy and that the “vaults of opportunity” of which he spoke are not hidden only behind a golden door at Yale University. There are other paths in life that do not require gaming anything. Remember that hope is wherever you find yourself.
But I’m not sure the starting point is forgiven by the beginning. If I was grading this as an essay in Freshman Comp, I’d have serious problems with the structure. If I didn’t know these quotes all came from the same essay, I’d say the they were from different people. And yet two different twitter accounts (at least) retweeted this approvingly.

Perhaps this is just an example of how complicated this matter is, and how much of it falls outside the scope of an op-ed, or a Twitter thread, or… a blog post.
Posted by at No comments:

Asha Rangappa Has Insights

As well as an interesting analysis of the majority opinion. And so do some of her followers:
Schools in my East Texas town desegregated in 1970, 16 years after “separate but equal” was declared unconstitutional. When I moved to “liberal” Austin in 1977, the fight over desegregation continued into the ‘80’s. And Austin notoriously underfunded schools in the “poor” side of town, v. the rich side, into the early’90’s when I moved away. Guess who lived, by racial category, in each “side”.

It took a generation, at least, to dismantle, or start to, what Brown declared could no longer be the law of the land. Do we really think, another generation in, that we’re all done here?
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, June 29, 2023

Trump Is Going To Be So Glad He Leaked That Tape

But Trump is delaying the Florida trial with Nauta’s lack of counsel, and he always wins those fights!

The team of federal prosecutors working under Special Counsel Jack Smith is currently prepared to add an “additional 30 to 45 charges” in addition to the 37-count indictment brought against Mr Trump on 8 June, either in a superseding indictment in the same Florida court or in a different federal judicial district. In either case, they would do so using evidence against the ex-president that has not yet been publicly acknowledged by the department, including other recordings prosecutors have obtained which reveal Mr Trump making incriminating statements.
Trump as also makes attorneys get attorneys:
Additionally, it is understood that Mr Smith’s team is ready to bring charges against several of the attorneys who have worked for Mr Trump, including those who aided the ex-president in his push to ignore the will of voters and remain in the White House despite having lost the 2020 election.
Posted by at 1 comment:

White Privilege Is Color Blind

Because white is not a race. And I am sure “legacy” means not only “predominantly white” but also predominantly rich.

But money is not discrimination, right? The Constitution is certainly not colorblind. But it does know that it’s money that matters.
Posted by at No comments:

That Would Be The Year…

...we elected the most avowedly racist POTUS since Woodrow Wilson? Race had nothing to do with it! “White” is not a race! See? Only white people benefit! No affirmative action involved!

Told you I was mickle in my wroth…
Posted by at No comments:

Sentence First! Verdict After! Or Not At All

Evidence? Trial? Who needs that shit?
I heard you yesterday refer to them as a crime family, and this was organized crime," Fox News host Steve Doocy told Comer. "So make it easy for us. What was the crime?" 
"Well, the crime is trading policy for money," Comer stated. 
"Which policy?" Doocy pressed. 
"Well, we're going to get into that," Comer replied before offering policies that he could not connect to foreign money sources. 
"I mean, look, Joe Biden has on day one, he changed our energy policy in America that put China first and America last," the Republican lawmaker said. 
"So you're saying because members of the Hunter Biden family and the extended Joe Biden family got money through various foreign entities, including things like things from China, that the president is compromised," Doocy pointed out. 
"Absolutely," Comer insisted. 
"How's he compromised?" Doocy wondered. 
"He's compromised because he's taken so much money from China," Comer insisted.
Posted by at No comments:

Yeah, That’s The Problem

Local school district has students who change addresses every three months (one step ahead of eviction). They go home to empty apartments in the afternoon, have no quiet place to study. During covid when schools were closed and classes were on-line, they had to drive around looking for internet access. Or they just did without.
“I think that this is tantamount to sticking a dagger in our back because what they have said now is that it is unconstitutional to even consider race," Sharpton told MSNBC on Thursday. 
"And given the racial history of the country, let's not act like Blacks are behind because there's something in our genes that made us behind." 
The host noted that it was illegal for Black people to read or write just 160 years ago. 
"We were enslaved 246 years," he continued. "So it is to completely throw to the wind the history of why we needed Affirmative Action in the first place." 
"And I think it is unimaginable not to consider race, given the history of this country and given the data that we still see in this country," Sharpton said. 
"Blacks are still 10 percent less in terms of family wealth than whites. We are still less in education."
But the Civil War! The ‘64 Civil Rights Act!

Or, as LBJ said, you can’t take the shackles off a man after 400 years and say: “Okay, now win the race.” We did this over 400 years. We invented “race” so we could do this. Now we want to uninvent “race,” because it is convenient to us to do so.
Who knew the Constitutional amendments were so lacking in self-awareness? Speaking of which: Funny how it’s just a distraction when it benefits white people. Speaking of which: Best you just sit this one out, asshole. That’s not the self-description you think it is, lucky sperm club.
With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces 'colorblindess for all' by legal fiat," she wrote. "But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. And having so detached itself from this country's actual past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work... institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America's real-world problems." 
“The best that can be said of the majority's perspective is that it proceeds (ostrich-like) from the hope that preventing consideration of race will end racism," she said. "But if that is its motivation, the majority proceeds in vain. If the colleges of this country are required to ignore a thing that matters, it will not just go away."
I would love for Conway and the 14th Amendment to tell me why Justice Jackson is wrong.
Posted by at No comments:

Critical Race Theory Inaction; Or, Please Don’t Hurt The White People

I am mickle in my wroth, but Justice Jackson is right. So is Justice Sotomayor. A 5-3 decision, because while she filed a dissent, Jackson recused herself from the hearing or decision of the case. CJ Roberts protects white people from America’s hidden wound. Sotomayor points out those days are over (“How long, O Lord, how long?”). Justice Thomas hates black people.

Remain at status quo ante, IOW.  Quelle surprise.


N.B. in response to rustypickup: MSNBC noted that, at oral arguments, Roberts rebuffed an argument from Harvard Law School on the analogy that the Civil War was fought to end racism(basically). It’s as white a privilege argument as I’ve ever hear.

I’ll have to read the opinions. I’m sure it’s in there somewhere.
Posted by at 1 comment:

It’s That Simple

 Anybody still remember the E. Jean Carrol trial? Where Trump denied ever entering the doors of Bergdorf Goodman or knocking who Ms. Carroll is, or denying that she was his “type,” and thus he couldn’t have raped her? Anybody remember it was a classic “she said/he said” conflict where the jury had to struggle with the issue of who to believe, because it was her word against his, his against hers?

Neither does the jury, because that’s not the way the trial happened. The trial happened without Trump ever appearing in court, because had Trump appeared, he might have been called by Ms. Carroll to testify. Defendants in civil suits don’t have a 5th Amendment protection. That’s primarily why Trump was in Ireland for the trial; and why he’ll be in court for the criminal trials. And why he can’t really put on the defenses he’s trying to make now to the Florida indictment. It’s his words (he has several scenarios available) against the witnesses. And he won’t take the stand, anymore than he did when he abandoned the country to avoid testifying. He simply can’t afford to. What comes off as “successful” in media reports is absolutely disastrous IRL.

To legal observers and, indeed, to pretty much anyone who could hear, the audiotape sounded like an admission of guilt. But this is Trump, a serial liar for whom an obvious defense presents itself: that he was not telling the truth to his visitors when he claimed to be showing them secret papers. And, sure enough, by Tuesday, Trump told reporters on his way back from a New Hampshire campaign appearance, “It was bravado, if you want to know the truth”—bravado here being a Trump synonym for “bullshitting.” This is the 2023 equivalent of dismissing the “Access Hollywood” tape as mere “locker-room talk” that had nothing to do with Trump’s actual behavior toward women. He even suggested that the papers he is heard shuffling through were just “building plans.” For Trump, it’s better to be a liar than a convict.

”Legal observers” understand something Ms. Glassier, for the sake of her narrative, doesn’t want to: Trump can’t raise this defense in the courtroom. He can’t do it because he can’t testify. Even Joe Tacopina wouldn’t let Trump testify in the civil case, and his client’s liberty wasn’t at stake there. If Trump testifies in Florida, it’s all over but the shouting. His lawyers would withdraw from the case rather than represent him at that point. And the fact Trump went to Ireland rather than be in court for the Carroll trial indicates even Trump understands this. Trump is a serial liar who plays the media like a fiddle, but he understands that, in the courtroom, he has no power at all. His defense of lies is useless because, if he starts spewing them, they will be challenged; and he will lose.

It’s that simple.

Trump can praise his performance after the fact, or call the interviewer “nasty, “ even complain they didn’t smile in the interview. He can do all that safely through social media or to another, even more fawning, interviewer. But he can’t do it IRT, and he can’t do it under cross-examination, where his every word can be subject to challenge. Trump wilts at challenge. He folds, he fades, he collapses. He has a retort later, when the challenger is gone. Whenever he faces actual pushback, one on one, without a cheering audience of minions, he drops like an empty suit.

There is no audience to play to in a courtroom, no escape from the insistent questioner, no opportunity to call the interrogator “nasty.” Judges don’t put up with that, and Donald Trump is cowed in the presence of judges. He can make up defenses in accounts the media will dutifully report.

He can’t do that in court. He can’t afford to.

Posted by at No comments:

Problems Without Solutions

Imagine Bernie Sanders declaring in one of his Presidential campaigns that he would eliminate the DOD. Oh, and DOC and DOE (for the same reasons Rick Perry wanted to; because Perry thought it promoted oil exploration). Give all that to DHS; it’s not bloated and ungainly enough yet. And what does managing the nuclear arsenal have to do with “woke ideology”? "We don’ need no steenken’ TAXES!” And same question as before: how do you use the IRS to get rid of “woke ideology”?

DeSantis really needs to stop trying to make “woke” happen. Even in the America of the hidden wound which is racism, it’s too blatantly racist. And sexist. And homophobic. And plain nasty. 

There’s a reason Christie rises in the polls as DeSantis sinks: DeSantis is boring, now. And Christie bashing Trump has, for the moment, entertainment value. But there’s still no voting until January. All of these shows are gonna get real boring by then.
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, June 28, 2023

Los Tres Bobos


Third in line to the Presidency due to an accident of who holds the House majority. Everybody worries about the strength of the Presidential and VP candidates in the tough situations, but nobody votes on their Representatives based on who will be Speaker and third in line to the hottest seat in the country. Or at best, only a handful of the country does.

Helluva system we’ve got here.
When does he reveal his secret plan to prove Trump won in 2020?  Emphasis on "communist” for the Boomers out there who think Halley is hotter than shirtless RFK, Jr. Or Ivanka. I find this more disturbing (and nauseating) than the Access Hollywood tape. And end birthright citizenship? And kill “woke”? I guess after the first 90 days he can just take a long vacation. All our trials will be over. And yet he keeps sinking in the polls.

Lagniappe:
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)