Nice scambaiting. There are some youtube channels where scambaiting is what they do. They will get scammers to waste a huge amount of time and get them to do humiliating things. They can also hack into the scammer's computer and find out more about them like their real names. In one case the scambaiter allowed the scammer to access his computer (it was a virtual machine, not his own personal computer), and the scammer saw the wallpaper was his own wedding picture.
"Border czar." "Minneapolis in flames as Tim Walz fiddled" ... how odd that a small number of your educated informed readers trot out these threadbare MAGA lies that are known to be such by anyone with half a brain. Meanwhile, Harris/Walz have driven Agent Orange to the edge of insanity as he gibbers and Truths away in Mar-a-Lago.
I know someone who believes it was really generated by A.I. When I said that was false, he looked at me and said, "they proved the crowd size was a fake". I don't know who "they" are but apparently he will believe anything "they" say. I didn't argue, there was nothing I could have said that would have changed his mind.
I'm thinking of creating myself a bumper sticker featuring a picture of Mr. Don'T smirking one of his goofier facial expressions, alongside "Show compassion for dementia. But DON'T ELECT IT!" Anyone who wants to copy the idea is encouraged to run with it.
Re SCOTUS term limits and Senate delaying tricks. The appalling thing about 2016 was that McConnell had the majority in the Senate and therefore could have Garland simply voted down. His refusal to even put it to a vote was an insult to Obama. I think if there was a rule forcing a vote it would avoid this problem.
But, I think more importantly than term limits there needs to be a better mechanism for removing corrupt judges and a way to override their decisions that doesn't take decades. As it is now, both of those are virtually impossible and therefore there is no check on that branch of government, which is dangerous and contrary to the design of our system.
I'm the only person in my circle not viscerally outraged by the Garland business, for just the reason you say. They could have simply voted him down, and they would have done just that had there been a rule requiring a hearing, paying a political price comparable to the one they paid by holding no hearing (which is to say, a small one).
Both parties recognize the Supreme Court as very important. They're not wrong. I would expect them to resist the appointment of someone they can expect, broadly speaking, to rule against their side on a handful of high-profile, highly controversial issues central to their agendas.
Our current state, where we need a Senate and White House aligned to appoint a Supreme Court justice, is the culmination of decades of ideological sorting of the two parties, the rise of the conservative judicial movement to counteract conservative perception of liberal overreach, the increased prominence of court decisions in public discourse beyond just abortion, and the gradual tit-for-tat exchange of Senate rules changes. (For example, Dems get rid of the filibuster for lower court judges because Republicans are blocking them, Republicans get rid of it for Supreme Court justices in response, and so on.) Republicans like to blame Democrats for starting it with the "borking" of Bork. Seems like a stretch to me. But, either way, the situation is the result of both sides using their power in legal ways to achieve their objectives that don't strike me as illegitimate or beyond the pale, even as a matter of norms. After all, it's not as though Supreme Court justices are routinely confirmed by a Senate of the opposite party. It's only happened 3 out of 15 times since 1980.
Maybe the solution is to have justices elected, rather than appointed. Conventional rationale taught in high school says they are appointed for life so that they wouldn't be swayed by populism or short term political swings or motivations. But as we're seeing, those are supplanted by ideological and financial special interests, often contrary to the interests of the country's population at large, which is far worse, and the judges are under no incentive to police themselves or abide by the constitution.
Some states' supreme courts and many other jurisdictions already have elected judges. It would be fascinating to have some in-depth study about their performance as opposed to appointed judges (not sure how that would be measured). Maybe the terms can be set slightly longer, like for the Senate, and be staggered so the turnover is steady. But that would put a check on their power in the hands of those whose interests are really at stake - the people of the country.
I'm not a fan of elected judges, a populist reform as apt to be used or abused by the other side as our own, for the high school reason you state. There is a difference between law and policy, a difference that really does exist on the ground. Electing judges has a tendency to encourage the erosion of that difference. I would say that the federal judiciary's insulation from politics has mostly served the country well and is responsible for many decisions you and I like but would be or would have been widely unpopular, such as those protecting horrible speech on principled grounds, those enforcing racial equality, and those protecting the rights of accused criminals. Meanwhile, i doubt elected judges would have avoided the the Court's historical injustices, which probably tracked public opinion better than their principled dissenters. In addition, I very much appreciate the fact that Trump could not count on even federal judges he appointed to assist in his bogus election claims.
I don't agree that the present court is uniquely corrupt. I do believe they have judicial philosophies informed by ideological leanings, but that's true of any judge, the liberals as well as the conservatives. Although I'm perfectly in favor of stricter ethics rules for justices, I don't actually think that the conservatives' motivations are significantly colored by financial interest. Thomas, for example, is a true believer, and he would decide as he does without the RV.
I'm not opposed to the concept of 18-year term limits, though I think it has constitutional problems absent an amendment and, perhaps more importantly, wouldn't solve the problem of a White House and Senate at odds anyway. As such, it wouldn't guaranty partisan balance. Meanwhile, pushing for it, especially if it would kick off current judges prematurely, smacks of political interference with judicial decision-making, akin to court-packing, and would serve as an invitation for the other side to be more bold in doing the same when they're in charge. Put it this way: If our interest in "judicial reform" is ignited and fueled almost entirely by the fact that we don't like the decisions of a more conservative court, whereas we were fine with the prior ones, it seems that we rest our arguments on shifting ground.
Of this court's decisions, just two strike me as legally and utterly indefensible, and one of those was unanimous: Trump v. Anderson and Trump v. U.S. And I frankly doubt the long-term practical damage of either one.
Eric - I'm disappointed to see that you appear to be supporting the Harris effort to reinvent herself and disavow so many of her previously held positions. I take exception to your statement that Harris has never been the "Border Czar". While there is of course no official role by that title, It was widely used by many mainstream news outlets after President Biden delegated authority to Harris for border security.
She was officially tasked by President Biden on March 24, 2021, “to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle…in stemming the movement of…migration to our southern border.”
The Washington Post reported that Biden was “giving Harris the lead role on the overall border and regional issue,” while outlets like Axios labeled her the Border Czar. Here is the official White House record of Biden giving Harris this responsibility.
The US Department of Homeland security reports over 8 million documented illegal immigrant encounters, and of course that number doesn't include the getaways that were not apprehended illegally coming into our country. And just this past week, DHS reported that over 400 individuals on the terrorist watch list have been admitted into our country crossing the border during the current administration compared to 14 during the Trump administration.
The flood of illegal immigration into this country under the Biden / Harris administration is the primary concern of many citizens and a salient voting issue. And I'm guessing this is just one of the many reasons that Harris continues to duck any interviews aside from her 77 seconds of taking a couple questions from reporters in the pool traveling with her on the airport tarmac last week. And also the reason that she to date his only accepted a single debate with Trump instead of the three that he and other networks have proposed.
Kudos to the Harris political handlers for shielding much of the American public from her far left views. The question is whether she will be allowed to continue to hide herself from press and voter scrutiny much longer. Stay tuned...
I agree that Harris must shoulder some responsibility for the border woes, but it’s hard to take any Republican claims on the issue seriously when their candidate ordered them to kill the bipartisan border bill.
Hi Steve - that was terrible legislation that simply codified a very high level of ongoing illegal immigration and funded more for processing people into the country instead of keeping them out. We need to do much, much better, and that is one of the reasons for the high level of support for Trump in the belief that he will do so.
No legislation is perfect but this one would have gone a long way toward a fix, with broad support from both sides of the aisle until the FPOTUS vetoed it.
Did you read the White House speech transcript you linked to? She was given a specific task of dealing with the Northern Triangle countries to try to alleviate some of the conditions causing mass migration— not told to create or oversee "the border." Mainstream news outlets were lazy and wrong to use the term "Border Czar," and if you’d read that link you’d know you are lazy and wrong to repeat it.
That said, I agree with you that Harris needs to engage these and other questions with neutral reporters in interviews and news conferences. Trump "debates" are kind of a circus, but yeah, why not 3.
I don't know EZ, but when she says "we can chew gum and walk at the same time", I think she is referring to her previous sentence that she will "enforce the law".
"Well, thank you, Mr. President and for having the confidence in me. And there’s no question that this is a challenging situation. As the President has said, there are many factors that lead precedent to leave these countries. And while we are clear that people should not come to the border now, we also understand that we will enforce the law and that we also — because we can chew gum and walk at the same time — must address the root causes..."
Czar, not a Czar. Who cares? First this is another commonplace of the media and politicians to invent a name that they think is catchy and embrace or reject it based on its popularity. Czar has been used many times before. The idea that anyone that claims to be anti-authoritarian would also embrace the title is evidence of the general lack of thought given their word choices. Also, it seems unlikely that the Biden administration objected to the appellation at the time. Given the broad and rapid adoption by the media at the time, it fueled the notion that something really significant was being done. I never saw an administration comment that said - 'hang on, she's just looking at root causes that we hope might have some long-term value in policy making, the VP is not a czar'.
But back to who cares about the name. I would like the VP or administration to tell us what positive results she produced in whatever role they will admit that she had. It would also be interesting to know if she identified the dramatic increase in border crossings by people not from the Americas.
David, your own comment is internally inconsistent. You quote that Harris was tasked “to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle . . . in stemming the movement of . . . migration to our southern border.” So she was to work with Mexico and the nations in the Northern Triangle to stem the movement of people to the border, not to work with our own Department of Homeland Security to stem the movement of people across our southern border. The latter task, which Harris was not given, could be characterized as “border security,” but the former, addressing the root causes of the migration, could not under any circumstances be considered “border security.” Yet you falsely state that “President Biden delegated authority to Harris for border security.” Well, I guess if your guy is losing, lying may be all the Republicans have left. Responsibility for border security is delegated by law to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security which includes U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The person President Biden charged with border security, among other things, was the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas. In the role actually assigned to her, Harris secured a commitment from the private sector to invest over $5 billion to promote economic opportunities and reduce violence in the region.
There are other falsehoods in your comment, including your statement that 400 individuals on the terror watch list have been admitted into our country, but I’ll save that for another comment.
The CAF program may be a good idea and is a good thing to discuss. But to-date, the investments that are being added up to show success are no different from the long-term investments. And the companies involved are the same - PepsiCo, Cargill, multiple textile producers, etc. Improving these economies, particularly if it also shifts production out of China/Asia is a good capitalist/free market approach. One that is typically not lauded by progressives, many of whom prefer to focus on the exploitation of labor, etc.
There are also activities by Mexico and Central American countries to restrict migration. It would be interesting to know if Harris takes credit for them or endorses them.
Ah Dave, maybe you should mention both Donald Trump and JD Vance are working hard to bring voters over to the Democrats.
Nice presentation with Elon. And JD couldn’t be more helpful.
Trump is sputtering with small crowds (when he is not resting). And JD is pretty much unpopular with everybody…even some Republicans.
When your opponent is shooting himself in the foot, it is just really smart politics to let him do it.
And while you whine about the border, women’s healthcare becomes a bigger and bigger issue…and it is really hurting Trump and the Republicans.
Trump is elderly hateful, old news and losing his grasp of reality. Project 2025 comes out with Republican issues and then Trump disavows them. He is busy trying to find out what issues will keep him out of jail.
His increasing orange complexion should match his jumpsuit.
I agree with David. That's the way I remember it. I live in Chicago, 4 years ago I didn't see too many migrants, now there everywhere, including one block from where I live. Democrats need to grow a brain here and somehow show some accountability yet some kind of solution at the same time. Don't take independent voters as idiots, they know better. After 3 years of the Democrats in the White House this race shouldn't even be close except they didn't do as good of a job as they think they did.
Dave, while you continue with your immigrant paranoia, let us deal in real facts.
A registered Republican who is NOT an immigrant killed one person and wounded two others at a Trump rally. He also grazed Mr. Trump.
It looks to me that we have a gun problem. Legal purchase of the gun does not appear to solve anything here.
It also looks like the threat comes from young white non-immigrant men. And to be honest, I have not seen any immigrants with assault weapons. Maybe we need to track these wacko non- immigrant white men more closely.
I think you are looking at potential threats while REAL threats are in your face if you care to see them.
David, my comments were from two different posts. You seem to want to MAGA twist them into your own agenda.
David L. blathered on about how many more potentially dangerous immigrants are coming in to this country, while we have a non immigrant actually killing and wounding Trump supporters and grazing Trump. I think Dave is worried about potential problems when REAL problems are staring him in the face. His paranoia is showing when he continues to talk about immigrant threats when he ignores actual threats that has happened because it does not fit his agenda.
And now to my second post. Read it Dave! I posted that the Olympic team showed the diversity of America. Do you deny the team was diverse? Next, I saluted their success. And last, I mentioned folks like you choose to ignore praising their success because it did not fit their agenda. Read the post, I never accused anyone of wanting the Olympic team to fail. But Dave, tell me true, if the team had performed badly, would you have used diversity as one reason for their failure?
And now to your MAGA logic, where did I mention DEI being taught in the schools?
It is not there Dave, it is your MAGA mind projecting things that are not there.
Pete, never have voted for Trump, never will. So please be more careful lumping everyone who tries to talk you off the ledge as MAGA and “folks like you”. Loved the Olympics and almost all the participants. (That Jakob Ingebrigsten kinda rubbed me the wrong way.)
“And now” to your 1st point. I think there might be 1 or 2 or more crimes from illegal immigrants that have moved beyond “potential”. I will respond to your posts individually next time so it will be easier for you to follow.
I think that your RealClearPolitics mention to Steve K. probably went over his head. Especially since he mentioned Tulsi Gabbard as a possible VP pick.
Gabbard served honorably in the military and Congress, and was decorated for combat for her service. Her “apostasy” appears to consist of holding some leeriness about the rather hard left turn that her former party has taken in many areas. Because she holds very moderate political views, her presence on the ticket (and I recommended her for President, not VP, which you would have noticed if you had bothered to read) would have been a crucial pull in swing states. I thought that this point would have been obvious, but I forgot that some people need to have pictures drawn for them.
And while we’re at it, here’s another one I’ll draw for you: when someone says that a candidate is “running away” with an election, that means that they are surging to a commanding lead. The RealClearPolitics poll that was cited confirmed my point, which was that the race is a dead heat (Trump is ahead in 5 of the 7 swing states, which you would have noticed if you were capable of comprehending polling data, but that does not appear to be the case).
I realize that people who can’t be bothered to even capitalize their own first and last names are probably not the most reliable adepts of literacy aptitude, but that’s why there are people like me to help. See, you learned a couple of new things today!
I didn’t have the fortitude to keep the conversation going, but the email I received was ostensibly from a cousin in Washington who said she had just had a knee replacement. I sent back get well wishes and got the request to buy an Apple gift card. A call to my cousin’s cell phone was answered “Hi! I’m not in the hospital“. Apparently her address book got hacked and I was not the first one to call and check.
I find the controversy around boxer Imane Khelif so interesting. She was born with female genitalia and a female reproductive system, but the usual suspects, Trump, the MAGA people, JK Rowling, etc., are calling her a man and shamed her throughout the Olympics and afterwards. Did Imane have genetic advantages when it comes to boxing? As my kids used to say, “Duh!” Every athlete on the Olympic level has genetic advantages. You don’t see a lot of short people playing Olympic basketball. Consider the genetic advantages of 6’9” Brittney Griner. As I’ve said before, the genetic advantages, if any, possessed by transgender women after they transition are no greater than the genetic advantages that occur naturally in women. And the movement to ban transgender women from sports is really not about “fairness,” but about excluding transgender people from society. It’s about being creeped out by transgender people. It’s about cis-sexual privilege. And ultimately, it’s about hatred of transgender people.
Where do you see that she has a female reproductive system? I know Twitter is saying that, but I see no evidence of that, and I doubt it. There is evidence however that she has XY chromosomes. The IBA said that she failed a test they later confirmed was a chromosome test. Yeah, yeah, they're a Russian organization, and Russia sucks, etc., but I don't see why that would lead them to double- and triple-down on this particular point.
She probably had a disorder of sexual development that resulted in the prevention of the generation of a penis and external male genitalia -- leading to her identification of female at birth -- but rather internal testes that produce male levels of testosterone outside the female range, male sexual development at puberty, and all the athletic advantages -- huge, undeniable ones, as in, bigger, faster, stronger -- that go along with that.
Your arguments about how people naturally differ anyway misses an obvious point. If we take that idea to heart, it completely destroys the entire rationale for women's sports. You might as well say, Well, let's just have gender-blind sports leagues, and let the best rise to the top, whatever physical advantages they may happen to have. Some are stronger and faster and taller or whatever, so they'll do better, so fine.
But we already have that! It's male sports. If Brittney Griner could compete in the NBA, she'd get the call. I'm not aware that any male sports leagues actually forbid females. It's just that there aren't any who could play with the boys at that level or really any serious level, from the pros on down through college and highs school. Another way of putting it: you wouldn't see many women on any podium at the Olympics if the games weren't sex-segregated. Does anyone seriously doubt this?
Thus, the point of women's sports is to establish leagues where a category of persons -- a super large one, filled with lots of amazing athletic talent and competitive spirit -- can compete at high levels despite their inherent physical, biological limitations in relation to men that would otherwise systematically consign members of that group to the lowest ranks or no ranks. Ask even Serena Williams how she would fare against men at a comparable level. Her response, on Letterman in 2013, was revealing. It wasn't, "Well, I don't know." It was more like, no way, are you kidding? Letterman was surprised. He sees a tough obviously amazing athletic talent -- someone who seems plenty fast and strong to him, someone who would no doubt kick his ass and that of every guy he knows -- and thinks, sure, why not? But, as she put it in relation to men's competitive tennis, "It's just a different game."
And why is it a different game? Because of physical sex differences. It's that simple, and yet it seems like lots of folks are really invested in denying or obfuscating this obvious fact that pretty much everyone knows and that undergirds the whole idea of women's sports.
Do you think women's sports have a different rationale? Do you oppose women's sports, i.e., sports closed to non-females? Would you let an undisputed dude fight women in competitive boxing? What if that dude identifies as female but is in no way female other than that self-identification? If your answers to those questions are no, I think you have to explain why someone who is very probably male in the ways that matter in an athletic context -- and no mere mannish woman -- should be permitted to compete in the women's competition.
As for your broadsides about cis-privilege, and hatred of transgender people, and exclusion of transgender people from society, and being grossed out by transgender people, I have to say that I think you may be right about some people, but I think you're really way wrong about a whole lot of people -- most people I know, for example, who are generally progressive -- who really are genuinely concerned with the fairness point -- one that strikes them as obvious and common sense -- and, more broadly, the sex equality point that has done so much good, progressive work to establish girl's and women's sports as a cultural force. Indeed, this issue has zero to do with trans issues, because these competitors aren't trans at all.
Completely agree. And Joanie’s analogy to Brittany Grenier is ridiculous. If we had a category of sports for people, 6 feet tall and under, because she identified as under 6 ft it would be very unfair to allow Grenier to play in that category. We have a category for women only. One must come up with a way to determine who is in that category based on the reason we have that category. I think there is a strong reason to think that the boxer has XY chromosomes and a DSD. Ifthat weren’t the case it defines comprehension that she would not have taken a simple non invasive DNA test and released the results.
“The International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced last month that for the first time in history, the Paris Games will feature full gender parity on the Olympic fields of play. Transgender inclusion has had no negative effect on participation and parity at the Olympics, or any other level of participation. This fact mirrors research on transgender participation showing U.S. states with inclusive policies have more girls and women participating in sports than states with bans.
Reporters must note the (IOC) released guidelines more than two years ago to support transgender participation, written in consult with medical, athletic and human rights professionals, stating there should be “NO PRESUMED ADVANTAGE BASED ON SEX ASSIGNED AT BIRTH OR SEX CHARACTERISTICS.”
I guess you two know more than the experts who drafted the IOC guidelines. 🤷♀️
Transgender women aren’t men. After my surgery, my testosterone level was lower than that of the average cis-gender woman my age. And I lost my upper body strength rather quickly.
Change of pace, I watched the Olympics. The Japanese team looked…well Japanese. The American team had folks of all kinds of ethnic and racial backgrounds. There was not any “typical” American.
But that was the point, Americans are diverse, kind of DEI.
The team represented America well. They had spirit, competed fairly and were very successful.
Salute to you American Olympians!
MAGA folks like to disparage diversity as somehow being the cause of problems. I am sure they would have raised this issue if the American team “failed”.
So they do not praise the team, they just let it pass. Does not fit with their desire for a white “Christian” America.
A "Meh" crop of VTotW today, saved only by the Nesting cement truck.
Like you, I knew nothing about Gov. Walz before Harris picked him. My sister and her family live in Rochester, MN, and love him. In my view, he seems to balance the ticket nicely. His policies may be what today's Trumpists/Republicans/conservatives call "leftist" or "communist", but he has a way of explaining them in a way that makes them appear sensible and reasonable (because they are). HIs background seems so midwestern/middle America-grounded so as to be tough to attack - long-time high school History/Civics teacher/High School Football Coach/Army Reserve. He was the sponsor of his high school's LGBTQ Club because he reasoned that students of that persuasion needed support, and in his town in MN it needed an unassailable teacher sponsor: hetero family man w/wife and kids, respected long-time football coach. Clearly a selfless act. And the Republicans seem to be failing at their attempts to Swiftboat/tar him (or the press is not as docile as they were when Kerry was running). No wonder Trump is still babbling on about President Biden - he has no idea how to attack his current opponents.
Agree. Walz is a great, warn, fuzzy politician. He is good at extemporaneous speaking and presenting ideas. I have always said that Trump is a terrible politician and frequently misses opportunities for policy debate in favor of despicable blather. I would think that he could get much better traction around the 'tax and spend' policies in Minnesota, the state's low growth rate, net out migration (particularly high income out, low income in), fraud in state programs, and Walz ties to the NEA (which seem very similar to our mayor). I'm glad Trump is bad at this, but I would like to know what we are getting when Trump loses.
I thoroughly enjoyed your Dad's explanation of the principle behind shotspotter! Wrapped in an interesting personal story, with a little humor, he made a somewhat complicated concept so easily accessible. My grandfather was a geometry professor and one of my fondest memories of him was when he helped me with a homework problem that had nearly driven me to tears before he just happened to visit. Your Dad's letter reminded me of that. Thank you for sharing it!
I was told as a kid that there was a one mile distance for every second between lightning and thunder. I’m embarrassed to say I believed that many years after I had the math knowledge to figure it was closer to 4.8 seconds. Funny how the things you’re told as a child will stick with you even when mathematics and common sense says they probably aren’t true. 😉
Yeah. I figured 3600 seconds in an hour, speed of sound 767mph. 3600/767= 4.8 seconds. So about 1100 feet per second. Speed of light is 670 million mph, so the “light”ning reaches you a tad quicker. 😂😂
Since I normally have a lot of respect for others in this forum, I am rather disappointed by some of the responses to the Democratic vice-presidential pick. Some of them almost sound like GOP talking points. I honestly knew almost nothing about Walz before he was announced as the pick. Look, when talking about the response to the Floyd riots, what was the reaction of Minneapolis city officials, the first line of defense? What exactly a lack left radical? By common definition, a liberal is someone more concerned with human needs than wallets. This might not be fiscally sensible, but it is more attractive to me than the the far right determining that everyone is on their own, regardless of circumstances. I also remind myself that we are talking about the vice-president, not the president. In other words, he wouldn't have much say unless something happened to Harris. Unlike others, I can't vote for or against someone based merely on the possibility of them ending up in the White House. Eric also made another point that I had previously made. Harris was never at any time the "border czar". What authority did she have? She was not a member of either the Justice Department or Homeland Security. She had no military authority. Her only Congressional authority was to break ties in the Senate. This meant she had no ability to determine the rules or amass any money for the effort. Who came up with the name anyhow? There is no such position in the government and Biden never actually gave her the job. Current government rules would not have allowed him to do it. Look, people, I don't know that I'm a big Harris fan. I don't think she had a sterling record as a prosecutor and seems to have forgotten that her job was to protect the public from accused criminals, not coddle them. (Does the name Kim Foxx ring a bell?). But she is still running against Trump. That's a determining factor for me. Let's not turn this forum into Faux News. By the way, see the latest Burger Boy claim? There weren't any people around to see Harris at a rally in Detroit. Pictures of thousands of people were all A1 generated. For all the talk about Biden senility, Trump is sane and sensible?
I appreciate your fair-mindedness given your political beliefs. No politicians are perfect but I have respect for all within the normal range of US politics--from the social democratic left to center-left to centrists to center right to non-MAGA right. Those outside that range deserve contempt and those contemptables/ deplorables who incite violence deserve jail sentences.
I read a good joke today in the media that I thought I would share with you. Top GOP leaders are urging Trump to stop insulting Harris and stick to issues. That's rich! Trump cannot stop insulting Harris any more than he can stop breathing or ingesting McDonalds. And since when does Burger Boy listen to advice?
Nice scambaiting. There are some youtube channels where scambaiting is what they do. They will get scammers to waste a huge amount of time and get them to do humiliating things. They can also hack into the scammer's computer and find out more about them like their real names. In one case the scambaiter allowed the scammer to access his computer (it was a virtual machine, not his own personal computer), and the scammer saw the wallpaper was his own wedding picture.
"Border czar." "Minneapolis in flames as Tim Walz fiddled" ... how odd that a small number of your educated informed readers trot out these threadbare MAGA lies that are known to be such by anyone with half a brain. Meanwhile, Harris/Walz have driven Agent Orange to the edge of insanity as he gibbers and Truths away in Mar-a-Lago.
Michael, you are right. The lies are fueled by desperation.
Peter, so you mean his post about her large crowd sizes being fake and generated by A.I. is a desperate lie? I'm shocked, shocked, to learn this.
I know someone who believes it was really generated by A.I. When I said that was false, he looked at me and said, "they proved the crowd size was a fake". I don't know who "they" are but apparently he will believe anything "they" say. I didn't argue, there was nothing I could have said that would have changed his mind.
I'm thinking of creating myself a bumper sticker featuring a picture of Mr. Don'T smirking one of his goofier facial expressions, alongside "Show compassion for dementia. But DON'T ELECT IT!" Anyone who wants to copy the idea is encouraged to run with it.
Re SCOTUS term limits and Senate delaying tricks. The appalling thing about 2016 was that McConnell had the majority in the Senate and therefore could have Garland simply voted down. His refusal to even put it to a vote was an insult to Obama. I think if there was a rule forcing a vote it would avoid this problem.
But, I think more importantly than term limits there needs to be a better mechanism for removing corrupt judges and a way to override their decisions that doesn't take decades. As it is now, both of those are virtually impossible and therefore there is no check on that branch of government, which is dangerous and contrary to the design of our system.
I'm the only person in my circle not viscerally outraged by the Garland business, for just the reason you say. They could have simply voted him down, and they would have done just that had there been a rule requiring a hearing, paying a political price comparable to the one they paid by holding no hearing (which is to say, a small one).
Both parties recognize the Supreme Court as very important. They're not wrong. I would expect them to resist the appointment of someone they can expect, broadly speaking, to rule against their side on a handful of high-profile, highly controversial issues central to their agendas.
Our current state, where we need a Senate and White House aligned to appoint a Supreme Court justice, is the culmination of decades of ideological sorting of the two parties, the rise of the conservative judicial movement to counteract conservative perception of liberal overreach, the increased prominence of court decisions in public discourse beyond just abortion, and the gradual tit-for-tat exchange of Senate rules changes. (For example, Dems get rid of the filibuster for lower court judges because Republicans are blocking them, Republicans get rid of it for Supreme Court justices in response, and so on.) Republicans like to blame Democrats for starting it with the "borking" of Bork. Seems like a stretch to me. But, either way, the situation is the result of both sides using their power in legal ways to achieve their objectives that don't strike me as illegitimate or beyond the pale, even as a matter of norms. After all, it's not as though Supreme Court justices are routinely confirmed by a Senate of the opposite party. It's only happened 3 out of 15 times since 1980.
Maybe the solution is to have justices elected, rather than appointed. Conventional rationale taught in high school says they are appointed for life so that they wouldn't be swayed by populism or short term political swings or motivations. But as we're seeing, those are supplanted by ideological and financial special interests, often contrary to the interests of the country's population at large, which is far worse, and the judges are under no incentive to police themselves or abide by the constitution.
Some states' supreme courts and many other jurisdictions already have elected judges. It would be fascinating to have some in-depth study about their performance as opposed to appointed judges (not sure how that would be measured). Maybe the terms can be set slightly longer, like for the Senate, and be staggered so the turnover is steady. But that would put a check on their power in the hands of those whose interests are really at stake - the people of the country.
I'm not a fan of elected judges, a populist reform as apt to be used or abused by the other side as our own, for the high school reason you state. There is a difference between law and policy, a difference that really does exist on the ground. Electing judges has a tendency to encourage the erosion of that difference. I would say that the federal judiciary's insulation from politics has mostly served the country well and is responsible for many decisions you and I like but would be or would have been widely unpopular, such as those protecting horrible speech on principled grounds, those enforcing racial equality, and those protecting the rights of accused criminals. Meanwhile, i doubt elected judges would have avoided the the Court's historical injustices, which probably tracked public opinion better than their principled dissenters. In addition, I very much appreciate the fact that Trump could not count on even federal judges he appointed to assist in his bogus election claims.
I don't agree that the present court is uniquely corrupt. I do believe they have judicial philosophies informed by ideological leanings, but that's true of any judge, the liberals as well as the conservatives. Although I'm perfectly in favor of stricter ethics rules for justices, I don't actually think that the conservatives' motivations are significantly colored by financial interest. Thomas, for example, is a true believer, and he would decide as he does without the RV.
I'm not opposed to the concept of 18-year term limits, though I think it has constitutional problems absent an amendment and, perhaps more importantly, wouldn't solve the problem of a White House and Senate at odds anyway. As such, it wouldn't guaranty partisan balance. Meanwhile, pushing for it, especially if it would kick off current judges prematurely, smacks of political interference with judicial decision-making, akin to court-packing, and would serve as an invitation for the other side to be more bold in doing the same when they're in charge. Put it this way: If our interest in "judicial reform" is ignited and fueled almost entirely by the fact that we don't like the decisions of a more conservative court, whereas we were fine with the prior ones, it seems that we rest our arguments on shifting ground.
Of this court's decisions, just two strike me as legally and utterly indefensible, and one of those was unanimous: Trump v. Anderson and Trump v. U.S. And I frankly doubt the long-term practical damage of either one.
Eric - I'm disappointed to see that you appear to be supporting the Harris effort to reinvent herself and disavow so many of her previously held positions. I take exception to your statement that Harris has never been the "Border Czar". While there is of course no official role by that title, It was widely used by many mainstream news outlets after President Biden delegated authority to Harris for border security.
She was officially tasked by President Biden on March 24, 2021, “to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle…in stemming the movement of…migration to our southern border.”
The Washington Post reported that Biden was “giving Harris the lead role on the overall border and regional issue,” while outlets like Axios labeled her the Border Czar. Here is the official White House record of Biden giving Harris this responsibility.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/03/24/remarks-by-president-biden-and-vice-president-harris-in-a-meeting-on-immigration/
The US Department of Homeland security reports over 8 million documented illegal immigrant encounters, and of course that number doesn't include the getaways that were not apprehended illegally coming into our country. And just this past week, DHS reported that over 400 individuals on the terrorist watch list have been admitted into our country crossing the border during the current administration compared to 14 during the Trump administration.
The flood of illegal immigration into this country under the Biden / Harris administration is the primary concern of many citizens and a salient voting issue. And I'm guessing this is just one of the many reasons that Harris continues to duck any interviews aside from her 77 seconds of taking a couple questions from reporters in the pool traveling with her on the airport tarmac last week. And also the reason that she to date his only accepted a single debate with Trump instead of the three that he and other networks have proposed.
Kudos to the Harris political handlers for shielding much of the American public from her far left views. The question is whether she will be allowed to continue to hide herself from press and voter scrutiny much longer. Stay tuned...
I agree that Harris must shoulder some responsibility for the border woes, but it’s hard to take any Republican claims on the issue seriously when their candidate ordered them to kill the bipartisan border bill.
Hi Steve - that was terrible legislation that simply codified a very high level of ongoing illegal immigration and funded more for processing people into the country instead of keeping them out. We need to do much, much better, and that is one of the reasons for the high level of support for Trump in the belief that he will do so.
No legislation is perfect but this one would have gone a long way toward a fix, with broad support from both sides of the aisle until the FPOTUS vetoed it.
Did you read the White House speech transcript you linked to? She was given a specific task of dealing with the Northern Triangle countries to try to alleviate some of the conditions causing mass migration— not told to create or oversee "the border." Mainstream news outlets were lazy and wrong to use the term "Border Czar," and if you’d read that link you’d know you are lazy and wrong to repeat it.
That said, I agree with you that Harris needs to engage these and other questions with neutral reporters in interviews and news conferences. Trump "debates" are kind of a circus, but yeah, why not 3.
I don't know EZ, but when she says "we can chew gum and walk at the same time", I think she is referring to her previous sentence that she will "enforce the law".
"Well, thank you, Mr. President and for having the confidence in me. And there’s no question that this is a challenging situation. As the President has said, there are many factors that lead precedent to leave these countries. And while we are clear that people should not come to the border now, we also understand that we will enforce the law and that we also — because we can chew gum and walk at the same time — must address the root causes..."
You can call me "wrong", but not "lazy". :)
Czar, not a Czar. Who cares? First this is another commonplace of the media and politicians to invent a name that they think is catchy and embrace or reject it based on its popularity. Czar has been used many times before. The idea that anyone that claims to be anti-authoritarian would also embrace the title is evidence of the general lack of thought given their word choices. Also, it seems unlikely that the Biden administration objected to the appellation at the time. Given the broad and rapid adoption by the media at the time, it fueled the notion that something really significant was being done. I never saw an administration comment that said - 'hang on, she's just looking at root causes that we hope might have some long-term value in policy making, the VP is not a czar'.
But back to who cares about the name. I would like the VP or administration to tell us what positive results she produced in whatever role they will admit that she had. It would also be interesting to know if she identified the dramatic increase in border crossings by people not from the Americas.
David, your own comment is internally inconsistent. You quote that Harris was tasked “to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle . . . in stemming the movement of . . . migration to our southern border.” So she was to work with Mexico and the nations in the Northern Triangle to stem the movement of people to the border, not to work with our own Department of Homeland Security to stem the movement of people across our southern border. The latter task, which Harris was not given, could be characterized as “border security,” but the former, addressing the root causes of the migration, could not under any circumstances be considered “border security.” Yet you falsely state that “President Biden delegated authority to Harris for border security.” Well, I guess if your guy is losing, lying may be all the Republicans have left. Responsibility for border security is delegated by law to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security which includes U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The person President Biden charged with border security, among other things, was the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas. In the role actually assigned to her, Harris secured a commitment from the private sector to invest over $5 billion to promote economic opportunities and reduce violence in the region.
There are other falsehoods in your comment, including your statement that 400 individuals on the terror watch list have been admitted into our country, but I’ll save that for another comment.
https://hoodline.com/2024/03/vice-president-harris-secures-over-5-billion-in-private-investment-for-central-america-to-tackle-migration-causes/
The CAF program may be a good idea and is a good thing to discuss. But to-date, the investments that are being added up to show success are no different from the long-term investments. And the companies involved are the same - PepsiCo, Cargill, multiple textile producers, etc. Improving these economies, particularly if it also shifts production out of China/Asia is a good capitalist/free market approach. One that is typically not lauded by progressives, many of whom prefer to focus on the exploitation of labor, etc.
https://www.thecentralamericangroup.com/foreign-direct-investment-in-central-america/
There are also activities by Mexico and Central American countries to restrict migration. It would be interesting to know if Harris takes credit for them or endorses them.
https://apnews.com/article/ecuador-china-visas-agreement-migration-5f44c3c0ad6bbb2b86aedb1e5a9798f3
https://apnews.com/article/mexico-guatemala-immigration-us-migrants-1ee5bea3e55f5210856fd3e3ecc4423c
Or the actions by Homeland Security ot address immigration fraud
https://apnews.com/article/cnhv-cubans-haitians-nicaraguans-venezuelans-parole-border-8440fe7e468dc985fb8939ccaa1be8e8
Ah Dave, maybe you should mention both Donald Trump and JD Vance are working hard to bring voters over to the Democrats.
Nice presentation with Elon. And JD couldn’t be more helpful.
Trump is sputtering with small crowds (when he is not resting). And JD is pretty much unpopular with everybody…even some Republicans.
When your opponent is shooting himself in the foot, it is just really smart politics to let him do it.
And while you whine about the border, women’s healthcare becomes a bigger and bigger issue…and it is really hurting Trump and the Republicans.
Trump is elderly hateful, old news and losing his grasp of reality. Project 2025 comes out with Republican issues and then Trump disavows them. He is busy trying to find out what issues will keep him out of jail.
His increasing orange complexion should match his jumpsuit.
I agree with David. That's the way I remember it. I live in Chicago, 4 years ago I didn't see too many migrants, now there everywhere, including one block from where I live. Democrats need to grow a brain here and somehow show some accountability yet some kind of solution at the same time. Don't take independent voters as idiots, they know better. After 3 years of the Democrats in the White House this race shouldn't even be close except they didn't do as good of a job as they think they did.
Dave, while you continue with your immigrant paranoia, let us deal in real facts.
A registered Republican who is NOT an immigrant killed one person and wounded two others at a Trump rally. He also grazed Mr. Trump.
It looks to me that we have a gun problem. Legal purchase of the gun does not appear to solve anything here.
It also looks like the threat comes from young white non-immigrant men. And to be honest, I have not seen any immigrants with assault weapons. Maybe we need to track these wacko non- immigrant white men more closely.
I think you are looking at potential threats while REAL threats are in your face if you care to see them.
Peter, you are gonna be my “go to” guy whenever I need to tie in two topics with no logical connections.
David L. has “immigrant paranoia” because a “registered Republican who is not an immigrant” shot at Trump?🤷♂️
And “folks” who are against DEI being taught in their schools want their country to fail in the Olympics??🤷♂️
David, my comments were from two different posts. You seem to want to MAGA twist them into your own agenda.
David L. blathered on about how many more potentially dangerous immigrants are coming in to this country, while we have a non immigrant actually killing and wounding Trump supporters and grazing Trump. I think Dave is worried about potential problems when REAL problems are staring him in the face. His paranoia is showing when he continues to talk about immigrant threats when he ignores actual threats that has happened because it does not fit his agenda.
And now to my second post. Read it Dave! I posted that the Olympic team showed the diversity of America. Do you deny the team was diverse? Next, I saluted their success. And last, I mentioned folks like you choose to ignore praising their success because it did not fit their agenda. Read the post, I never accused anyone of wanting the Olympic team to fail. But Dave, tell me true, if the team had performed badly, would you have used diversity as one reason for their failure?
And now to your MAGA logic, where did I mention DEI being taught in the schools?
It is not there Dave, it is your MAGA mind projecting things that are not there.
Pete, never have voted for Trump, never will. So please be more careful lumping everyone who tries to talk you off the ledge as MAGA and “folks like you”. Loved the Olympics and almost all the participants. (That Jakob Ingebrigsten kinda rubbed me the wrong way.)
“And now” to your 1st point. I think there might be 1 or 2 or more crimes from illegal immigrants that have moved beyond “potential”. I will respond to your posts individually next time so it will be easier for you to follow.
Oh, and of course I wouldn’t have used diversity for any failure. How could anyone?
Almost all Olympians earn their way onto their teams. Fastest times, furthest throws, highest scores, winning matches, lifting the most weight…
Re Tulsi Gabbard; she is now an actual Russian asset.
As for the cybertruck I saw my first one for real the other day & a photo of it should be in the dictionary as the definition of fugly!
I also saw one recently - gigantic and butt ugly. The kind of future truck I might have drawn when I was 12. I loved the picture.
I think that your RealClearPolitics mention to Steve K. probably went over his head. Especially since he mentioned Tulsi Gabbard as a possible VP pick.
Keep em comin…
Gabbard served honorably in the military and Congress, and was decorated for combat for her service. Her “apostasy” appears to consist of holding some leeriness about the rather hard left turn that her former party has taken in many areas. Because she holds very moderate political views, her presence on the ticket (and I recommended her for President, not VP, which you would have noticed if you had bothered to read) would have been a crucial pull in swing states. I thought that this point would have been obvious, but I forgot that some people need to have pictures drawn for them.
And while we’re at it, here’s another one I’ll draw for you: when someone says that a candidate is “running away” with an election, that means that they are surging to a commanding lead. The RealClearPolitics poll that was cited confirmed my point, which was that the race is a dead heat (Trump is ahead in 5 of the 7 swing states, which you would have noticed if you were capable of comprehending polling data, but that does not appear to be the case).
I realize that people who can’t be bothered to even capitalize their own first and last names are probably not the most reliable adepts of literacy aptitude, but that’s why there are people like me to help. See, you learned a couple of new things today!
Gabbard doesn't hold moderate political views, she flat out wants Russia to win in Ukraine & take over all of Eastern Europe.
I didn’t have the fortitude to keep the conversation going, but the email I received was ostensibly from a cousin in Washington who said she had just had a knee replacement. I sent back get well wishes and got the request to buy an Apple gift card. A call to my cousin’s cell phone was answered “Hi! I’m not in the hospital“. Apparently her address book got hacked and I was not the first one to call and check.
I find the controversy around boxer Imane Khelif so interesting. She was born with female genitalia and a female reproductive system, but the usual suspects, Trump, the MAGA people, JK Rowling, etc., are calling her a man and shamed her throughout the Olympics and afterwards. Did Imane have genetic advantages when it comes to boxing? As my kids used to say, “Duh!” Every athlete on the Olympic level has genetic advantages. You don’t see a lot of short people playing Olympic basketball. Consider the genetic advantages of 6’9” Brittney Griner. As I’ve said before, the genetic advantages, if any, possessed by transgender women after they transition are no greater than the genetic advantages that occur naturally in women. And the movement to ban transgender women from sports is really not about “fairness,” but about excluding transgender people from society. It’s about being creeped out by transgender people. It’s about cis-sexual privilege. And ultimately, it’s about hatred of transgender people.
Where do you see that she has a female reproductive system? I know Twitter is saying that, but I see no evidence of that, and I doubt it. There is evidence however that she has XY chromosomes. The IBA said that she failed a test they later confirmed was a chromosome test. Yeah, yeah, they're a Russian organization, and Russia sucks, etc., but I don't see why that would lead them to double- and triple-down on this particular point.
She probably had a disorder of sexual development that resulted in the prevention of the generation of a penis and external male genitalia -- leading to her identification of female at birth -- but rather internal testes that produce male levels of testosterone outside the female range, male sexual development at puberty, and all the athletic advantages -- huge, undeniable ones, as in, bigger, faster, stronger -- that go along with that.
https://quillette.com/2024/08/03/xy-athletes-in-womens-olympic-boxing-paris-2024-controversy-explained-khelif-yu-ting/
Your arguments about how people naturally differ anyway misses an obvious point. If we take that idea to heart, it completely destroys the entire rationale for women's sports. You might as well say, Well, let's just have gender-blind sports leagues, and let the best rise to the top, whatever physical advantages they may happen to have. Some are stronger and faster and taller or whatever, so they'll do better, so fine.
But we already have that! It's male sports. If Brittney Griner could compete in the NBA, she'd get the call. I'm not aware that any male sports leagues actually forbid females. It's just that there aren't any who could play with the boys at that level or really any serious level, from the pros on down through college and highs school. Another way of putting it: you wouldn't see many women on any podium at the Olympics if the games weren't sex-segregated. Does anyone seriously doubt this?
Thus, the point of women's sports is to establish leagues where a category of persons -- a super large one, filled with lots of amazing athletic talent and competitive spirit -- can compete at high levels despite their inherent physical, biological limitations in relation to men that would otherwise systematically consign members of that group to the lowest ranks or no ranks. Ask even Serena Williams how she would fare against men at a comparable level. Her response, on Letterman in 2013, was revealing. It wasn't, "Well, I don't know." It was more like, no way, are you kidding? Letterman was surprised. He sees a tough obviously amazing athletic talent -- someone who seems plenty fast and strong to him, someone who would no doubt kick his ass and that of every guy he knows -- and thinks, sure, why not? But, as she put it in relation to men's competitive tennis, "It's just a different game."
And why is it a different game? Because of physical sex differences. It's that simple, and yet it seems like lots of folks are really invested in denying or obfuscating this obvious fact that pretty much everyone knows and that undergirds the whole idea of women's sports.
Do you think women's sports have a different rationale? Do you oppose women's sports, i.e., sports closed to non-females? Would you let an undisputed dude fight women in competitive boxing? What if that dude identifies as female but is in no way female other than that self-identification? If your answers to those questions are no, I think you have to explain why someone who is very probably male in the ways that matter in an athletic context -- and no mere mannish woman -- should be permitted to compete in the women's competition.
As for your broadsides about cis-privilege, and hatred of transgender people, and exclusion of transgender people from society, and being grossed out by transgender people, I have to say that I think you may be right about some people, but I think you're really way wrong about a whole lot of people -- most people I know, for example, who are generally progressive -- who really are genuinely concerned with the fairness point -- one that strikes them as obvious and common sense -- and, more broadly, the sex equality point that has done so much good, progressive work to establish girl's and women's sports as a cultural force. Indeed, this issue has zero to do with trans issues, because these competitors aren't trans at all.
Cheers.
Completely agree. And Joanie’s analogy to Brittany Grenier is ridiculous. If we had a category of sports for people, 6 feet tall and under, because she identified as under 6 ft it would be very unfair to allow Grenier to play in that category. We have a category for women only. One must come up with a way to determine who is in that category based on the reason we have that category. I think there is a strong reason to think that the boxer has XY chromosomes and a DSD. Ifthat weren’t the case it defines comprehension that she would not have taken a simple non invasive DNA test and released the results.
“The International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced last month that for the first time in history, the Paris Games will feature full gender parity on the Olympic fields of play. Transgender inclusion has had no negative effect on participation and parity at the Olympics, or any other level of participation. This fact mirrors research on transgender participation showing U.S. states with inclusive policies have more girls and women participating in sports than states with bans.
Reporters must note the (IOC) released guidelines more than two years ago to support transgender participation, written in consult with medical, athletic and human rights professionals, stating there should be “NO PRESUMED ADVANTAGE BASED ON SEX ASSIGNED AT BIRTH OR SEX CHARACTERISTICS.”
I guess you two know more than the experts who drafted the IOC guidelines. 🤷♀️
https://glaad.org/fact-check-participation-and-eligibility-of-paris-2024-olympic-boxers-imane-khelif-and-lin-yu-ting/
Transgender women aren’t men. After my surgery, my testosterone level was lower than that of the average cis-gender woman my age. And I lost my upper body strength rather quickly.
A great bunch of visual jokes, except for the one mocking a person's name. It was hard to choose among the others.
I didn't take that as "mocking" her name. I thought it was clever to see Cindy Sember and translate it to "It's in December."
Ah! I only focused on the uniform, not the subtitle. To me that makes it slightly amusing, but still feels like picking on someone's name.
I completely disagree that it’s mocking her name in any way
Change of pace, I watched the Olympics. The Japanese team looked…well Japanese. The American team had folks of all kinds of ethnic and racial backgrounds. There was not any “typical” American.
But that was the point, Americans are diverse, kind of DEI.
The team represented America well. They had spirit, competed fairly and were very successful.
Salute to you American Olympians!
MAGA folks like to disparage diversity as somehow being the cause of problems. I am sure they would have raised this issue if the American team “failed”.
So they do not praise the team, they just let it pass. Does not fit with their desire for a white “Christian” America.
A "Meh" crop of VTotW today, saved only by the Nesting cement truck.
Like you, I knew nothing about Gov. Walz before Harris picked him. My sister and her family live in Rochester, MN, and love him. In my view, he seems to balance the ticket nicely. His policies may be what today's Trumpists/Republicans/conservatives call "leftist" or "communist", but he has a way of explaining them in a way that makes them appear sensible and reasonable (because they are). HIs background seems so midwestern/middle America-grounded so as to be tough to attack - long-time high school History/Civics teacher/High School Football Coach/Army Reserve. He was the sponsor of his high school's LGBTQ Club because he reasoned that students of that persuasion needed support, and in his town in MN it needed an unassailable teacher sponsor: hetero family man w/wife and kids, respected long-time football coach. Clearly a selfless act. And the Republicans seem to be failing at their attempts to Swiftboat/tar him (or the press is not as docile as they were when Kerry was running). No wonder Trump is still babbling on about President Biden - he has no idea how to attack his current opponents.
Agree. Walz is a great, warn, fuzzy politician. He is good at extemporaneous speaking and presenting ideas. I have always said that Trump is a terrible politician and frequently misses opportunities for policy debate in favor of despicable blather. I would think that he could get much better traction around the 'tax and spend' policies in Minnesota, the state's low growth rate, net out migration (particularly high income out, low income in), fraud in state programs, and Walz ties to the NEA (which seem very similar to our mayor). I'm glad Trump is bad at this, but I would like to know what we are getting when Trump loses.
I thoroughly enjoyed your Dad's explanation of the principle behind shotspotter! Wrapped in an interesting personal story, with a little humor, he made a somewhat complicated concept so easily accessible. My grandfather was a geometry professor and one of my fondest memories of him was when he helped me with a homework problem that had nearly driven me to tears before he just happened to visit. Your Dad's letter reminded me of that. Thank you for sharing it!
I was told as a kid that there was a one mile distance for every second between lightning and thunder. I’m embarrassed to say I believed that many years after I had the math knowledge to figure it was closer to 4.8 seconds. Funny how the things you’re told as a child will stick with you even when mathematics and common sense says they probably aren’t true. 😉
When we were kids we counted for every mile: mississippi 1, mississippi 2, etc.
In general, one second equals 1000 feet for the distance to figure out how far away the lightning is after your hear the thunder.
Yeah. I figured 3600 seconds in an hour, speed of sound 767mph. 3600/767= 4.8 seconds. So about 1100 feet per second. Speed of light is 670 million mph, so the “light”ning reaches you a tad quicker. 😂😂
Since I normally have a lot of respect for others in this forum, I am rather disappointed by some of the responses to the Democratic vice-presidential pick. Some of them almost sound like GOP talking points. I honestly knew almost nothing about Walz before he was announced as the pick. Look, when talking about the response to the Floyd riots, what was the reaction of Minneapolis city officials, the first line of defense? What exactly a lack left radical? By common definition, a liberal is someone more concerned with human needs than wallets. This might not be fiscally sensible, but it is more attractive to me than the the far right determining that everyone is on their own, regardless of circumstances. I also remind myself that we are talking about the vice-president, not the president. In other words, he wouldn't have much say unless something happened to Harris. Unlike others, I can't vote for or against someone based merely on the possibility of them ending up in the White House. Eric also made another point that I had previously made. Harris was never at any time the "border czar". What authority did she have? She was not a member of either the Justice Department or Homeland Security. She had no military authority. Her only Congressional authority was to break ties in the Senate. This meant she had no ability to determine the rules or amass any money for the effort. Who came up with the name anyhow? There is no such position in the government and Biden never actually gave her the job. Current government rules would not have allowed him to do it. Look, people, I don't know that I'm a big Harris fan. I don't think she had a sterling record as a prosecutor and seems to have forgotten that her job was to protect the public from accused criminals, not coddle them. (Does the name Kim Foxx ring a bell?). But she is still running against Trump. That's a determining factor for me. Let's not turn this forum into Faux News. By the way, see the latest Burger Boy claim? There weren't any people around to see Harris at a rally in Detroit. Pictures of thousands of people were all A1 generated. For all the talk about Biden senility, Trump is sane and sensible?
He's never been sane or sensible, he's demented & deranged.
If he wasn't allegedly rich & running for president, he'd be in a padded cell in a locked mental hospital!
I appreciate your fair-mindedness given your political beliefs. No politicians are perfect but I have respect for all within the normal range of US politics--from the social democratic left to center-left to centrists to center right to non-MAGA right. Those outside that range deserve contempt and those contemptables/ deplorables who incite violence deserve jail sentences.
I read a good joke today in the media that I thought I would share with you. Top GOP leaders are urging Trump to stop insulting Harris and stick to issues. That's rich! Trump cannot stop insulting Harris any more than he can stop breathing or ingesting McDonalds. And since when does Burger Boy listen to advice?