Who was this? Brockton?Quote:
Originally Posted by wdenis2212
Printable View
Who was this? Brockton?Quote:
Originally Posted by wdenis2212
Keep scrolling:
https://x.com/TheHoustonWade/status/1824394411889004623
This thread has been dead for over 2 weeks... so I thought I'd revive it. ;)
https://apnews.com/projects/january-6-cases/
by Michael Kunzelman, Alanna Durkin Richer, Cal Woodward
The Associated Press has spent more than three years tracking the nearly 1,500 Capitol riot cases brought by the Justice Department. AP reporters have reviewed hours of video footage and thousands of pages of court documents. They have sat through dozens of court hearings and trials for the rioters who descended on the Capitol and temporarily halted the certification of President Joe Biden’s victory. These videos represent a mere fraction of the evidence that prosecutors have presented to juries and judges deciding these cases.
"Inside Washington’s federal courthouse, there’s no denying the reality of Jan. 6, 2021. Day after day, judges and jurors silently absorb the chilling sights and sounds from television screens of rioters beating police, shattering windows and hunting for lawmakers as democracy lay under siege.
But as he seeks to reclaim the White House, Donald Trump continues to portray the defendants as patriots worthy of admiration, an assertion that has been undercut by the adjudicated truth in hundreds of criminal cases where judges and juries have reached the opposite conclusion about what history will remember as one of America’s darkest days.
The cases have systematically put on record — through testimony, documents and video — the crimes committed, weapons wielded, and lives altered by physical and emotional damage. Trump is espousing a starkly different story, portraying the rioters as hostages and political prisoners whom he says he might pardon if he wins in November.
“This is not normal.
This cannot become normal.
We as a community, we as a society, we as a country cannot condone the normalization of the January 6 Capitol riot.”
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth
There are no broadcast television cameras inside the E. Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse on Constitution Avenue. But the real story of Jan. 6 is found in the mounds of evidence and testimony judges and juries have seen and heard behind the doors of the courthouse where hundreds of Trump’s supporters have been convicted in the attack.
It’s unclear whether Trump will ever stand trial at the same courthouse in the federal case alleging he illegally schemed to overturn his 2020 election loss in the run-up to the violence. The Supreme Court’s ruling that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution means a trial won't happen before the election.
If he wins, he could appoint an attorney general who could seek dismissal of the case, or potentially order a pardon for himself.
In Trump's telling, the mob on Jan. 6 assembled peacefully to preserve democracy, not upend it, and the rioters were agitated but not armed. They were not insurrectionists but rather 1776-style “patriots." And now they are being persecuted by the Justice Department, juries and judges for their political beliefs.
His relentless attempts to rewrite history have become foundational to the Republican's bid for another term, with campaign rallies honoring the rioters as heroes while an anthem plays in their name.
He was an invited guest for a “J6 Awards Gala” fundraiser at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, for those charged with crimes connected to the riot. His campaign later said he wouldn’t attend the fundraiser, which was then postponed. Organizers did not respond to requests for comment.
When pressed during a recent event, Trump said he "absolutely" would pardon rioters who assaulted police — if they were “innocent." When the interviewer noted she was talking about convicted rioters, Trump replied that they were convicted “by a very tough system.”
It’s part of an effort to undermine faith in the nation’s justice system that has escalated since Trump's conviction on 34 felony charges in his New York hush money trial. Even more than that, it’s fuel for a campaign of vengeance Trump says will come if he wins.
“Those J6 warriors, they were warriors, but they were really more than anything else — they’re victims of what happened,” Trump said in a rally after his conviction. Falsely claiming the rioters were “set up” by police, he appeared to threaten revenge: “That blows two ways, that blows two ways, believe me.”
In response to several questions from the AP about Trump's support of the Jan. 6 defendants and pledge to pardon the rioters, Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said in an email: “Kamala Harris and Joe Biden’s Department of Justice has spent more time prosecuting President Trump and targeting Americans for peacefully protesting on January 6th than criminals, illegal immigrants, and terrorists who are committing violent crimes in Democrat-run cities every day."
Many Republicans have lined up behind Trump to minimize the violence and push these lies: Police welcomed the mob into the building. Undercover FBI operatives and left-wing antifa activists instigated the attack.
His running mate, JD Vance, has echoed Trump's claims that Jan. 6 defendants are being treated unfairly, referring to them in a 2022 social media post as “political prisoners," and describing their “captivity” as "an assault on democracy.”
The disinformation campaign has taken root in a vast swath of the country. About a year after the attack, only about 4 in 10 Republicans recalled it as very violent or extremely violent, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll. Three years after the riot, a Washington Post-University of Maryland poll found about 7 in 10 Republicans said too much is being made of it.
And now some of the same lawmakers who blamed Trump for the riot are supporting his bid to return to the White House. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell endorsed Trump’s campaign this year after condemning the former president as “morally responsible” for what McConnell called a “failed insurrection.”
To be sure, not all members of the mob engaged in violence. Hundreds of people who went into the Capitol but did not attack police or damage the building were charged only with misdemeanors. And the Justice Department has dropped a felony obstruction charge in some cases after the Supreme Court ruled in June that prosecutors applied it too broadly.
Investigators have documented a number of firearms in the crowd, along with knives, a pitchfork, a tomahawk ax, brass knuckle gloves and other weapons. One rioter was captured on camera firing a gun into the air outside the Capitol. Others used makeshift weapons to attack police, including flagpoles, a crutch and a hockey stick.
Judges and juries have heard police officers describe being savagely attacked while defending the building. All told, about 140 officers were injured that day, making it “likely the largest single day mass assault of law enforcement” in American history, Matthew Graves, the U.S. Attorney for Washington, has said.
Trump has said no one was killed on Jan. 6. In fact, a Trump supporter, Ashli Babbitt, was fatally shot by police while trying to climb through the broken window of a barricaded Capitol doorway. Authorities cleared the officer of any wrongdoing after an investigation. Three other people in the crowd died of medical emergencies. At least four officers who were at the Capitol later died by suicide. And Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick collapsed and died after engaging with the protesters. A medical examiner later determined he died of natural causes.
Juries have watched videos of rioters calling for violence against then-Vice President Mike Pence and select lawmakers. They've seen far-right extremists in the run-up to the riot talk of civil war and revolution. They’ve heard congressional aides recount running to safety as the mob roamed the halls in search of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others.
And judges have watched hundreds of rioters admit to breaking the law, many expressing remorse for falling for Trump's stolen election lies — falsehoods he continues to spread. Some rioters have defiantly parroted Trump’s rhetoric in court, with at least two defendants shouting “Trump won!” after learning their sentences.
Lamberth said in his nearly four decades on the bench, he "cannot recall a time when such meritless justifications of criminal activity have gone mainstream.”
“I have been shocked to watch some public figures try to rewrite history, claiming rioters behaved ‘in an orderly fashion’ like ordinary tourists, or martyrizing convicted January 6 defendants as ‘political prisoners’ or even, incredibly, ‘hostages,’” the judge wrote in court papers."
The country has gone full-scale SICK. Donald Trump has singlehandedly brainwashed countless Minions... coerced them to commit acts of violence and insurrection... convinced said Minions of his ridiculous lies... and made the U.S of A. a laughing stock in the opinion of many developed countries around the world.
I never liked Hillary Clinton... but maybe we should reconsider that one word that got her in so much trouble in 2016:
DEPLORABLES
Looks like he lost the debate then. Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who invented half the present day Republican candidates' language and the dial thing that focus groups of voters turn up and down when they're watching politicians to show their approval or disapproval of what they're saying just said that he thinks the debate cost Trump the election:
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/republic...e-performance/
I am not so sure. This guy has forgotten more about polling and elections than I'll ever know but I do know that this election is going to come down to less than a million swing voters in half a dozen states. These voters largely don't watch debates and vote on vague notions of whatever issues are currently getting their attention. In this election I think most of them are going to vote for Trump because inflation was low back when he was in office. Forget about trying to explain why inflation happened and the lack of ability of any president to do anything about it and you're wasting your breath. What they know for sure is inflation was low under Trump and he says he can cut prices for them. He's a great businessman who understands the economy so I believe him and I'm going to vote for him.
In crucial states like Pennsylvania in the last election Trump was underpolling by about five points. In other words the polls showed Biden with five points more support than the election result did. Harris is up by two or three points in a lot of these swing states and I don't think this is going to be enough. There were five points of shy Trump voters last time and I think there could easily be more this time. I'm sure a lot of people don't want to say to a pollster I'm voting for the insurrectionist.
I hope I'm wrong but I think that shambolic mess from last night* is going to win in November. And he's going to spend the next couple of months just being full on fascist and threatening to jail anybody who he doesn't like and so on and people are still going to vote for him. It's just horrific.
https://twitter.com/ruthbenghiat/sta...07511300579498
Sonia Sotomayor needs to retire right the fuck now. Announce it on Monday and we can have some nice confirmation hearings to raise the saliency of abortion as an election issue.
* I saw about two minutes on twitter. I just can't stand watching him.
If Trump wins, it's going to be because:
1. He's managed to hopelessly divide the nation into warring factions, while in the process emboldening those who thrive on hate, ignorance, and rah-rah dumbshit speeches.
2. He's managed to throw so many monkey wrenches into the credibility of the electoral process, EVERYTHING is now questionable.
No other reason.
https://i.ibb.co/Drd1RB6/Screenshot-...n-forecast.png
This is from forecaster Nate Silver who you've probably heard of. The first seven states in this list are the seven states which will decide the election, we already know which way the other states will vote. Harris is only ahead by basically two points of less which is more or less the margin of error. Trump is probably underpolling by several points in all of these states. If the election was held tomorrow I'd expect him to sweep all seven.
https://i.ibb.co/zb6fmLN/GXDF7-Fw-Xg-AMp0e0.jpg
Look at this headline. Amazing eh? Even in the liberal media NYT and Washington Post you don't see them describe Trump like this. And forget about national TV channels. Every time he comes out with some outright fascism like this every media outlet should have it front and centre, look what the fascist said today. I'm not sure it would do anything to change the election, there appear to be significant numbers of fascists in America who are fine with multiple lawbreaking, sexual assault and the rest of it. But at least tell people the truth instead of ignoring it. It shouldn't just be regional newspapers covering this.
The media are covering the horse race when they should be covering the stakes.
What's amazing is that the headline is from the Orlando Sentinel, a newspaper from the state where Trump enjoys his biggest lead.
So they proudly trumpet his revenge motives... but still vote for him.
They should grant Florida its independence.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/republic...s-hard-to-say/
After the last election when Trump was impeached Mitt Romney says there were a bunch of GOP senators who would have voted guilty but were too scared to. If Trump had been found guilty he couldn't have run again.
Romney was the only GOP senator to vote guilty and did so while spending 50k a day on security for himself and his family. He's much wealthier than almost all senators so could afford to do it, almost all of them couldn't do it.
From what little I've seen of him this guy looks to be a genuine fascist, not somebody just scared of Trump and his cult and scared to vote against him. But the fact remains the GOP is as a whole terrified of its own voters. It's banana republic stuff and it's going to get bad of Harris wins.
Sonia Sotomayor, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Also Trump at least right now has bottled out of another debate:
https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/stat...38556208206185
This is an interesting read:
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/a...american-right
"What's your plan for health insurance"...Trump answer was basically 'all we had was Obama care, but we made it good' :flamed:. Liberally 8 years in and running for the oval office and you get "well I have a concept of a plan". FFS. The higher tariffs he wants question turned into a pisser. Trump got away with a lot of unchallenged belligerence and steamrolled the moderators with "gimme a minute" follow ups that ran into the carnival mirror fantasy land that is his mind right now. But in the and he really did get Rope-a-dopped.
There will be no rematch!
Trump rules out another presidential debate against Harris
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn9l9500vg7o
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
They could maybe have brought up the fact he claimed he had a plan in 2016 but it turned out to be a request to the senate to come up with a healthcare plan within sixty days. They actually did. The GOP senate healthcare plan was ...... a capital gains tax cut. Their plan was to scrap Obamacare and leave the problem of providing healthcare of uninsured people to the states. Which was exactly the position that existed before Obamacare came along and managed to insure ten percent of the population. The subsidies that enabled the ten percent to be insured came from a tax on capital gains which would be abolished if Obamacare was scrapped.
Or they could have asked him about the tariffs he imposed in 2017. These were on various imported products like washing machines. Turns out tariffs are a tax on Americans, that's the whole point of a tariff, it makes imported goods more expensive than similar domestically produced goods and means people buy the domestically produced goods. Except what actually happened was American producers put their prices up in line with the foreign goods price increases and just made more profit. Or they could have asked him why he gave tariff waivers to super wealthy corporations like Apple and whether imposing tariffs on all imported goods might leave open the possibility of a president giving waivers to favoured firms over other firms maybe in exchange for monies paid in various ways. Of course the first thing I think about when I think of Donald Trump is financial probity so I'm sure that wouldn't happen. It's not like a similar system and a corrupt president caused Argentina to go from being one of the world's foremost economies to being Argentina. And of course there's the massive inflation that across the board tariffs would inflict on the American economy. Or retaliatory tariffs from other countries and what they would do to American exports.
There are lots of questions that the liberal media could ask Trump about his policies considering there's a track record with endless other corrupt looking stuff just on these two issues that I haven't covered in this post to keep it reasonably brief. They want a four thousand page policy document from Harris due to the fact that she's flipped on a few things she said running in a nomination primary like every other pol running for party nomination does. Trump can flip flop his abortion position three times in the last week with no blowback but Harris needs to explain in detail stuff from a years ago nomination race when every single journalist knows all pols play to their base. It would be nice to see a bit of consistency. Never mind. I think he's going to win anyway.
Some interesting bits and pieces.
A bunch of Reagan administration people back Harris:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ronald-...s-walz-ticket/
Tariffs explained to the New York Times:
https://jabberwocking.com/tariffs-ar...rk-times-says/
Springfield asked the immigrants to come:
https://twitter.com/SwissWatchGuy/st...86852117926201
And there's only a couple of thousand of them there according to the census bureau and BLS. And they arrived some time ago.
Donald Trump’s Bedminster golf club hosted a convicted Jan. 6 rioter and alleged Nazi sympathizer twice this summer, where he was celebrated and gave speeches. At one event, Trump sent a video praising the attendees as “amazing patriots.” At the other, he won an award.
https://twitter.com/TomDreisbach/sta...07890208768212
Click the link. Look at the photograph. Just look at it. :)
Grandma is going to have her social security payment slashed to alomst nothing but she's going to be making so much money picking strawberries she'll come out ahead. The GOP plan for mass deporation and to solve social security without asking rich people to chip in:
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/sta...81629647737060
This guy is actually pretty good on how things work for a pundit:
https://www.slowboring.com/p/house-r...an-for-america
https://www.slowboring.com/p/trumps-...class-tax-hike
https://www.slowboring.com/p/obamaca...s-back-and-its
Donald Trump infamously said at the presidential debate he had the “concept of a plan” to replace Obamacare. As is often the case when Trump commits verbal self-harm, it fell to J.D. Vance to turn his car wreck of a statement into an intelligible position.
What Vance came up with is not only surprising but, if understood properly, far more damaging than Trump’s original statement. The Trump plan, according to Vance, is to permit insurance companies to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions.
Vance explained the Trump plan during an interview with NBC’s Kristen Welker: “He, of course, does have a plan for how to fix American health care, but a lot of it goes down, Kristen, to deregulating insurance markets, so that people can actually choose a plan that makes sense for them.”
Vance is advocating a partial or complete return to the system that existed before Obamacare. In that world, prior to 2014, it was very difficult to find affordable coverage unless you were on Medicare, Medicaid, or got insurance through your employer. There was a market for individual insurance, and it was possible to buy plans if you didn’t get coverage through a government plan or through work. But that market was dominated by “adverse selection” — the only way insurers could make money was to weed out any customers likely to need medical care.
Cheap plans could be sold to people who were young and healthy. Oftentimes, those plans denied coverage for any preexisting condition, or had hidden limits on the amount the insurer would have to pay, so if you got very sick, you would discover you faced ruinous costs not covered by your insurance.
Obamacare turned that dysfunctional individual market into a market that offered affordable plans even for people who aren’t young and healthy. It did this by restricting the degree to which insurers can charge higher rates based on age (they can only make older customers pay a maximum of three times the rate they charge young customers). More importantly, it prevented insurers from screening out customers with a preexisting condition or denying coverage for necessary procedures.
Those regulations do have costs. They prevent insurers from cherry-picking young and healthy customers with cheap bare-bones plans — which means young and healthy people might pay more than they did before Obamacare. But it also means the individual insurance market actually makes coverage and medical care available to people who need it.
In the early stages of Obamacare’s rollout, Republicans hoped and believed the ACA exchanges would collapse. Republicans predicted a “death spiral,” in which customers refused to buy insurance in the exchanges and rates went up, driving out more customers and causing rates to climb further, until the exchanges no longer functioned. That did not happen. More than 20 million people now get insurance through the individual market.
But at the time, Republicans fervently believed the death spiral would happen, and they devised a plan in response. The plan was to roll back Obamacare’s regulations. Insurers would be permitted once again to cherry-pick the market for young and healthy customers. Luring young and healthy customers into the markets with cheap plans, Republicans argued, would end the death spiral.
Republicans don’t talk about this idea much any more, because the basis for it (the Obamacare death spiral) has failed to occur and because letting insurance companies discriminate against people with preexisting conditions is horribly unpopular.
Vance tries to pitch this idea in the friendliest possible way, but the idea is unmistakable. Vance explains that Trump wants to:
implement a deregulatory agenda so that people can pick a health care plan that fits them. Think about it: a young American doesn’t have the same health care needs as a 65-year-old American. And a 65-year-old American in good health has much different health care needs than a 65-year-old American with a chronic condition.Vance is correct that young people have different needs than old people, and healthy people have different needs than sick people, and putting them all in the same risk pool means charging young people more than they would otherwise pay. (Again, insurers can currently charge old customers up to three times the rate they charge the young — Vance thinks they should be able to charge the old even more.) What he doesn’t tell the audience is that allowing insurers to give cheaper plans to the young and healthy means letting them charge more — much, much more — to people who aren’t young and healthy. Perhaps some people have a member of their family who has an expensive medical condition. Those people would be unable to obtain decent coverage, as was the case before Obamacare.
We want to make sure everybody is covered, but the best way to do that is to actually promote more choice in our health-care system and not have a one-size-fits all approach that puts a lot of the same people into the same insurance pools, into the same risk pools, that actually makes it harder for people to make the right choices for their families.
Understanding health-care policy is a siloed journalistic skill, and Welker did not seem to recognize the radicalism of Vance’s plan. Instead, she summed up his answer, “What I hear you’re saying is Obamacare stays in place.” That is close to the opposite of what Vance said — he announced that Trump wants to reverse the regulatory protections in Obamacare that have made the individual markets affordable for people who have preexisting conditions or imperfect health records. Trump’s concept of a plan would take access to medical care away from millions of Americans.
Understanding health-care policy is a siloed journalistic skill.
He's taking the piss here. It's embarrassing that a national Sunday show journalist ( I think this was on Meet The Press ffs) doesn't know Janet and John level facts about how Obamacare operates. But I'm certain she does and just doesn't want to get into it with Vance because then she's going to be attacked as being part of the liberal media. You can't have a job like that and not know basic stuff.
It was the spring of 2018 and President Donald J. Trump, faced with an accelerating inquiry into his campaign’s ties to Russia, was furious that the Justice Department was reluctant to strike back at those he saw as his enemies.
In an Oval Office meeting, Mr. Trump told startled aides that if Attorney General Jeff Sessions would not order the department to go after Hillary Clinton and James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, Mr. Trump would prosecute them himself.
Recognizing the extraordinary dangers of a president seeking not just to weaponize the criminal justice system for political ends but trying as well to assume personal control over who should be investigated and charged, the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, sought to stall.
“How about I do this?” Mr. McGahn told Mr. Trump, according to an account verified by witnesses. “I’m going to write you a memo explaining to you what the law is and how it works, and I’ll give that memo to you and you can decide what you want to do.”
[...]
Even as they made that argument, the lawyers remained so concerned about being ignored by Mr. Trump that they smuggled drafts of the memo out of the White House complex so they would have a record of their efforts to restrain him if his demands for retribution got him, and them, in political and legal trouble.
They were right to be worried.
Within a month, Mr. Trump plunged ahead with one of his most successful efforts to have a Democratic critic investigated. He publicly demanded and ultimately got an inquiry by federal prosecutors into whether John F. Kerry, the former secretary of state, had broken the law by remaining in contact with Iranian diplomats while Mr. Trump was moving to end a nuclear deal with Tehran that Mr. Kerry had helped to negotiate during the Obama administration.
The Kerry investigation was not an outlier.
Through the rest of Mr. Trump’s time in office, he never let up on pressuring federal agencies to take action against his perceived enemies even as he was counseled against it by aides like Mr. McGahn and John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff from the middle of 2017 until the beginning of 2019.
Those who would find themselves facing down the power of the federal government ranged from high-profile figures like Mrs. Clinton to F.B.I. officials like Mr. Comey to people formerly in Mr. Trump’s personal orbit like Michael D. Cohen, his former lawyer and fixer, and Omarosa Manigault Newman, a former contestant on “The Apprentice” who worked in communications at the White House in 2017.
Mr. Trump’s efforts were so sustained and troubling to top West Wing aides that at least two of them took from the White House notes they had written that memorialized how he said he wanted to use the powers of the federal government against his rivals.
In a few of the cases where Mr. Trump wanted investigations, there was legitimate basis for action. But in many others, there was little or no legal justification. None resulted in a criminal conviction.
[..]
Mr. Trump sought to use the government to go after four broad categories of perceived enemies and critics.
One was F.B.I. officials, whom he sought to portray as biased or corrupt as they investigated him. Another was political rivals, whom he sought to tar with allegations of the same kind of wrongdoing, like collusion with foreign countries, that he was under investigation for.
He also wanted government power deployed against news organizations that produced coverage he did not like, as well as against people from his personal and business life he felt had betrayed him.
His most intense focus was on F.B.I. officials who were involved in the Russia investigation. They included Mr. Comey, Mr. McCabe and Mr. Strzok, all of whom would come under the scrutiny of the Justice Department and, in the case of Mr. Comey and Mr. McCabe, who were subjects of unusual and invasive I.R.S. audits. (A later investigation by the tax agency’s inspector general found no evidence that the audits could be traced back to political pressure.)
Mr. Trump also pushed aggressively for an investigation based on his belief that the entire Russia investigation stemmed from a conspiracy against him by intelligence or law enforcement agencies. Mr. Barr named a special counsel, John H. Durham, to undertake that inquiry. It ended without uncovering anything like the plot suspected by Mr. Trump.
https://dnyuz.com/2024/09/21/as-pres...ften-got-them/
Worth reading the whole thing. This is what's coming if he wins in November. There's going to be nobody in a top job at the DOJ who will stop him. He'll have either appointed them from his list of tenth rate yes men who supported the coup and will support any level of illegal acts he wants to pursue or the career people who work there will resign and he'll just press on without them.
741 former high-ranking national security officials (233 general and flag officers) signed letter endorsing Kamala Harris for president. 15 four-star generals, 10 former cabinet secretaries, 10 service secretaries, and Repub leaders who served under Trump.
https://twitter.com/JenGriffinFNC/st...58861312598084
Trump isn't up to the job apparently.
Caught on tape
"Kim Jong Un speaks and his people stand up at attention. I want my people to do the same."
This alone should be a disqualifying statement for someone seeking to be President.
https://twitter.com/JoshEakle/status...98836115640421
The global inflation surge has receded, but it remains the single biggest reason why Donald Trump stands a terrifyingly high chance of winning a second term. Voters remain angry that prices rose, especially for groceries, and many of them believe Trump can reverse that, because food cost less when he was president.
The problem is that Trump does not have any ideas to bring down prices. His ideas would, in fact, do the opposite.
At a town hall yesterday, a voter asked Trump what he would do to bring down grocery prices. His answer, typically, rambled through various topics but did include one relevant policy response:
Our farmers are being absolutely decimated right now. And, you know, one of the reasons is we allow a lot of farm product into our country. We’re gonna have to be a little like other countries, we’re not gonna allow so much com— we’re gonna let our farmers go to work.
So, the Trump plan to make food cheaper is to restrict food imports.
That is not exactly a surprise. Trump has been touting a gigantic tariff as an elixir to solve every economic problem. As the campaign has progressed, he has seemed to grow more infatuated with its potential, casually doubling its proposed size and recommending it as the answer to an ever-wider array of problems.
There is a reasonable strong consensus for targeted tariffs for security (such as tariffs on strategic goods produced by China, a global military competitor). This second category of tariffs was designed to nurture important domestic firms that pay high wages, typically manufacturing complex goods like automobiles or airplanes. This form of tariff is rejected by most economists, but it does have some intellectual support.
Trump is proposing something that goes well beyond either of these categories. He wants to impose a tariff not just on strategic items, or even on goods related to manufacturing, but on every import, including food.
There is absolutely no economic basis for imposing a tariff on food. (You might want to protect domestic agriculture if you were reliant on imports to feed the population and worried that wartime enemies could starve you out, but that does not apply to the United States and never has.) Food tariffs simply increase food prices, for the “benefit” of impelling more of your domestic population to work in agriculture. Is there a strategic, economic, or social reason to reallocate workers from manufacturing and services (or retirement) to farm work? There is not.
It is obvious even to noneconomists that restricting food imports will cause food prices to rise, rather than to fall. But Trump does not understand even the simplest economic concepts. His mind is so fixated on zero-sum thinking that, when presented with a problem (food prices are too high), the only cause he can think of is that other countries must be hurting us, and he will resolve the problem by hurting them (preventing them from selling us food).
Republican elites are mostly ignoring this plan and hoping Trump can somehow be talked out of implementing it after he gets into office. The flaw with this plan is that Trump, for all his expertise in the areas of inheritance, tax fraud, media manipulation, and swindling, does not understand economics. He also has unlimited faith in his own brilliance. It is possible external circumstances may propel him back into the White House, but he truly has no solutions to the problems that people expect him to solve.
Bottom line:
There's TRUCKLOADS of VERY GOOD REASONS why Trump should never be allowed anywhere near the White House again.
Unfortunately, there are some unfortunate truths standing in the way.
1. The MAGA cult is immune to anything that puts Trump in a bad light. They couldn't give less of a shit what Trump says or does. The only truth (prophetic, at that) Trump has ever uttered is that he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue, and people would still vote for him.
2. The electoral process may not have been rigged with Trump lost to Biden. But you can be damn well sure it's going to fixed now. The MAGA cult has done (and is still doing) everything in their power to skew the system to let their guy win. It's a travesty... it's third-worldly shit... and it's happening before our very noses.
3. Trump uncovered a very sad and inconvenient truth. The U.S. has no shortage of racist, militant, ignorant, fanatical bastards who would willingly start another civil war over Trump. Trump may be in different places on a lot of lists. But in the list of THE MOST DIVISIVE PRESIDENTS IN U.S. HISTORY..... Trump is far away #1. No one else even comes close.
So all the Tweets, soundbites, shitty debate performances, outright lies in the world aren't going to make one damn bit of difference come November.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
Yale law grad explains what happens if Harris wins but officials refuse to certify the results:
https://twitter.com/HackingButLegal/status/1837757623665353125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
Yale law grad explains what happens if Harris wins but officials refuse to certify the results:
https://twitter.com/HackingButLegal/status/1837757623665353125
I certainly hope none of what is said in this video is of any surprise to anyone. :rolleyes:
Let's just file it under "Most Predictable Things We've Ever Heard."
So basically the elections are ALREADY rigged, as I've been shouting from the rooftops since Day One.
We're as close to anarchy as anyone can get.
If Trump wanted a civil war in the United States... he's gonna get his wish, thanks to his snake oil salesman personality, and his millions of Minions willing to break the law on his behalf.
What a total ball of SHIT.
Trump Is Hawking Silver Coins at a 210% Markup
Former President Donald Trump is promoting silver “Trump Coins,” but those looking to buy will have to pay a hefty premium well above what an ounce of silver costs.
On Tuesday, Trump retweeted a post by @Realtrumpcoins1, whose profile states it is an “Official Partner of The Trump Organization.” The post contains a 48-second video showing the coin, which has Trump’s face on the obverse. On the reverse is the White House, Trump’s signature, and the motto “In God We Trust.” The coin is one troy ounce of silver.
The post also contains a link to a website where people can “preview the coin” and join a waitlist to buy them for a cool $100.
As of this writing, the spot price for an ounce of silver is $32.
The ONLY official coin designed by #TrumpCoins pic.twitter.com/1WQQI5xFNsIt’s not uncommon for private entities to produce their own non-legal tender coins. However, the markup in excess of 210% is highly unusual. For example, typically, custom-made silver coins sell for less than $10 above the spot price of silver, but Trump is hawking the coins for more than $60 above a typical going rate. Also, the shipping cost is separate. The website features an “investment disclaimer,” which states, “The coins are intended as collectible items for individual enjoyment only, and not for investment purposes. The coins are not political and have nothing to do with any political campaign.”
— realtrumpcoins @Realtrumpcoins1) September 24, 2024
The coins are the former president’s latest cash-raising push after he’s sold Trump Sneakers, Trump NFTs, and Trump Bibles in recent months.
https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trump...-a-210-markup/
Here's the video:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...49569481285792
So trainers, NFTs, coins, Bibles, his own cryptocurrency coin and Truth Social which has already lost billions of dollars for its Trump fan investors and is absolutely worthless.
That's six scams he's running while running for president and he's probably going to win. People are absolute fucking morons.
This is the fourth episode of Autocracy in America, a five-part series about authoritarian tactics already at work in the United States and where to look for them.
The following is a transcript of the episode:
John Bolton: It started as we were going out to the NATO headquarters for the summit. He had spent the night before in the ambassador’s residence, as presidents often do. I was coming over from the delegation where we had stayed, and he called me on the car phone and said, You ready to make history today?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ar-AA1rj82x
Where America is heading if Trump and the people funding him have their way.
https://twitter.com/dieworkwear/stat...64952521687214
He's a one man shopping channel. Here's a breakdown of just how much of a scam the watches are:
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/everyth...t_id=149446583
Last but not least, the billions of dollars lost by Truth Social investors.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/26/busin...es?cid=ios_app
This kind of affinity fraud scheme is legal in democratic America due to the power and ownership of the finance/banking lobby over even Democratic administrations. Imagine the shit they'll pull if America goes autocratic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
Yale law grad explains what happens if Harris wins but officials refuse to certify the results:
https://twitter.com/HackingButLegal/status/1837757623665353125
I like how the Yale grad says it.
But I gotta admit I like how this lady says it even better. :D
https://www.youtube.com/@thejuicemedia
This is fantastic. All true as well. It's like the Daily Show used to be twenty years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanI like how the Yale grad says it. But I gotta admit I like how this lady says it even better. :D https://www.youtube.com/@thejuicemediaQuote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingYale law grad explains what happens if Harris wins but officials refuse to certify the results: https://twitter.com/HackingButLegal/...57623665353125Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
A new book by veteran Watergate reporter Bob Woodward says Donald Trump secretly sent coveted Covid-19 testing machines to Vladimir Putin for personal use when they were in short supply, a claim angrily dismissed by the Trump campaign.
The book - titled War - also includes a claim that Trump secretly has stayed in touch with Putin since leaving office, according to excerpts cited by US media.
In response, President Trump told ABC News: "He's a storyteller. A bad one. And he's lost his marbles."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c33vjjg8k3yo
https://apnews.com/article/congress-...e24c7573d6a9ff
"Election deniers moving closer to GOP mainstream, report shows, as Trump allies fill Congress"
Trump telling voters they won't have to vote again in 4 years....
Warning flags of voter subversion for 2024 all over the place... (might as well put up billboards saying MAGA will steal back the election in November)
Trump seemingly not bothered by debate results or polling numbers....
FUCKING HELL.
How many more signs do we need to know that Kamala doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell to win the election??!!??
It's one thing when something catches people by surprise.
Like a tornado or an earthquake.
THIS fucking issue is like a hurricane coming all the way from Africa as a Cat 5... and taking dead aim at the U.S.
And STILL some people will be surprised. :vd:
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standar...fa17c.jpg.webp
America PAC is awarding $1m a day to a voter who signs a petition backed by Musk
A judge has ordered Rudy Giuliani to turn over his Manhattan apartment and other valuables to two Georgia election workers as part of a defamation lawsuit.
Last year, the two election workers - Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss - successfully sued Mr Giuliani for over $140m (£106m).
Mr Giuliani, a former attorney to Donald Trump, had falsely accused them of tampering with votes during the 2020 presidential election.
In addition to the apartment, the federal judge ruled on Tuesday that Mr Giuliani must turn over his watches, furniture and sports memorabilia to Ms Freeman and Ms Moss.
The judge also ruled that Ms Freeman and Ms Moss are the beneficiaries of $2m that the one-time New York City mayor says Trump's 2020 presidential campaign still owes him.
Ms Freeman and Ms Moss asked a court last month to seize some of Mr Giuliani's assets, including multiple properties in New York and Palm Beach, Florida, as well as dozens of luxury watches, a Mercedes-Benz and other personal items.
They also sought three of his New York Yankees World Series rings, one of which is valued at roughly $30,000.
In the 24-page order released on Tuesday, the judge ruled Mr Giuliani must turn over more than two dozen watches and a jersey signed by former New York Yankees centre fielder Joe Dimaggio.
The judge deferred judgment on the World Series rings and the condo in Palm Beach.
Mr Giuliani has seven days to turn over his possessions, including the luxurious Manhattan apartment, which he previously tried to sell for $6m, according to BBC's US news partner CBS.
Mr Giuliani was stripped of his legal credentials in July after facing legal trouble for making false statements about Trump's 2020 election loss.
Separately, he has pleaded not guilty to nine felony charges in what prosecutors called a "fake elector scheme" to declare Trump the winning candidate in Arizona during the 2020 presidential election.
Mr Giuliani was charged with 17 others for his alleged role in that scheme.
He filed for bankruptcy last year after losing the defamation lawsuit to Ms Freeman and Ms Moss.
The women said they had to endure threats and harassment after being targeted by Mr Giuliani.
In July, a federal judge dismissed his bankruptcy case, leaving him without protection from his creditors.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly3y501zxvo
Harris won't do nothing for the people of Gaza. Trump wants war with Iran. I'm voting for Jill Stein. Refuse to be a slave to either party.
& yet you will vote for someone to rule over youQuote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1
Quote:
Originally Posted by TIC& yet you will vote for someone to rule over youQuote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1
Whether you vote or not... someone's always going to rule the country you live in.
voting is giving your consent to be ruled. no one has the right to rule over you
ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON, the Washington Post announced that it would not be making an endorsement in the presidential race. After that, a number of things happened very quickly.
First, the paper’s former executive editor Marty Baron called the decision “cowardice.”
Second, at least one senior Post opinion writer resigned.
Third, it was leaked that the editor of the editorial page had already drafted the paper’s endorsement of Kamala Harris when publisher Will Lewis—who is a new hire, hailing from the Rupert Murdoch journalism tree—quashed it and then released a CYA statement about how the paper was “returning to its roots” of not endorsing candidates. The Post itself reported that the decision was made by the paper’s owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.
Everything about this story feels like a tempest in a teapot, a boiling story about legacy media fretting over itself in the mirror.
It’s not.
It’s a situation analogous to what we saw in Russia in the early 2000s: We are witnessing the surrender of the American business community to Donald Trump.
Share
No one cares about the Washington Post’s presidential endorsement. It will not move a single vote. The only people who care about newspaper editorial page endorsements are newspaper editorial writers.
No one really cares all that much about the future of the Washington Post, either. I mean, I care about it, because I care about journalism and I respect the institution.
But this isn’t a journalism story. It’s a business story.
Following Trump’s 2016 victory, the Post leaned hard into its role as a guardian of democracy. This meant criticizing, and reporting aggressively on, Trump, who responded by threatening Bezos’s various business interests.
And that’s what this story is about: It’s about the most consequential American entrepreneur of his generation signaling his submission to Trump—and the message that sends to every other corporation and business leader in the country. In the world.
Killing this editorial says, If Jeff Bezos has to be nice to Trump, then so do you. Keep your nose clean, bub.
Share
We have seen this movie before.
The year was 2003, and the scene was Russia, where Vladimir Putin, still in his first term as president, had not yet let the mask slip.
Putin was carefully consolidating power and he realized that the same oligarchs who had supported him initially were also a source of danger. Their money and control of important industries—especially the media—gave them independent bases of power. And every autocrat knows that dictatorship only works when his subjects understand that the only power they may have is the power he grants them.
At the time, Mikhail Khodorkovsky was the wealthiest man in Russia. He controlled Yukos, a massive oil company he cobbled together from formerly state-owned assets. He had the kind of wealth and power that made him untouchable, and he started making noises about getting more involved in politics—maybe even running for office.
So Putin had him arrested.
You may not remember this, but the Khodorkovsky case was a major piece of international news at the time. In the West, people weren’t quite sure what to make of it. Khodorkovsky’s people waged an aggressive PR campaign on his behalf claiming that his arrest was politically motivated and that Putin was becoming a thug.
Putin’s side portrayed it as an anti-corruption move, since Khodorkovsky was no angel.
Here in the West, we were all still giddy over glasnost and the end of the Cold War. We didn’t want to believe that Russia might be plunging back into authoritarianism. So people mostly took a wait-and-see approach.
But the Russians understood.
Khodorkovsky was convicted and sent to a labor camp in the Russian Far East while the government confiscated Yukos and redistributed it to Putin’s cronies. Khodorkovsky’s money, his power, his connections—none of it could protect him from Vladimir Putin.
The rest of the oligarchs got the message. If Putin could get to Khodorkovsky, he could get to anybody.
And so the oligarchs fell in line and ceased to be a source of concern to Putin. Instead of alternative power centers, they became vassals.
Which is exactly what Jeff Bezos has just taught Jamie Dimon and every other important American businessman.
Share
These guys can hear the music. They’ve seen the sides being chosen: Elon Musk and Peter Theil assembling with Trump’s gangster government in waiting. They see Mark Zuckerberg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE7SyQWf4_U.” And now they see Bezos getting in line, too.
What’s remarkable is that Trump didn’t have to arrest Bezos to secure his compliance. Trump didn’t even have to win the election. Just the fact that he has an even-money chance to become president was threat enough.
Or maybe that’s not remarkable. One of Timothy Snyder’s rules for resisting authoritarians is that “most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given.” People surrender preemptively much more often than you might expect.
Two weeks ago, Ian Bassin and Maximillian Potter wrote what might be the most prophetic essay of the year. They warned about “anticipatory obedience” in the media.
Seventeen days later, Bezos made his demonstration.
In case you needed reminding: The “guardrails” aren’t guardrails. They’re people.
And they’re already collapsing. Before a single state has been called.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/bezos-k...drails-falling
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1
https://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.thi...phic_v2_01.jpg
[*QUOTE=TIC;1670327]voting is giving your consent to be ruled. no one has the right to rule over you[/QUOTE]
This is a very childish and naive view. If anything not voting is giving your consent to be ruled. There is no perfect system and democracy is hugely flawed but it gives you an opportunity to at least choose the least harmful of all the options. Believe me I have a lot of friends and colleagues who will swear by Anarchy or claim that 'they are all the same' and yet all those people, and you, will still spend your life using the freedoms the vast majority who voted have bestowed upon you. If are not choosing any option you are giving up your consent and just accepting whomever everyone else is choosing. Basically boasting about not wanting to consider any options and not taking any personal responsibility. Conspiracy theories offer the same cop out, easy answer platitudes that remove difficult questions from the equation. It is for you always 'They' and never you, anyone or anything specific.
choosing someone to rule over you is stupid larry. not giving consent is giving consent? you're a retard. democracy is the mob, the majority telling the minority what they can & can't do. no one bestowed freedom on me. i am a free man by virtue of being born in this world. by not playing the game & having no interest in the scam i am not accepting anyone has a right to rule over me you clown. i am responsible for my life & actions, nobody is responsible for me & no one has a higher claim of my life than me. answer this one question larry, i know you won't because you're a spastic. does one adult have the right to rule over another adult & tell them what they can & can't do with their life?
In the North Philadelphia neighbourhood of Fairhill, signs of Puerto Rico are never far off. The US island territory's red, white and blue flag adorns homes and businesses, and the sounds of salsa and reggaetón boom from passing cars and restaurants selling fried plantains and spit-roasted pork.
The area is the beating heart of Philadelphia's more than 90,000-strong Puerto Rican population and forms a key part of Pennsylvania's Latino community, which both the Democrats and Republicans have sought to woo ahead of the 5 November election.
But on Monday morning, many locals were left seething at a joke made at Donald Trump's rally the night before in New York, in which comic Tony Hinchcliffe described Puerto Rico as an "island of garbage".
The joke, some said, could come back to haunt the Republicans in a key swing state that Democrats won by a narrow margin of 1.17% - about 82,000 votes - in 2020.
"The campaign just hurt itself, so much. It's crazy to me," said Ivonne Torres Miranda, a local resident who said she remains disillusioned by both candidates - Republican Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris - with just eight days to go in the campaign.
"Even if he [Mr Hinchcliffe ] was joking - you don't joke like that.
"We're Puerto Ricans. We have dignity, and we have pride," she told the BBC, speaking in rapid-fire Spanish with a strong Puerto Rican accent.
"You've got to think before saying things."
In the aftermath, the Trump campaign was quick to distance itself from Mr Hinchcliffe's joke, with a spokesman saying the remark "does not reflect the views" of Trump or his campaign.
The Harris campaign pounced on the joke, with the vice-president pointing to the comment as a sign that Trump is "fanning the fuel of trying to divide" Americans.
Her views were echoed by Puerto Rican celebrities Bad Bunny and Jennifer Lopez, who both endorsed Harris on Sunday.
A campaign official told CBS, the BBC's US partner, that the controversy was a political gift to the Democrats.
Some Puerto Rican residents agree with that assessment.
"[The joke] just put it in the bag for us. He literally just gave us the win," said Jessie Ramos, a Harris supporter. "He has no idea how hard the Latino community is going to come out and support Kamala Harris."
Residents of Puerto Rico - a US island territory in the Caribbean - are unable to vote in presidential elections, but the large diaspora in the US can.
Across Pennsylvania, about 600,000 eligible voters are Latino.
More than 470,000 of them are Puerto Ricans - one of the largest concentrations in the country and a potential deciding factor in a state where polls show Harris and Trump in an extremely tight race.
North Philadelphia in particular has been a target for Harris, who on Sunday made a campaign stop at Freddy & Tony's, a Puerto Rican restaurant and community hub in Fairhill.
The same day, Harris unveiled a new policy platform for Puerto Rico, promising economic development and improved disaster relief and accusing Trump of having "abandoned and insulted" the island during Hurricane Maria in 2017.
Whether or not this will sway Puerto Rican voters remains to be seen.
Freddy & Tony's owner, Dalma Santiago, told the BBC that she is not sure whether the joke will make a difference but that she believed that it was heard "loud and clear" in Fairhill and other Puerto Rican communities.
"Everybody has their own opinion," she told the BBC. "But nobody will be forgetting that one."
Similarly, Moses Santana, a 13-year US Army veteran who works at a harm reduction facility in Fairhill, said he is unsure of the joke's impact.
In an interview with the BBC on a Fairhill street corner, Mr Santana said the area is traditionally weary of politicians of all kinds, with many believing that both parties have failed to address socio-economic issues, crime and drug abuse there.
"Folks around here tend not to get what they ask for," he added. "Even when they vote."
On Tuesday, Trump will campaign in Allentown, a town of about 125,000 in central Pennsylvania where about 33,000 people identify as Puerto Rican.
But even among Trump supporters in Pennsylvania's wider Latino community, the joke was poorly received.
That included Republican voter Jessenia Anderson, a Puerto Rican resident from the town of Johnstown about 240 miles (386 km) west of Philadelphia.
Ms Anderson, a military veteran who was born in New York's heavily Puerto Rican Lower East Side, is a frequent attendee of Trump rallies in Pennsylvania.
She described the joke as "deeply offensive" and said the routine felt "wildly out of place" - and implored her fellow Republicans to engage in "thoughtful and respectful conversations".
But Ms Anderson has no plan to switch her vote.
"My belief in the party's potential to make a positive impact remains strong," she said.
"I hope they will approach Latino voters with the respect they deserve."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgj7689v757o
Elon gets a whole post to himself. Not because he said something racist, but because he said something so massively dumb.
🚨ELON MUSK: "I think we can rip out at least 2T out of the wasted 6.5T Harris/Biden budget. All government spending is taxation. Your money is being wasted and the DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY is going to FIX that. We're going to get the Government off of your back, and… pic.twitter.com/uDx6jyFN1kElon used to be smart enough to do simple addition, but he thinks we can cut "at least" $2 trillion from federal spending—which amounted to $6.7 trillion in FY2024, not $6.5 trillion.
— Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) October 27, 2024
The arithmetic here is simple. If you add up Social Security + Medicare¹ + defense² + veterans pensions + interest on the debt³ you get $4.4 trillion. There's only $2.3 trillion left.
So Elon is claiming we should literally zero out the entire rest of the federal budget. Everything. The FBI, national parks, food stamps, Medicaid, education, NASA, the EPA, farm support, the NIH, all federal R&D grants, embassies worldwide, the FAA, the Department of Justice, the VA, the weather service, the border patrol, etc. etc. Everything.
What is it that didn't just move Musk to the right, but turned him into into a screaming, drooling lunatic with the effective IQ of a squirrel? I won't say I've never seen anything like it, but I've never seen it quite so unhinged from a basically sane and brilliant starting point.
¹Trump has promised not to cut either one.
²Trump has promised to increase defense spending.
³Both are legally obligated.
https://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfo...0363&noquote=1
I can answer the question here. Elon has gone all MAGA because he stand to profit enormously from it. He'll become one of the very first American oligarchs and the world's first trillionaire. So he's spouting a load of bullshit he knows is bullshit in the hopes of getting an autocratic regime. The most obvious thing he can benefit from is self driving cars. Tesla are miles behind Waymo and others and have apparently been bullshitting the markets that they're as far on as they are. He loses the race or the tech isn't good enough to get regulatory approval for driverless cars and his car company then becomes just another electric car compnay that's rapidly losing market share to others anyway. It would be worth a small fraction of its current market cap and his wealth would mostly evaporate. Put an Elon approved regulator in charge and he can do what he wants, force Waymo or whoever to sell to him and so on. Like what happened to privatised former Soviet assets in the nineties. That's just one way he can make money. All his other businesses rely on government contracts/access all over the world and not least in America. Easy to get and maintain that if you're part of the American regime.
It doesn't matter anymore but just look:
Since people seem to have missed this one, unsealed in the Smith filing:Receipts—i.e., testimony from Michigan's house speaker—are here.
-Trump used a burner phone, routed through a foreign country to contact Michigan house speaker.
-He tried to pressure the speaker in this off book call.
-Speaker McCarthy knew about the burner phone line.
-The phone showed up as “Spam Risk Egypt” on caller ID.
If the President thought his attempt to overturn the election and forge elector documents were legitimate “official acts” why was he using an insecure, foreign routed burner phone for these calls?
America is about to be absolutely looted by a small group of people. And there's no chance they're going to risk a rule of law government ever coming back into power.
So essentially you're voting for Donald Trump, a man who will let Netanyahu turn Gaza into a parking lot and annexe the West Bank.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1