Data Comparisons

Day Late Happy New Year

610 Comments

Happy New Year!

As some of you know, it is day 2 of a momentous year! Recreational Marijuana is now legal in Illinois! Are you wondering whether the reason I am posting late is that I spent the day standing in line to buy the stuff? and then zoned out on the couch from my celebratory high? Nope. I did take a nap yesterday to make up for staying up dancing until 1 pm on NYE. But mostly: Just posting late!

Anyway, even if I’d wanted to go out and buy the stuff legally, it turns out the villages of Lisle, Naperville, Downers Grove and– if I am not mistaken– the entire county banned sales around here.

This means if I want to buy the stuff legally, I need to drive to deep into the heart of Aurora or West Chicago. Google maps the West Chicago dispensary is closer– that’s about 12-13 miles. What an ordeal! Still, that dispensary is called “Mary’s Wholesome Living”. I can evidently also take cooking classes there. Presumably, she will have great recipes for brownies. If I combine shopping and cooking lessons, maybe the trip could be worth it! 🙂

Now that weed is legal, I await reading stories about whether weed brings the state the humongonourmous revenue everyone seems to be dreaming about.

One projection at cbnc suggests:

Freedman and Koski, a Colorado consulting firm, expects the marijuana industry could bring in $440 million to $676 million in tax revenue to the state each year. In Chicago alone, tax revenues from recreational marijuana are expected by city representatives to reach $3.5 million in 2020.

I have little to say for or against legalizing the stuff. But for various reasons (including people’s propensity to do things to get around taxes) I predict less revenue than supporters of the law anticipated. But we’ll see.

Happy New Year!

610 thoughts on “Day Late Happy New Year”

  2. Gary,
    Plausible!

    I can take a bus to the dispensary in Aurora. So other drivers and pedestrians could be safe if I toked up the minute I had my weed in hand!

  3. No legalized marijuana in Alabama, so instead I've decided to work on taking offense at meaningless trivia more easily in 2020. And on that note, I hear that Joe Biden said "Give me a break! Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program, for God's sake." and Andrew Yang said, "You know, maybe Americans don’t all want to learn how to code.”
    I'm trying to figure out which statement ought to offend me more.
    🙂
    On the one hand, apparently what I do demands the same cognitive level of ability as throwing coal into a furnace does. Perhaps throwing coal into a furnace is a lot more complicated than I think.
    On the other, … the very notion that Americans don't all want to learn to code. I mean. Seriously now.

  4. Mark,
    Joe, a man who can't code thinks that the ability to throw coal in a furnace is sufficient to being able to code. He also seems to think coal mining is somehow similar to shoveling coal into a furnace. AND worse, if you take his statement in total, he thinks the coal miners can code because they are MEN and he knows of a program in which MERE WOMEN from Detroit learned how to code.
    .
    I think he has managed to hit a trifecta (or more) of insult there.
    .
    One question is why he didn't suggest they all go to law school and learn to be lawyers. After all HE seems to have done that.

  8. Lucia, Mark,
    Joe Biden, like most ‘liberal’ politicians, can’t stop insulting the intelligence of voters. Their proposed policies are mostly insults as well: we know better than you what is good for you. For this reason alone, Joe Biden is unlikely to be president.
    .
    BTW, based on personal experience, I am certain writing code is more complicated than shoveling coal.

  9. I believe it was Hillary who first suggested that the rust belt should learn to code and some in the media followed up on it as a stonkingly good idea. When “journalists” started losing their jobs, they were trolled with “learn to code” comments and didn’t consider it such good advice. Big brother tech even moved in to protect those fragile souls from such horrendous abuse. So for Biden to resurrect the term is hilarious.

  11. About a month till the first Iowa caucuses. Who will face Trumpzilla the Eater of Souls in 2020? I can hardly wait to see!

  12. One month until Iowa caucuses, and some of the candidates will be stuck in the Senate to sit in court for the trial of Donald Trump.

  13. Had to go through WUWT list to get to this site. Firefox would not bring up the blackboard even with blog Lucia and rank exploits added to search.
    Maybe I am imagining things?

  14. Originally being from WV, I'm insulted that he thinks coal miners still use shovels, ha ha.

  17. Jeff,
    Yup, I get here by searching Lucia Liljegren and going through Wikipedia when I'm too lazy to type the URL (which is usually).

  18. FWIW the root of the host rankexploits.com is throwing a 500 error where it used to provide a link to get into the blogsite. I seem to recall Lucia used that page to trap bots.

  20. I think Warren is over as a possible Dem nominee. She was sinking, but she had come back before so maybe she could do it again. But I don't see how she can get the nomination without at some point getting the support of the Bernie Bros. After last night, that does not seem possible.

    Maybe she now intends to pretend that she is a "moderate" and deny that she was ever far left? I would not put that past her, but I can not imagine her getting away with it.

  21. Oh happy days.
    Thanks people.
    searching Lucia Liljegren and going through Wikipedia when
    External links
    The Blackboard: Where Climate Talk Gets Hot! by Lucia Liljegren
    –
    Can get in now the normal way as well so maybe Andrew P,
    Thanks. The top page is probably fixed now.
    worked

  22. Mike M,
    I agree, Warren is almost certainly done as a viable candidate. She has too much political baggage (mostly too many convenient self-serving fabrications). She is also loathed by Obama and many of his his troops for her recalcitrance and unwillingness to compromise. But making herself an enemy of Bernie was likely a fatal electoral mistake.
    .
    She is also a tedious and relentless scold who holds herself in much too high a regard….. and voters in much too low a regard. Always a bad look for a politician.
    .
    Looking more and more like sleepy Joe versus the Donald; even lefty Dems are not so crazy as to nominate an avowed socialist who thought the USSR a good country, and great place to honeymoon.

  24. SteveF (Comment #179096): "Warren … is also loathed by Obama and many of his his troops"
    .
    So who does the Obama camp favor? Surely not Bernie and apparently not Biden. Buttigieg? Or maybe Patrick, if he can gain any traction in South Carolina.

    It is easy to look at the field now, see Warren crashing, Buttigieg sliding and conclude it will come down to Bernie the Red vs. Sleepy Joe. That might happen, in which case I'd put my money on Biden.

    But a quarter of Democrats don't favor any of those four. Fauxcahontas and St. Pete are supported by Wine Rack Dems while Bernie and Biden are supported by Beer Tap Dems, so I don't see support shifting as easily as might be expected by looking just at the left-lefter spectrum. Neither Bernie or Biden have been able to expand their support; Biden has actually lost support in Iowa and New Hampshire.

    So I think that Warren and Pete dropping out would create an opening for other candidates like Bloomberg and, less likely, Patrick or Steyer. If one or two of those gain traction, I don't see anyone taking a majority of delegates. It promises to be interesting.

  25. Mike M,
    " Surely not Bernie and apparently not Biden."
    .
    Yes, Obama would certainly like Deval Patrick, but that seems very unlikely to happen. I don't think Obama has anything against Biden, I just think he knows Biden is a bad candidate and unlikely to beat Trump. Bloomberg and the other wealthies: not a chance. Too much private jet travel while bitching about other people's carbon footprints…. "Lifestyle sacrifice for thee, not for me"… is not a good campaign slogan. They are as dishonest and vacuous as they are wealthy. If Amy Klobuchar has an unexpectedly good showing in Iowa and New Hampshire, then Obama et al will probably promote her. But like most dems, I suspect in the end they will support anyone who's name is not Trump.

  26. Yes, Klobuchar might be the one to benefit from the opening created by Warren and Buttigieg fading. So far her campaign has experienced failure to launch. But there is still time.

  27. Trump needs to start running ads to counter Bloomberg's negative advertising on healthcare. I don't think the ads are going to help Bloomberg much, but they could do serious damage to Trump. Bill Clinton and the Democrats did something like that to Bob Dole in 1995. The Republicans didn't run ads countering the Democrats in 1995 because they wanted to save the money for later in 1996. But by then it was too late. Shades of pushing grandma in her wheelchair off a cliff.

  28. Steve F
    "Those who suffer a heart attack after age 75 have a 3.1 year average life expectancy. Yikes!'
    –
    Down from 9.68 years in general.
    Remember Trump has a very high CT Calcium index which puts him in the same bracket as Bernie regarding his heart.
    Presidents do get exceptional health checks and advice though.
    Probably worse since he does not drink alcohol [heart wise] but better from the viewpoint of host of other conditions.
    –
    in a more sombre note is the fix in for the coup to succeed?

  30. DeWitt, Trump has been running ads. He is the Clinton of 2020, turning a deficit into a lead going into 2020, though his is much smaller than Clinton's.

  31. Lucia, yes.
    I feel like I am watching a slowly developing melodrama.
    I think it is fairly clear that if running Trump will win a second term.
    Successful Impeachment is the only way to stop him.
    The plan might be to produce new “witnesses” and new evidence and make it the only “legal” way to go.
    ? Bolton as a Benedict Arnold.
    It would cause unprecedented turmoil but it is either that or 4 more years.
    Oh well, not my problem.

  32. angech,
    The Senate is not going to vote to remove Trump from office.
    .
    Yes, Trump wanted the Bidens investigated. That is no surprise, especially since Democrats have been continuously investigating Trump since before he was elected. Heck, Hillary paid millions of dollars for foreign nationals to “investigate” Trump, leading to the “dossier”, which was then used to start even more investigations. Neither Trump’s requests not Hillary’s search for dirt were crimes, even if they were unprincipled. Obama was caught (live mic) directly asking Putin to not cause problems during his re-election campaign, with a promise of “more flexibility” in negotiations with Russia after the election. That also was not a crime, even if it was arguably far more damaging to US interests than Trump asking the Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.
    .
    It is a 100% partisan show trial, nothing more.

  33. MikeN (Comment #179115): "Trump has been running ads."

    I have not seen any. I have seen ads by PAC's (presumably Trump supporting, but who knows) seeking to raise money off anger over the impeachment.

  34. MikeN (Comment #179115): "Trump has been running ads."

    I haven't seen any Trump ads either, not even by PAC's. All I've seen are Steyer and Bloomberg ads, lots of them.

  35. The good news is that running on identity politics is a big L loser plan. The wokest candidates are already gone. I suppose they had to do something to separate themselves but that was the wrong idea. The more the mainstream media laments the lack of diversity in the field the more they drive voters to Trump and disgrace themselves.
    .
    When it is all over the media will once again discover that the electorate isn't the loudest voices on Twitter and they will once again go right back to Twitter to judge the electorate for the main election.
    .
    They cannot seem to fathom why anyone would vote for Biden. They cover everyone with enthusiasm except Biden. He's been on media deathwatch for almost a year.

  36. Tom Scharf,
    "He's been on media deathwatch for almost a year."
    .
    He *is* really old for a presidential candidate, but not near death. 😉
    .
    But seriously, yes, the lefty's in the MSM want someone who is way more left than Biden (and even more left than people like Klobuchar). They are for sure disconnected from the electorate, but I think they see Trump as such a horrible monster that they believe even an extreme leftist like Bernie has a chance to win…. and 'fundamentally change the way people live their lives'…. which is what they really want: to force their personal (lefty) values on everyone.

  37. DeWitt,
    Yes, Trump is unwise to not immediately fight back against ads by people like Bloomberg. Bloomberg knows he is not going to be elected president. He just wants the 'credibility' of being a declared candidate while he beats up on Trump via ads…. most of all, he doesn't want Trump re-elected.

  38. SteveF (Comment #179133)
    January 17th, 2020 at 10:48 am

    "But seriously, yes, the lefty's in the MSM want someone who is way more left than Biden (and even more left than people like Klobuchar). They are for sure disconnected from the electorate, but I think they see Trump as such a horrible monster that they believe even an extreme leftist like Bernie has a chance to win…. and 'fundamentally change the way people live their lives'…. which is what they really want: to force their personal (lefty) values on everyone."

    This is a scary part for me for three reasons:

    1. Trump is more than capable of saying or doing something very stupid in a campaign to allow very leftist presidential candidate and congressional candidates to win or,

    2. Allow a so-called moderate candidate like Biden to be elected with large senate and house leftist Democrat majorities and being a political animal that never turns down a mandate to preside from the far left

    3. The voting public is more than capable of doing something very stupid

  39. Kenneth,
    Scary for me too. Trump could increase his chances of reelection if he just reduced the stupid tweets by 95%; they offend far too many of the voters he needs to win in November, and they don’t help him with the people who would vote for him anyway. Foolish is the only description I can come up with.

  40. Today's WSJ has an article about campaign spending so far. Bloomberg has spent $217 million, Steyer has spent $143 million and Trump has spent $50.3 million. All others combined is $115.7. So Trump has been outspent by over 9:1.

    ""There's a sense that Bloomberg is doing something that the party can't do — going negative on Trump," Mr. Gifford [Rufus Gifford, former Obama campaign finance director] said. "It's work that the party doesn't have the money to do and other candidates don't have the ability to do."

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-bloomberg-effect-huge-spending-transforms-2020-campaign-dynamics-11579191368

    Bloomberg is in for the long haul. If he doesn't get the nomination, he will support whoever is nominated. He will also spend tens of millions of dollars to register voters.

  42. DeWitt,
    Trump should attack Bloomberg on stop-and-frisk and on his endless other inconsistencies. The vast private jet use, while beating on ordinary folk to cut fossil fuel use, and the many other giant-carbon-footprint issues, are ripe targets in light of his ‘green awareness’ take. IMO, he is a repulsive, dishonest worm, and wouldn’t know anything about ‘honest’ if it jumped up and bit him in the buttocks. Trump needs to make these inconsistencies clear to the voters.

  43. Trump ran ads during some big sporting events saying, "It takes a Donald Trump to change Washington".

    There has been plenty of online spending, which I thought was very effective in 2016, using Comey's press conference in July to attack Hillary.

  44. In today's WSJ, OTOH, there is an article that claims that political advertising is completely ineffective in general elections and only has a minor effect on primary elections.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-political-campaigns-change-voters-minds-11579282258?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1

    "Last year, in a paper published in the American Political Science Review, political scientists Joshua Kalla of Yale and David Broockman of Stanford looked at all the studies that used randomized trials to test the effectiveness of political campaigns, adding nine of their own studies for good measure. The whole spectrum of campaign tools was covered—mainly canvassing, phone calls and mailings, with a few studies focusing on TV and online ads. The researchers’ conclusion was unambiguous: “The best estimate of the effects of campaign contact and advertising on Americans’ candidates choices in general elections is zero.”"

  45. From what I have read, it is essential to get people to know who the candidate is. For that, advertising is usually vital, the main exception being a well known incumbent. But beyond a certain level, the effect of advertising saturates.

    Did the WSJ article discuss that? Or is it a study by educated idiots?

  46. Mike M.
    Ads probably are vital for candidates who start stumping late and who are mostly known locally.

    Owing to money limitations, I think the traditional strategy for lots of people is to run once pretty well knowing they'll lose, then appear as "the" mouthpiece on tv from time to time and then "really" run four or eight years later. The "first" time run is to gain visibility. The candidates need to be a little careful to avoid being a "perpetual candidate". But, they do need to get people to know them and most can't afford to just drop jillions on ads the way the billionaires can.

  47. Megan McArdle : The Dream Hoarders.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-elizabeth-warren-really-wants-to-unrig-the-system-she-should-focus-on-the-dream-hoarders/2020/01/21/6666b7f2-3c97-11ea-baca-eb7ace0a3455_story.html
    .
    "Unfortunately, the Dream Hoarders — and I include myself in their number — are a much bigger problem for the rest of America than the billionaires whose wealth Warren promises to expropriate. Those billionaires got that way by building companies that disrupted cozy local monopolies, and they fund coding camps for high-school dropouts; Dream Hoarders protect their professional licensing regimes and insist on ever more extensive and expensive educations in the people they hire. Dream Hoarders also pull every lever to keep their own housing prices high — and poorer kids out of their schools — while using their wealth to carefully guide their children over the hurdles they’ve erected."
    .
    This is basically an attack on credentialism and the regime of "everything is unfair and too expensive and the solution is to make higher education even more mandatory and cost even more". The biggest rent seeker of all is big education. Higher education certainly produces wealth in the abstract but any claims that it does so efficiently are laughable at this point.
    .
    Education has a major cost disease problem, it has become much more expensive with little change in real outcomes. Nice climbing walls though.

  48. Mike M. and lucia,

    Here's a link to the article cited above:

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi-kf22h5jnAhVquVkKHafAAh8QgAMoAHoECAgQAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar_url%3Furl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fclyburnforcongress.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F06%2FSSRN-id3042867.pdf%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm30dScJvtFsfvz0FKykas66-V8jVw%26nossl%3D1%26oi%3Dscholarr&usg=AOvVaw07TnFuUvlAEPC67Tz9b9qF

    Or you can search on : kalla brockman political science review

  49. DeWitt Payne (Comment #179154): "an article that claims that political advertising is completely ineffective in general elections and only has a minor effect on primary elections"
    .
    In turns out that is not quite what the study found: "To be clear, our argument is not that campaigns, broadly speaking, do not matter," the researchers wrote. "For example, candidates can determine the content of voters’ choices by changing their positions, strategically revealing certain information, and affecting media narratives. Campaigns can also effectively stimulate voter turnout."
    https://www.realclearscience.com/quick_and_clear_science/2017/09/28/political_campaigning_may_be_mostly_pointless.html#!
    .
    But I have three problems with a null result of this sort. One is that campaign spending by one side might largely cancel out campaign spending by the other side. So it might well be that if each side spends a billion dollars, the result will be the same as if each side spent nothing. But that those not mean that the result will be the same if one side spends a billion and the other spends nothing.

    The second problem is that the primary tool in such studies is usually linear regression. But the effect of spending is surely non-linear: the second hundred million does not accomplish as much as the first, the third hundred million accomplishes even less, etc. When you do a linear regression, the result is heavily weighted to the most extreme points, that means the campaigns that are spending well into the region where further spending is ineffective.

    Finally, such results usually depend on an error in logic. The failure to find an effect does not mean there is no effect. It just means that the effect is too small to detect with the available data. I think that everybody agrees that any effect is small. And the methods available are weak. So it is not surprising that they can not demonstrate the effect.

  50. Tom Steyer is still in the Democrat race and on the debate stages. He is moving up strongly in the polls, at least in South Carolina. If anyone seriously thinks that has nothing to do with the tons of money he has spent on advertising, please speak up so that I can mock you. 🙂

    Bloomberg is also moving up in the polls. I doubt that is independent of his advertising spending.

    Of course, Clinton outspent Trump by a wide margin. Money spent on advertising is only one factor among many. But sometimes it is a critical factor.

  51. Steyer has a lot of boots on the ground in South Carolina and has spent a lot of time pressing the flesh. ( https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/22/tom-steyer-south-carolina-surge-102343 ) The cited study mentions that face to face contacts are much more effective than TV and print ads in terms of changing minds. And he was still only at 15%. If he gets less than 15% of the vote, he gets zero delegates. The polls after Iowa and New Hampshire will be more interesting and relevant.

  53. It's possible that in swing states, Trump's rallies have been attended by 10% of the overall electorate.

  54. The tail wagging the dog. 'American Dirt' is another humorous exercise in the social mob controlling the media. This is a book about an immigrant trying to come to America after being threatened by cartels. I saw it is as an obvious moral lecture pandering to the book critics so was not interested. The author confirms as much in an NPR interview:
    .
    "I endeavored to be incredibly culturally sensitive, I did the work, I did five years of research. The whole intention in my heart when I wrote this book was to try to upend the stereotypes that I saw being very prevalent in our national dialogue"
    .
    The usual puff pieces shall follow? Not so fast, ha ha. The Latinx critics pounced on it for lack of authenticity. The usual journalistic integrity was thus employed:
    .
    "We recorded an interview with Cummins, the book's author, last week — an interview that never aired because the criticism of American Dirt started coming down hard, and the conversation about this book had to change."
    https://www.npr.org/2020/01/24/798894249/latinx-critics-speak-out-against-american-dirt-jeanine-cummins-responds
    .
    Book reviews, like movie reviews before them, are another victim of the mob and cannot be trusted if they even tangentially touch a culture subject. It used to be any reviews related to slavery or the holocaust had to be discounted due to critic cowardice but now that list is expanded so large that the entire critic enterprise is untrustworthy.

  55. DeWitt Payne (Comment #179343): "Steyer has a lot of boots on the ground in South Carolina and has spent a lot of time pressing the flesh."
    .
    Yep. The article says "His campaign also has 82 paid staffers on the ground and has spent a lot of time pressing the flesh.". Paid staffers. That takes money. How did he recruit those people, who are almost all locals? And how did he get people to come to his events so that he can shake hands and talk to them? By advertising. Unless you are already well known, you need a campaign to build a campaign. Having tons of money opens that door.

    Of course you have to do the work to walk through that door. And you need the skills to keep from tripping and falling on your face when you try to walk through the door. Money alone can not win an election. But the lack of money can sure lose one.

  56. Steyer ads I see promote the economy and climate change. Loser issues in the face of Trump's successes and importance to the general public, but critical to the base he's trying to win from the other Democrats.

  57. Mike M.,

    We have drifted somewhat far afield from the topic of the original article I linked which was specifically that mass market advertising, particularly TV ads don't change minds. Obviously money is important because you need a paid campaign organization with lots of boots on the ground. TV ads don't add much, if anything, to that.

  58. TV ads might not change minds, but boots on the ground won't change minds either if no one has ever heard of the candidate or people think he is not a serious contender. Without exposure, a candidate is dead in the water, so for most candidates that means advertising is essential. The ads might not change minds, but they are needed to open the door.

  59. I suspect there is a big difference in effectiveness of ads, depending on what the candidate needs to accomplish. For well known candidates,there is little need for growing name recognition via ‘positive’ ads, while for little known candidates, those ads are important. For well known candidates, positive ads are probably not effective. OTOH, for a well known candidate, negative (attack) ads to point out the flaws in your opponents are likely much more effective. If Biden is the Dem candidate, we are going hear a lot about how Biden’s whole family has been trading off his political offices, and how he sold his soul to the credit card lenders. Of course, we’ll also hear about Trump’s fabulist rants and treatment of women. All those negative ads will be much more informative (and probably more honest!) than the pap the candidates will try to sell about themselves.

  60. If is true that ads don't actually change minds, then negative ads would seem to be a waste of money. Of course, it might be that only certain types of ads are effective in certain circumstances. That would be hard to pick up in a statistical study.

  61. Mike M,
    I do not think political ads have no effect. I think Obama’s use of negative ads about Romney made a difference in the battleground states….. most all of which went for Obama. See for example: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/advertising
    .
    On a per vote gained basis, ads are not very efficient, but in close states they make a modest difference. Which is why in the general election for president, ads are placed almost exclusively in battleground broadcast markets. Neither Trump nor his eventual opponent will spend money in California or Alabama, but it will seem like a blizzard in places like Florida and Wisconsin. Heck, in Florida I’ve already hung up on half a dozen push-poll calls attacking Trump, and the Dem primaries haven’t even started yet.

  62. I guess there is a hidden benefit to giving up the land line a few years ago, no political calls. My area was blanketed with HRC ads in the final week of the election. It was full saturation, running the same ad over and over. Apparently Trump was a terrible human being and she just had to make sure we all knew that. You would think we are all idiots by how they design political ads, but I suppose science says those are the most effective. All I can say is apparently I am not their target audience, ha ha.
    .
    It's hard to see how any ad attacking Trump will be effective, there is almost nothing to be said that hasn't been said 100,000 times by the "unbiased" media, much less a biased political party.
    .
    My guess is there will be new dirt to be dug on the eventual left nominee, and to the extent that people feel the media will protect the left's nominee then these ads might be a bit more effective.

  63. To have an effective cost based and directed political marketing campaign would require having a targeted group of people to contact. Obviously a state that always votes predominately one way would be off the list. This would also apply to parts of states that have overwhelmingly one way voting habits. Even more effective would be having individual profiles of voters past preferences and current likelihood of being influenced through marketing. I suspect some of that information could be garnered from social media.

    When the linked WSJ article mentioned a study where random mailings were sent to potential voters, my reaction was that that is not how a smart marketing campaign would operate. Mailings are very easy to ignore these days and random does not make since unless the campaign had unlimited resources and limited marketing capabilities. The article in this mentioned case did not provide the content of the mailings and that could be a huge factor in getting the desired attention.

    Most people I know do not vote for a candidate as much as they vote against a candidate and therefore a reinforcing negative campaign probably works better where marketing has a difficult time explaining the positive aspects of their candidate. I think this stems from the general populations negative view of politicians in general.

    Political campaigns are unfortunately not of an intellectual nature or pursuit but rather driven by emotional political approaches that you see every day by politicians promoting government policies and actions. The intelligentsia influences politics in a general way that over time has influence on elections. Currently that influence is very much to the left of me on the political spectrum and is why I would rather be marketing ideas than politicians -which is a totally different approach.

  64. Kenneth,
    "I think this stems from the general populations negative view of politicians in general.
    .
    Ya, for sure. The fact that most politicians have no problem with the Clinton's enriching themselves through the sale of political influence (wink and nod… not really accepting bribes) is tantamount to politicians being pretty much in favor of legalized political corruption. The whole Biden family has been enriching themselves by pedaling Joe's influence for decades, and politicians seem to think that is OK too. Which is why none of the Dems, and few Republicans, want to address the elephant in the Senate chamber: Trump was plausibly justified in investigating why Hunter Biden got paid millions of dollars for a job he was clearly not qualified to hold, while daddy just *happened* to be in charge of Ukraine policy.

  65. Enough of the nightmare already. Here is my proposed amendment to the Constitution:

    "Article 1 Section 2 clause 5 is hereby changed to:
    The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment, but with the limitation that all articles of Impeachment shall require a 2/3 majority to advance to the Senate for trial."
    .
    That change greatly reduces the possibility of future narrowly supported impeachments like those of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. If a very broad consensus for removal does not exist, then impeachment should *NEVER* happen.

  66. SteveF,

    "all articles of Impeachment shall require a 2/3 majority to advance to the Senate for trial"

    Good point. The House is effectively a Grand Jury and an impeachment is equivalent to an indictment. But a Grand Jury requires a supermajority of 2/3 to 3/4 depending on the jurisdiction, not a simple majority.

  67. That would be a good revision. Obviously, like all amendments it should have a grandfather clause and it should not apply to the president in office when the amendment is first passed out of Congress. (It's fine if it takes effect when the the states actually pass it. That ca take more than one presidential term.)

    My caveat isn't because I want to "get" Trump, but because a grandfather clause makes it clear the amendment is thought to be useful *in general* rather than as an issue to protect a particular person. Also, I think it would have a greater chance of success with a grandfather clause precisely because it wouldn't be seen as particularly "about" protecting Trump.

  68. A majority vote in the House is fine. But if a majority of the Senate does not vote to convict, then the Speaker and all the House managers should have to resign their seats. 🙂

  69. Mike M.
    I like Steve's suggestion better. It prevents quite a bit of time wasting that we've seen in two impeachment processes. It also requires the House to *really* be convinced.

    It's hypothetically possible for the Speaker and House managers to vote against the articles of impeachment while the house votes for them.

    Also: there is no reason to take away the choice of voters in the Speaker and House managers district merely because they might have wanted to impeach the president. That's a bit odd.

  70. That was tongue in cheek. Maybe I need a better repertoire of emoticons.

    I do not care for any proposal that is based on the idea that democracy is too important to be left to the voters. The proper solution to bad behavior by politicians is to vote them out of office. If the voters won't do that, then they get the government they deserve.

  71. Mike M,
    "The proper solution to bad behavior by politicians is to vote them out of office."
    .
    I agree completely. Trump's impeachment by the House is nothing but the tyranny of a slim majority. Trump was elected by a minority of the voters (as was Bill Clinton). It seems to me the endless efforts to impeach Trump are little more than a temper tantrum by the slim voting majority who opposed him; these people truly believe he is illegitimate because a majority of voters did not support him. That the President is not elected via popular vote under the Constitution is of course irrelevant to people who have all the maturity, self awareness, and knowledge of history of spoiled 6 year olds.

  72. It appears that there is a legal way for a candidate to divert campaign funds into his own pocket. Of course, I am not a lawyer and might have been misinformed.

    Campaigns typically use an ad-buying firm to place their campaign ads. The ad-buyer typically keeps 15% of the funds to cover costs and provide profit. That presumably compensates the ad buyer for his expertise in placing the ads, negotiating discounts, etc. The FEC does not require any accounting from the ad-buyer; they apparently assume the campaign will do that.

    So a candidate can have his spouse set up an ad-buying firm, hire that firm, and look the other way while a disproportionate amount of the buy is siphoned off as profit. Perfectly legal as long as the profits are reported to the IRS.

    The tell for such behavior would be a campaign employing an ad-buying firm with no other clients and owned by his spouse who has no other experience in ad-buying. I can't think of a legitimate reason for doing that. If the campaign wants to cut out the middleman, they could just buy ads directly.

    Guess which prominent Democrat presidential candidate is doing that.

  73. I think the intent is for the house to act as a grand jury, just making sure this is not willful abuse of the system. In this case it is pretty clear they were impeaching Trump from the beginning and were just waiting for anything that barely passed the smell test to get on with it. Few people take this seriously as far as I can tell except for rabid political junkies. The system is OK, it is just being abused in this case. If it continues to be abused then maybe a change is worth considering.

  74. Tom Scharf,
    I believe Dem leaders in the House have already said they will impeach Trump again after this impeachment fails. Many Dems have been talking about impeachment since November 2016. There is no reason to think they will no continue is Trump wins in 2020. The entire process is exactly the kind of partisan effort to remove a president that many of the Constitution’s creators worried about. I think it is very clear the endless investigations and efforts to impeach Trump are abuses of the system, and I think they need to stop.

  75. Tom Scharf,
    I believe Dem leaders in the House have already said they will impeach Trump again after this impeachment fails. Many Dems have been talking about impeachment since November 2016. There is no reason to think they will not continue is Trump wins in 2020 and Dems control the house. The entire process is exactly the kind of partisan effort to remove a president that many of the Constitution’s creators worried about. I think it is very clear the endless investigations and efforts to impeach Trump are abuses of the system, and I think they need to stop.

  76. Mike M,
    I am reasonably sure that there are multiple ways for office holders to enrich their immediate family. It is not just ‘consultants’. Candidates can ‘hire’ their spouses, children, siblings, parents, aunts, and uncles to ‘work’ on their campaign as advisors, or any number of other positions…. all grossly overpaid. Happens all the time. A safe seat in a safe state is a gravy train for the unscrupulous politicians who hold those seats: Shake down ‘vested interests’ for giant contributions, then transfer that largess to your immediate family. It is (again) legalized corruption.

  77. SteveF (Comment #179390): "there are multiple ways for office holders to enrich their immediate family … Candidates can ‘hire’ their spouses …"
    .
    Yes, Bernie has made use of that one as well as siphoning off campaign contributions.

  78. The Republicans should call the Dems bluff and support calling witnesses in the impeachment trial.

    Impeachment is not about putting Trump out of office. It is about putting purple state Republican Senators in a spot where they can be accused of participation in a cover up of Trump's alleged criminality (even though he is charge with no crime).

    So McConnell should introduce a motion calling for a list of witnesses and open the floor to nominations for that list, with a vote to be taken on each proposed name to include. Republicans should vote for any Dem witnesses who, like Bolton, might have actual evidence to give. And they should include a bunch of defense witnesses, such as the Bidens, Obama officials who were lobbied by Burisma or warned Joe about the conflict, Chalupa and any others who would know about the Ukraine-Clinton collusion, plus the "whistle blower" and others who can testify as to a plot to get Trump.

    If the Dems vote as a block against all defense witnesses, while Republicans back prosecution witnesses, then so much for the Democrats claiming to be the ones who want to get at the truth.

    Once the list is complete and the full motion comes to the floor, Republicans should be sure to divide their votes so that any outcome is bipartisan.

    If the Dems vote for the witness motion, they risk massive damage to Biden, Obama, etc. If they oppose it, they give the lie to their entire impeachment adventure. Either way, Republican Senators will end up being able to cast a virtually no risk vote for acquital, while swing state Dems will have a tough choice.

  79. getting close to the end of days or not.
    Notice America coordinating a response to corona virus.
    Mean to quarantine people in Alaska.
    Puerto Rico or Hawaii have better climates and Hawaii has good doctors.
    I vote for Hawaii.
    One a more medical note would people who have recovered from Corona virus have antibodies in their blood that could be used to treat new victims by giving a concentrated immunoglobulin injection from the survivors.
    Used to do this for people to try to prevent Hep B years ago.
    Do not know if it would help reduce or eliminate active disease.

  80. Mike M,
    That may be a good strategic approach, but the word coming from Republican leaders is that they have the votes to not hear witnesses at all, and move to vote for acquittal within a few days.

  81. SteveF (Comment #179394): "the word coming from Republican leaders is that they have the votes to not hear witnesses at all, and move to vote for acquittal within a few days."
    .
    That may well happen. In isolation, it would be perfectly justified. My concern is that it would put purple state Republicans in a bad spot, with the potential of costing Republicans control of the Senate.

  82. Mike M,
    I don’t doubt Collins and a couple of others will be put at greater risk in November, but Dems will certainly lose in Alabama. Larry Sabato says Republicans are likely to hold 51 or 52 seats in 2021. Besides, come November, voters are not likely to focus on a procedural vote taken in early February. If the House begins yet another impeachment effort during 2020, as multiple Dems have promised, they they will get killed in November. Enough is enough.

  83. Mike and Steve, There is a lot of political strategizing about the election that this far out doesn't mean much.

    The issue for me is that if this partisan and very flexible standard for impeachment is allowed to stand, it hobbles our governmental system. They should just vote to acquit as quickly as possible. In fact, I thought they should just move to summary judgment after allowing only 2 days of arguments. The 2 week process has seen infinite repetition and is mind numbingly boring and is a complete waste of valuable time and resources.

  84. David Young (Comment #179397): "The issue for me is that if this partisan and very flexible standard for impeachment is allowed to stand, it hobbles our governmental system."
    .
    That is true but irrelevant, since the bell can not be unrung.
    .
    David Young: "They should just vote to acquit as quickly as possible."
    .
    I disagree. This is a purely political exercise with purely political goals. The way to discourage such in future is to frustrate those goals and, if possible, turn it back on the offenders. If the Dems succeed in using impeachment to gain control of the Senate, it will have been a brilliant success for them. Then we can expect more of the same in future.
    .
    David Young: "The 2 week process has seen infinite repetition and is mind numbingly boring and is a complete waste of valuable time and resources."

    So what? It is not our minds being numbed or our time being wasted.

    Is Senators' time valuable? 🙂
    ————

    The Senate Republicans did not pick this battle. They did not want this battle. But the battle has been brought to them, so now it is their duty to do their best to win the battle. Crushingly, if possible.

    I am sick and tired of Republicans being genteel losers. Fortunately, Trump is teaching them how to be winners. But they are slow learners.

  85. “Fortunately, Trump is teaching them how to be winners. But they are slow learners.”
    .
    Some truth in that. Someone like Romney (almost the definition of a genteel loser, who also loathes Trump) should just have said, “I think Trump displayed poor judgement with Ukraine, but this process of impeachment is a partisan joke”, pointed out that Obama personally solicited Putin’s help in beating Romney in 2012, and then told the Dems there will be no witnesses to advance a partisan joke.

  86. ”The 2 week process has seen infinite repetition and is mind numbingly boring and is a complete waste of valuable time and resources.“
    Silver linings.
    The impeachment has raised the awareness of the population to what has actually been happening for three years.
    It will not changed fixed views 33% each way but it will move the middle ground.
    Curiosity, who is the whistle blower? Why can’t we know his name?
    How can that Supreme Court Judge overrule releasing it when the stakes, dismissal of a President are obviously so much higher than mere protection of a whistle blower?
    Why do that unless you are trying very seriously to cover up Something wrong?
    Despite the poor coverage ( yes I am biased) the infinite repetition raises the community awareness.
    The sense of unfairness only bolsters one side the Trump case.
    If he survives the first round a second with questions allowed will come back but the Democrats and media are shooting themselves not in the foot but in the heart.
    Barring a big,big misstep over an unrelated matter all this intermibility is very seriously welcome.

  87. The media already has agreed on the new tagline: It's a cover-up!
    .
    Years of Russia collusion madness, endless breathless impeachment proceedings, etc., etc. What we really need now is an investigation into Trump. People stopped paying attention after the Mueller Report, and will especially not be hearing anything from the baying media howling about wolfs after the failed impeachment.
    .
    The result of impeachment was preordained the moment it started and has gone exactly as predicted. Trump may be a lot of things, but one of them is a survivor.
    .
    If you erase the the media hysteria the results of the Trump administration to date looks amazingly boring in its results. Some ups, some downs, some remains to be seen. The biggest fear of many in the elite establishment is to be exposed as overrated ordinary people without any special powers beyond a pedigree and good grammar. What does it say if Trump can govern as well as hand picked elites? This is why there is such a heavy investment by the elite media in not just reporting chaos and division, but creating it.

  88. Susan Collins's voting for witnesses loses her seat I think. She is losing Trump supporters, and Dems will attack her for Kavanaugh.

    Mitt Romney appears to have waited until Lamar Alexander announced he was voting no, so he wouldn't take too much heat.
    However, it's hard to see Romney no on witnesses in any scenario.

  89. I'm probably overly cynical, but I'm guessing Bolton's leaked book excerpts were known to the House well before the Senate trial started. It all smells rather orchestrated at this point, kind of like last moment Kavanaugh accusations.
    .
    Any high profile Senate vote is a double bladed sword for red leaning and blue leaning states. Manchin voting to impeach will not go over well in WV for example.

  90. The name of the "whistle blower" is well known and is all over the internet. It is Eric C…, uh, wait a minute.

    Lucia, will it cause trouble for you if someone posts the name? I know that Fox News is afraid to. And John Roberts shut down a question from Rand Paul that mentioned the name, even though the question said nothing about a whistle blower.

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/30/read-the-question-about-eric-ciaramella-that-chief-justice-john-roberts-just-refused-to-read/

    Edit: Oops.

  91. Tom Scharf,
    "I'm probably overly cynical, but I'm guessing Bolton's leaked book excerpts were known to the House well before the Senate trial started."
    .
    That is a near certainty. It is the same desperation move as they used with Kavanaugh…. hold back sensational claims until the last second in the hope of pushing Senate Republicans into self-destructive behavior. It ultimately didn't work with Kavanaugh, and it certainly won't work with Trump. This stinking Schiff show in the Senate will soon be over.
    .
    Bolton's political career is also over, which is not so bad: he is already 71, and with his juicy book advance and future paid appearances on CNN and MSNBC (to denounce Trump), he should be able to retire in style. The guy has no class.

  95. The House likely already knows the contents of Mueller's grand jury material, and probably Trump's tax returns as well. They are just trying to get things through the courts so they will be able to make it public.
    They have a backup plan of leaking it through this Just Security site.

  96. Mark Bofill,

    I don’t suffer judicial fools gladly, so I have little interest in Roberts’ rational…. I read his opinion on Obamacare: pure hogwash to justify not voiding an unconstitutional usurpation of liberty by Congress. I’m quite sure his rationalization for not reading Rand Paul’s quite reasonable question would also be pure hogwash.

  97. mark bofill (Comment #179411): "I'd love to hear Robert's rationale for doing that to Rand Paul."
    .
    The Deep State protects its own.
    .
    The claim that E.C.'s name must be kept secret for his safety is obvious nonsense, since everyone who might care already knows his name. One could argue that we do not actually know, we only think we know. But that is a distinction without a difference for the sort of person who might be a threat to his safety.

  98. Thanks guys.
    The closest I can find to an explanation is speculation from Johnathan Turley here:
    https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/01/31/whistleblower_censorship_in_facebook_and_in_senate_122223.html
    Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University who testified as an expert in the House impeachment hearings, said Roberts had no legal reason to quash the senator’s question since it did not violate federal whistleblower laws.

    "This is relatively uncharted because the reading of the name does not directly violate federal law,” Turley said.

    He speculated Roberts simply claimed an inherent authority to block the question under “decorum and restraint.”

    It remains unclear how Roberts knew Eric Ciaramella was the whistleblower when Paul did not outright say he was the whistleblower in the question card that was handed Roberts to read. "My question made no reference to any whistleblower,” Paul affirmed.
    .
    What a joke. Schiff doesn't even know his name, but Roberts did.
    Heh.

  99. I love to see records broken–first impeachment trial evah without witnesses!

    It's a new day a-dawning!

  100. Thomas Fuller (Comment #179417): "I love to see records broken–first impeachment trial evah without witnesses!"
    .
    That depends on how you count. This says it was the fourth:
    https://www.legislativeprocedure.com/blog/2020/1/30/50fkw8a3aauatwiq2l4xcy8i1hss34

    It looks like English and Kent short circuited the process by resigning during their trials, but Blount seems to have been tried before the charges were dismissed.

    Some of the trials took as little as one day.

  101. Thomas Fuller,
    Strictly partisan impeachments are never going to succeed. Republicans learned this. Now Dems have. Note my proposed amendment above, which would eliminate the problem.

  102. SteveF, read the dissents in the ObamaCare case.
    The dissenting justices do not consider it an unconstitutional usurpation of liberty by Congress to tax people for not purchasing a health insurance plan that meets Congress's guideline.

  104. Mike N,
    Read the dissent in Sebilius by Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas: they were very clear that they found the individual mandate unconstitutional. It was only Roberts that saved the Affordable Care Act with hogwash arguments that the plain words of the law…. a penalty for *not* buying something…. really meant a “tax” for not buying something. Mealy-mouthed hogwash on multiple levels.

  105. SteveF, we covered this here before.
    They found the mandate unconstitutional.
    However, they object to the tax argument only because the law does not say it is a tax.
    If ObamaCare had been written with the 'shared responsibility payment' clearly written as a tax, then the dissenters would have upheld the law.

  106. Mike N,
    We probably have covered it before. It may be that those in dissent would have supported the law as Constitutional had it been a simple head-tax which applied to everyone, with a credit against that tax for good behavior (buying health insurance). The problem was that the law was perfectly clear, and *never* described the penalty as a tax. The dissenters rightly pointed out the sear absurdity of Roberts’ argument the the plain words of the law do not even matter. The dissenters also correctly pointed out that under the Constitution, all taxes must be initiated in the House, while Obamacare, as passed, was initiated in the Senate. Roberts and the majority didn’t even bother to address that unconstitutionality in the law. Sebelius was Roberts’ worst opinion ever, and right up there with Kelo in terms of destructive usurping of individual rights. George Bush made a terrible mistake when he selected Roberts… someone who is usually part of the problem, not part of the solution.

  107. SteveF (Comment #179425): "It may be that those in dissent would have supported the law as Constitutional had it been a simple head-tax which applied to everyone, with a credit against that tax for good behavior (buying health insurance). The problem was that the law was perfectly clear, and *never* described the penalty as a tax."
    .
    I have never been impressed by that argument. A thing is what it is, not what it is called. A tax by any other name is still a tax.
    .
    I am a big believer in judicial restraint. Obergefell was a terrible decision, independent of whether gay marriage is good idea. And Sebelius was the right decision, independent of whether Obamacare was a good law. The courts have no business striking down legislation unless it plainly violates the Constitution. If the issue comes down to a quibble over wording, then the courts should defer, which the Roberts court did. Except for striking down the part of Obamacare that was plainly unconstitutional.

  109. SteveF,

    Strictly speaking, Obamacare as passed did originate in the House. The Senate completely rewrote a House bill:

    "The bill that became the ACA, H.R. 3590, originated in the House as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009. It was gutted by the Senate and replaced with the ACA before being passed and sent back to the House for final passage."

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26809161

    So obviously somebody in the Senate was thinking about the origination clause when they wrote the bill.

  111. So what the Supreme Court has decided with Roberts consent is that the US government can tax you to force you to purchase anything they decide you should purchase. It becomes an interesting quest to list things our so-called limited government cannot force a citizen to do. That I suspect is a very short list and potentially a much shorter list given the statist surge in left wing lawyers and professors involved directly and indirectly in the legal systems and so-called conservatives who would not oppose these powers for government actions they might favor.

    For example, could the government tax your income let us say 20% (it could evidently be any amount) if you failed to purchase a pamphlet extolling the virtues of government instituted controls on the economy in order to attempt to mitigate climate change? Could the government tax you if you failed to purchase renewable energy? Could the government tax you if you failed to purchase a recommended list of healthy foods?

  112. Kenneth,
    Yes, that is the real issue: is the Federal government able to force you to buy anything they want you to, no matter what?
    .
    The SC's ACA ruling answers an emphatic 'Yes'. There were 5 votes for this on the SC, which I find at once both astounding and very troubling. It seems those 5 members simply reject the whole concept of limited Federal government that the Constitution describes, and that they never understood the implications of a "Tyranny of the majority."

  113. SteveF (Comment #179429): "A legislative fraud it remains. Most of the ACA is a fraud."
    .
    I largely agree. I just disagree as to the role of the courts in protecting us from such legislative bad behavior. That is the privilege and responsibility of the voters.

  114. Mike M,
    I believe the Constitution was written mainly to *limit* the things the Federal government can do… while the SC has spent the last 100 years or so doing their best to undermine the original purpose of the Constitution (protecting people from Federal over-reach!) via "re-interpreting" the plain words to mean almost anything. If the Constitution can be "re-interpreted" to mean anything, then it means nothing… which I think pretty well explains the motivation of "progressive" judges: take rights away for the individual and transfer them to government; to hell with the Constitution.

  115. Roberts did not say the government could force you to buy anything or do anything, using its taxing power. He placed a limit that if the tax is too high it becomes coercive, and not constitutional.

    The court did not strike down the individual mandate. If they had, the entire law would have been thrown out.

  116. MikeN,
    “He placed a limit that if the tax is too high it becomes coercive, and not constitutional.”
    .
    Hummm…. sounds kind of arbitrary and capricious… like many of his decisions. Seems to me any tax (or penalty) specifically designed to motivate compliance with specific desired choices is in fact coercion. So who decides how much coercion is too much? I guess he thinks that ought to be John Roberts. Talk about BS. I think the Federal government ought not be in the business of coercion, and the SC has an obligation to block efforts at coercion by the Federal government.

  117. We should not forget the implications for unlimited government when considering:

    Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, had no problem allowing under the Commerce Clause the Federal Government's regulation of commercial inactivity. Roberts went far afield to make the payments for non compliance for purchasing insurance under ACA a tax when the program was sold on that part as not being a tax. He, in other words, allowed congress to sell a program one way that would make it unconstitutional (for a majority of one in this case) only to have a justice who would have otherwise declared with the majority interpret it as something that would have made the selling more difficult to impossible. Surely Roberts should have been kneeling in supplication when he rendered that part of his decision.

    I believe that our court system over time has leaned heavily towards unlimited government by way of enabling laws and programs passing through congress where individual freedoms take a back seat to laws the court considers within the realm of government.

    I have not found the limits that Justice Roberts put on the amounts of taxes allowed to render compliance in these cases. I have only found the following contortions from Roberts on this topic , but I await to be enlightened.

    "Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language— stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”— does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance."

    "But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful." But not paying the tax in lieu of not having the insurance is unlawful???

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

  118. Kenneth,
    “But not paying the tax in lieu of not having the insurance is unlawful???”
    .
    Of course refusing to pay the ACA penalty (‘tax’) would ultimately lead to criminal prosecution. That was the entire point of the ACA: “Do exactly as we say….. or else the IRS will be after you.”

  119. SteveF (Comment #179425): "It may be that those in dissent would have supported the law as Constitutional had it been a simple head-tax which applied to everyone, with a credit against that tax for good behavior (buying health insurance)."
    .
    SteveF (Comment #179431): "Yes, that is the real issue: is the Federal government able to force you to buy anything they want you to, no matter what?"
    .
    MikeN (Comment #179435): "Roberts did not say the government could force you to buy anything or do anything, using its taxing power. He placed a limit that if the tax is too high it becomes coercive, and not constitutional."
    .
    MikeN is correct. The penalty can be seen as simply foregoing a tax credit that is made available to those who do that which the government wishes to encourage. Nobody claims that the mortgage interest deduction forced people to buy a house or that the child tax credit forces people to have children. The text quoted by Kenneth (Comment #179437) seems to make that clear.

    No one was forced to buy insurance under the ACA. And the application of such penalties would be limited to things that the tax law could legitimately be used to encourage or discourage.
    .
    It is not unlawful for me to refuse to do those things that the tax law seeks to encourage. But it would be unlawful for me to refuse to pay my resulting tax bill.
    .
    Personally, I don't like using the income tax in that way. But doing so is clearly constitutional.

  120. Mike M,
    Who will determine when the use of creatively formulated taxes, specifically designed to force certain purchases becomes coercive? Real question. I see no limitation whatever in Roberts’ nonsense argument.
    .
    Comparing the blatant coercion of the ACA to tax deductions is a stretch. I happen to think those deductions are foolish economic distortions, but that is beside the point. There is no special punitive tax you must pay for not having another child or not purchasing a second house. Why not a special punitive tax for not getting a flu shot, for not losing weight, for not exercising enough, or for not killing yourself when you have terminal cancer (to avoid government expenditure)? By the logic of the ACA ruling, all those punitive taxes are A-OK. The court’s lefties were at least honest: they justify *any* intrusion by Congress into personal liberty with the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause… also rubbish arguments. Roberts couldn’t even be honest about it.

  121. MikeM, do you understand what regulation of commercial inactivity by the government means and how it differs from the usual examples given in attempts to give it equal standing with such government controls as requiring a drivers license? This is a real question. The Supreme Court justices understand and the four liberal ones have no problem with government incursion there which is not surprising. Roberts had a problem with it but through judicial contortions he was able to enable the state to gain more power for providing such a worthy program as ACA – or evidently worthy in Roberts' view.

  122. Transcript from flight controller of downed airliner in Iran:
    .
    “Flares on route, as if from a missile,” the pilot of an Aseman Airlines flight from Shiraz to Tehran said to the controller, according to the transcript.

    The controller responds that the tower was not informed of any missile activity in the area.

    “That surely is light from a missile,” the pilot said. Later, he said: “We saw an explosion. A big flare from the explosion.”
    .
    Iran provided this to Ukraine and it was leaked to Ukrainian media. Obviously they knew from the very beginning what brought down the airliner. Iran now says it will no longer cooperate with Ukraine on the investigation.

  126. Coercive, constitutional, both or neither?
    60% income tax. You get a credit of 20% of your income for each child you have.

  127. MikeN,
    What if you have 10 children? Real question.
    Of course it is coercive… also insane.

  128. I've gotten so used to the idea that the government uses tax to incentivize / disincentivize behavior that it's hard for me to look at with fresh eyes.

  129. SteveF: "Who will determine when the use of creatively formulated taxes, specifically designed to force certain purchases becomes coercive? Real question. I see no limitation whatever in Roberts’ nonsense argument."

    **********
    In a logical sense you are right. In a practical sense, it is not quite as bad as it might seem. Roberts, the Repubs on S. Ct and maybe even some Dems almost certainly recognize that this could be an extremely dangerous concept. I expect the doctrine to be strongly circumscribed in the future.

    …….
    Much more dangerous in my mind is Obama's "prosecutorial discretion" theory/doctrine for totally ignoring and undermining immigration law. There is no law that cannot be rendered null by Obama's procedure even though prosecutorial discretion is a long accepted doctrine [that was never applied in the extreme way that Obama did it]. For instance, Trump could functionally reduce income taxes by simply announcing that he wouldn't prosecute people that don't pay their tax. Or, EEOC laws could be negated in the same way.

    ************
    Taking a logical principle to a ridiculous extreme is always possible in a strictly technical sense. In the past, the US had some basic shared beliefs, which would prevent what I will colloquially call logical extremism. We are fast approaching the point where there are not enough shared beliefs and values to hold the country together. That is the major reason that I oppose the Democratic open borders policy. (if you want to be picky, call it functional open borders policy)

    JD

  130. JD Ohio,
    I understand that lots of people (and even some democrats!) appreciate the danger to liberty in the Court’s foolish ACA ruling. As a practical matter, nothing like the ACA could be passed now, nor likely any time in the near future: the ACA happened because there was a brief time when Dems controlled the executive, the House, and had 60 votes in the Senate. This gives little comfort, since it is now normal for progressive Dems to say the Senate filibuster must go. Were the Dems in charge of both houses by slim majority and the presidency, there is no limit to the loss of personal liberty that could quickly follow….. and that’s only because a numbskull named Roberts could not bring himself to strike down a law which was clearly coercive, destructive of liberty, and contrary to the concept of limited government the Constitution describes. He has set an ugly and destructive example, and one which will invite similar laws in the future.
    .
    WRT Obama refusing to enforce laws: I completely agree. Obama was the most lawless president since Lincoln, but Lincoln at least had an excuse. Obama simply ignored any law he thought inhibited ‘progress’, be that immigration law, environmental law, or the need for the Senate to affirm treaties….. and history will not be kind, especially when his personal involvement in ‘crossfire-hurricane’ comes out. The Courts seemed (very slowly!) to recognize that Obama’s lawlessness had to be stopped, but only after he had already done much damage. Let’s hope there is a better chief justice the next time someone like Obama gets elected.

  131. It appears to me that JD and Steve here are counting on (hoping for) some kind of personal integrity or guilt or remorse here as the restraint on government power. That being in lieu of an unambiguous and generally agreed upon Constitutional restraint is of no comfort for me.

  132. Iowa essentially skipped due to technical issues (thank shadow). Looks like a break for Biden and a blow to Bernie.
    .
    Gulag for shadow.

  133. mark bofill,

    The humor content is probably missed by the Dem cheerleaders at CNN, MSNBC, et al, but it won't be missed by everyone. The Babylon Bee should have a field day with this FUBAR. Of course the whole thing was set up by some of the geniuses who ran Hillary's campaign in 2016.
    .
    The larger message is: Democrat == incompetent (returns true in C+ 😉 ).
    .
    Just hilarious.

  134. The big winner in the Iowa Democrat caucus was Donald Trump.

    For all the deserved abuse the party is taking, they actually deserve some credit for having procedures that enabled them to spot a problem before they announced screwed up results.

    The media are acting as if the purpose of the caucus was to provide them with guaranteed news and are offended that they are inconvenienced by the delay.

    The delayed result really should not make one bit of difference. But it will, because the news media collectively have the attention span of a gnat.

  135. mike M,
    "…they actually deserve some credit for having procedures that enabled them to spot a problem before they announced screwed up results."
    .
    It's a bit like saying Boeing deserves credit for having two crashes enable them to spot the problems with the control system on the 737 MAX. The Iowa system needed to be fully tested and verified *before* it was ever used. It wasn't. They really have no excuse for that; it was gross incompetence.
    .
    I do at least enjoy the humor value in the Iowa fiasco…. you don't often get to hear multiple victory speeches by different candidates…. for the same office.

  136. SteveF (Comment #179460): "It's a bit like saying Boeing deserves credit for having two crashes enable them to spot the problems with the control system on the 737 MAX."
    .
    No, it is as if Boeing rolled out the 737 MAX, then shut it down to fix once they started getting reports of problems, rather than waiting for a disaster. Or two.

  137. Yeah.
    https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-in-chaos-after-primaries-require-basic-math
    .
    Although I maintain that the line between reality and satire has become increasingly tenuous of late.
    https://www.ibtimes.com/schiff-if-trump-left-unchecked-he-could-sell-alaska-russia-2915574
    .
    Uhm, *no*. If left unchecked Trump is *not* going to sell Alaska to Russia. I wonder what sort of drugs Schiff is taking and where he's getting them from.
    .
    But seriously, would you blink if you saw this on the Bee? [I wouldn't.] It's exactly the sort of headline you'd expect over there.

  138. It's meaningless in the grand scheme, but the optics aren't good for a party who wants to hand the health system to the government.
    .
    The left is writing the campaign ads for the right, with this and the recent CNN mocking of Trump supporters.

  139. It is noted that after election results are delayed for unexplained reasons and apparent complete incompetence is evident that the MSM fails to even speculate on nefarious activities from the usual suspects or that this is a "danger" to our democracy and election system security. I was previously told these were rather extreme problems. The coverage to date is "just the facts" with the typical Republicans pounce narrative. This is the selection and framing bias that our captains of truth and integrity often display in times of embarrassment for the home team.

  140. mark bofill,
    “I wonder what sort of drugs Schiff is taking and where he's getting them from.”
    .
    It is now obvious that Schiff has gone utterly barking mad, and I am completely serious about that.
    .
    Of course, anyone watching him over the last few years already knew he was more than a little nutty. I think his current meltdown is just a reaction to his failure to remove Trump from office, but the guy has had a very tenuous relationship with reality since he started telling stories about having proof of Trump’s collusion with Russia…. proof he never produced… and he is still raging about Trump colluding with Russia, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Really, I believe he’s mentally ill and needs medical help.

  141. Tom Scharf,
    "….the optics aren't good for a party who wants to hand the health system to the government."
    .
    Were that it was only health care! They want public (AKA government) control of most *everything*, and crushing tax rates… up to 90%….. to finance it all. As taxes approach 100% of income, personal liberty approaches zero.

  142. SteveF
    ** The Iowa system needed to be fully tested and verified *before* it was ever used. It wasn't. They really have no excuse for that; it was gross incompetence.**
    I'm not sure it could have been. The caucus is unique. There aren't smaller less important caucauses for other things in Iowa.
    .
    That said: I'm guessing the came up with an idea to have a whole bunch of bells and whistles with too short a time frame for implementation and then….. Since I'm not involved, and don't have any strong preference for one candidate over the other, it's really sort of funny. But it is definitely a screw up for the Iowa DEMOCRATIC caucus, since (I'm pretty sure) it's run by a party and not the state.

  143. lucia,
    >>I'm not sure it could have been.
    .
    Nothing I work on involves large numbers of simultaneous users and generally doesn't involve mobile apps or the internet. I'm therefore speculating outside of my competence. I still think there are ways to test this stuff.
    Google play console used to support alpha and beta releases of apps where only approved test people were able to download. What with all the grassroots organization the DNC has (presumably in Iowa as well) I think they could've worked out a good verification and validation if they cared enough.
    [Edit: yeah, here : https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/launch/test-tracks ]
    .
    Maybe they could've made it fun; run a trial with Disney characters up for the vote, or Star Wars, or Marvel. Or Hhistorical figures. Who knows.]

  144. Mark,
    Fair enough.

    The thing is, with various google applications or other commercial applications, they can pull if things aren't working on the day of the launch. With the Iowa Caucus…. not so much!

  146. lucia (Comment #179467): "I'm not sure it could have been. The caucus is unique. There aren't smaller less important caucuses for other things in Iowa."
    .
    I am sure mark is right and that it *could* have been tested much more rigorously. But that would have involved an elaborate and carefully thought out set of mock caucuses, involving people who were typical of the volunteers running the caucuses. I am not surprised that was not done.
    .
    It may be that the big problem was a failure to consider human factors. It seems that a large proportion of the people who were supposed to use the app never bothered to download it. They just decided to phone in the results, the way they always did. Remember that these are volunteers who are mostly retirees.
    .
    But they could not phone the results in. The "planners" set up a number for help with the app and a number for calling in results. The same number. So the lines got jammed with people struggling with the app and the people just trying to phone in results could not get through. That is something for which there is no excuse.

  148. MikeM.

    Even in "normal" polling, the people handing out ballots tend to be retired. Of those who are not, a large fraction are people who work polls once or twice for the experience. (I've worked polls twice.) YOu have a *very small* fraction of non-retirees who come back year after year.
    .
    That means there is ALWAYS a problem with new equipment– so they want to make sure on "veteran -not- octegenarian" is at each station to make sure things get set up. ( When I worked the polls, we had to drag tables in place and get the electronic ballot reader unlocked, kinda-sorta unfolded, plugged in. It wasn't extremely heavy work, but my 87 year old mother would not be able to do it.)
    .
    After set up, things are fairly routine and can go "on a roll". But the day is long because the polls are open a long time.
    .
    The caucauses don't run quite as long for those *working*, but they are more chaotic. I'm not sure if there is ever a period when it is "on a roll". New equipment, apps methods is always going to be a problem.
    .
    Given the importance, they SHOULD have run a "mini caucus" no later than two weeks ago– precisely to make sure the ACTUAL poll works had the app, had downloaded it, had used it once to send in pseudo data and so on. Instead, those poll workers seem to have ended up doing all that while involved in the caucus, which is sort of chaotic even using the established methods!
    .
    Oh…well….:)

  149. It appears that the app provider was politically progressive which has just got to make you feel good about it regardless of what its part was in the troubled reporting. As a matter of fact the Democrat party of Iowa is progressive and regardless of their responsibilities in this matter their intentions were good and carried out by a diverse group people.

    The Iowa Democrat votes are a diverse group with progressive good intentions.

    The candidates running are not so diverse, but they do have progressive good intentions.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/iowa-voters-younger-more-diverse-than-leading-democratic-candidates-11580861170?mod=djemBestOfTheWeb

  150. Kenneth,
    It would be extremely difficult for most Iowa voters to be *older* than most the candidates. How old is Biden again?
    .

  151. Since Lucia told of her polling experience I cannot pass up the opportunity to tell mine.

    As Lucia noted there are a lot of the same older people who volunteer for working the polling places. Most of them have a good sense of humor and are not all that formal in their approaches sometimes.

    I was in line waiting to give my name and sign for the ballot when I realized the lady before me in line was a neighbor who had the same last name as me and of whom I was not really a close friend but she was a closer friend of my wife. The polling worker who had taken her name was an old timer who I had seen many times before working the polls. When he took my name he says loudly: "I see you and Mary are no longer living together" and I, taking the bait, replied as loudly: "No not any more". The lady with my last name turns and just as loudly began a long explanation to people in line as to how we were never related and only had the same last name and lived in the same voting precinct. When she finished I could not help saying: "Now, now, Mary". A not so close friendship had suddenly become a very distant one and remains there to this day.

  152. lucia (Comment #179475)

    Or richer or whiter or maybe even more progressive. They are probably older than the poll workers!!

  153. Lucia,
    Biden would be 78 when he entered office in January 2021, and Bernie would be 79. Elizabeth Warren would be 71…. a spring chicken. But their ages are not likely important; their chance of winning in November is not high, and will probably drop when one is selected as the Dem candidate and subjected to a lot more scrutiny.
    .
    One interesting result from Iowa is just how badly Biden did: a distant 4th! My guess is that he offended a lot of Iowans when he got into a shouting match with an elderly voter over Hunter Biden and his Burisma millions. Dem voters may be realizing that Biden is damaged goods and are moving to other candidates.

  154. Watching the State of the Union, I think SNL will have to work hard to mock it. They'll probably fixate on Rush Limbaugh and that general they keep cutting to.

  155. With respect to the technical issues with the App, Steve McIntyre on twitter commented that taking care of the problem was "trivial" and he didn't know why anyone would even do the app. Can't find the tweet now. [Shortly after posting, did find:

    https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1224570100692418560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1224570100692418560

    Here is another one in same vein.

    ********
    "how could there be a coding error in a calculation that added up election results from 1448 precincts in a "sound" dataset? That shouldn't take more than a couple of lines of perfectly transparent code. It's not a $600,000 or even $60,000 project; it's a $6 project." https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1224717159101845504

  156. MikeN,
    "I think SNL will have to work hard to mock it."
    .
    I think they have material: Trumps endless "best in history" opening section, all the eye-rolls by Dems, Nancy Pelosi tearing his speech in half, Trump refusing to shake Pelosi's hand (before or after), etc. The mutual loathing between them was itself pretty funny. Heck, I think I could come up with a funny knock-off skit if I had to.
    .
    It was otherwise typical boring SOU drivel, of course.

  157. JD, I have done projects where you parse files in a specific format and tabulate the totals, and the files are attachments sent by e-mail.
    The app wasn't necessary, but it's what they wanted. Even as an app, it shouldn't have been difficult.
    Campaigns are using more complicated apps right now.

  158. Gallup: Trump approval rating at record high. Looks like impeachment was a flop. The hysterical impeachment media coverage now seems quite muted, I wonder why?

  159. Mike N: "JD, I have done projects where you parse files in a specific format and tabulate the totals, and the files are attachments sent by e-mail."

    I recently had to work with a large property tax excel file with 354,000 rows and about 25 columns. Paid someone at freelancer.com $500 to extract what I wanted and to do a mail merge. Seems way more complicated than what they were trying to do in Iowa.

  160. Grins.
    There is no project so simple that some developer somewhere cant screw it up.
    I expect Lucia was correct about last minute bells and whistles.

  161. Tom Scharf,
    “The hysterical impeachment media coverage now seems quite muted, I wonder why?”
    .
    Part is the complete lack of news value…. the outcome has been known for a long time: Trump remains in office. The breathless coverage of the proceedings while the House managers made their arguments was (of course) an effort to damage Trump. Acquittal doesn’t damage Trump, so there will be no breathless coverage of the “historic process”.
    .
    Another factor is the likelihood a few Dems from states where Trump has broad support will vote to acquit… not a good look for a party that has claimed the case for removal from office is “air tight”.

  162. Nancy Pelosi’s decision to rip up Trump’s text at the end of the SOU has to rank as one of the dumbest political choices ever…. she just gave Trump’s campaign another effective TV ad for September and October.
    .
    It is symptomatic of the personal invective with which Pelosi has acted over the past three years. Acting impulsively is not a good look for someone who rages constantly about Trump being impulsive. IMO, she is now out of control and needs to retire.

  163. SteveF (Comment #179487): "Nancy Pelosi’s decision to rip up Trump’s text at the end of the SOU has to rank as one of the dumbest political choices ever…. she just gave Trump’s campaign another effective TV ad for September and October."
    .
    Indeed. Even more, she gave an effective ad to 435 Republican candidates for the House.

    But remember, she prays for Trump every day and does not hate anybody. To do otherwise would be contrary to how she was raised.

    Yeah. Right.

  165. It wasn't just tearing up the speech. Pelosi was putting up faces to express her displeasure, that she is capable of avoiding. She didn't want to get certain House members mad at her for being too nice to Trump.

  166. Trump said he would be low key, and he somehow did it while simultaneously serving up bold statements like bringing in Rush Limbaugh and Guaido from Venezuela, and also attacking his predecessor in a manner I don't remember seeing in previous state of the union addresses.

    The biggest impact on the election will be calling for school choice. Either Trump was just watching closely, or Ron DeSantis pointed out how it got him 20% of votes from black women.

    The other major impact was Trump's demeanor, that if he had done consistently would not have seen him lose so many votes from suburban women. I would say this is equal to the above, but I suspect the demeanor will not last.

  167. I did not keep score, but it strikes me that the speech was largely partisan and bipartisan at the same time.

    The partisan aspect – well, that is obvious.

    But almost everything Trump said should have a great deal of support among the average independent and moderate Democrat voter. His criticisms of prior administrations (which included Bush, though less so than Obama) went after ways that they let down the American people as a whole on the economy, China, endless wars, bad trade deals. And the policy issues Trump highlighted are areas where Bernie and the Squad are at odds with the large majority of Americans.

  170. Very childish of Pelosi, Trump yet again brings out the worst in his opponents. Very few people who enter the mud pit with Trump come out looking good.
    .
    She was probably boiling mad after Trump snubbed her handshake, the Iowa debacle, and the failed impeachment, and just lost her mind. In her mind she is losing to a complete idiot and that is too much to bear. I doubt very seriously she would have ripped up his speech if he would have shook her hand. We all know Trump is a child, so him getting her to go into full tantrum mode is a win for him. There are no adults in the room here.

  171. Mark,
    On Pelosi tearing up the paper with the speech printed on it:
    "…telling reporters later “it was the courteous thing to do, considering the alternative. It was such a dirty speech.”
    .
    Ok… I can think of a zillion alternatives. I imagine this was pre-planned. Possibly before the speech. Possibly planned as she was stewing at having to stand behind Trump during the speech.

    This particular alternative was something that could be done on camera and it's why she picked this method of showing her disdain for Trump.

  172. Lucia,
    I agree with you. But tearing up the speech wasn't remotely 'the courteous thing to do'. It sounds satirical to me, although my experience has been I'm (at least) slightly tone deaf when it comes to satire.
    Might just be me.

  173. mark,
    Sure. It could have been satirical. I'd also guess she also preplanned her response when asked why she did it. I mean…. if she did plan it while stewing, she's politician enough to plan the timing, to know she'll be asked and to pre-plan her response.
    .
    She's not going to say, "I wanted to show my disdain publically, knew the cameras were on me and knew people would talk about this after I did this. So I decided I'd tear it up on camera to get a nice news clip!"

  175. From Wikipedia:
    "Archaeological ruins and ancient texts show that handshaking – also known as dexiosis – was practiced in ancient Greece as far back as the 5th century BC……The handshake is believed by some to have originated as a gesture of peace by demonstrating that the hand holds no weapon."
    .
    I guess refusing a handshake is a gesture of lack of peace. 😉
    .
    Since Pelosi has spent the past 3 years claiming Trump is not legitimately president, and trying her best to drive him from office, refusing a handshake seems almost appropriate. I note that Trump has for sure said lots of very bad things about Pelosi, but he never claimed she was not a legitimate office holder. The two have been provoking each other since Trump assumed office, but the provocations have been very different in nature.

  176. It may just be a page from the Trump playbook of controlling the news cycle. SOTU's are quickly forgotten. The media is very compliant with their herd behavior reporting. Nancy probably was only capable of tearing a few pages, good thing she didn't botch that up, ha ha. Next year she will be handed Kevlar paper. These people certainly have our best interests at heart, no doubt!

  177. Lucia,
    That actually took longer than I thought.
    .
    There will be more effective mashups. For example, camera zooms in on Trump, in the last seconds of the speech, where Trump says::
    .
    "America is the place where anything can happen! America is the place where anyone can rise. And here, on this land, on this soil, on this continent, the most incredible dreams come true!
    This Nation is our canvas, and this country is our masterpiece. We look at tomorrow and see unlimited frontiers just waiting to be explored. Our brightest discoveries are not yet known. Our most thrilling stories are not yet told. Our grandest journeys are not yet made. The American Age, the American Epic, the American Adventure, has only just begun!"
    .
    Cut to the video of Pelosi tearing up the speech, and lay text over it: Nancy Pelosi- "I tore it up. I was trying to find one page with truth on it. I couldn’t."
    .
    Announcer: Why elect people who reject America and the hope it offers to the world? On November 3, vote for Donald Trump.
    .

    Like I said: Pelosi pulled off the absolute dumbest political stunt I have ever witnessed.

  178. Tom Scharf,
    "Next year she will be handed Kevlar paper."
    .
    That *would* be funny, but I suspect Pelosi will not be speaker next year…. Dems may lose control, or they may find a different Speaker. One way or another, I believe she is toast.

  179. "Next year she will be handed Kevlar paper."
    That *would* be funny,

    Not so much. Look at the opening of the speech. Pelosi tests the strength of the paper under the table when Trump hands it to her.

  181. I love youtube. I'm watching at speed setting 2.
    .
    So far, Nancy is flipping through the papers over and over. The blink rate on speed setting 2 is hilarious!

  182. Senate has acquitted the President on abuse of power, 52-48.
    [Edit: Hah! I beat you by a couple of seconds there Lucia!]

  184. Looks both are over
    The US Senate has voted 52 to 48 to acquit Donald Trump of abusing presidential powers and obstruction of Congress.

    Get live updates on the #impeachment votes here: trib.al/P1PZbBZ

  187. Romney is inviting a primary challenge in 2022… Trump’s approval rate in Utah is 57% and rising. Of course, Romney may be planning on retiring at the end of his 6 years.
    .
    Have both parties learned that partisan impeachment is a loser? Based on the Dem’s public statements, I am beginning to think not. Maybe losing control of the House would make the lesson sink in.

  188. I just stepped outside. Nobody screaming at the sky here in Huntsville that I can hear. Seems peaceful.

  189. mark,
    I'm also glad it's over. Brexit too.
    .
    Sometimes, politicians have to shit or get off the pot. Not sure which they did in each case, but these things have just been going on and on…

  190. I've got a bad cold. So I'm not stepping out to see if chaos erupted. Jim did walk back from Zumba just as the votes took place and got home safely. He is going to be brave and risk a trip to the grocery store.

  191. The next investigation into the lawless presidency will no doubt begin tomorrow and will be very, very, serious and will be talked about with great urgency by very, very serious people because democracy itself is at stake here. It will be totally, totally different this time because it will be a serious investigation that only fact challenged people could possibly disagree with. It's JUST LIKE Germany in the 1930's now!!!! Trump will be unconstrained for sure now.
    .
    I hope academia once again has all their grief counselors ready today.

  192. Around 1:41:00 you can see Nancy can tell the end is nearing and she starts preparing small piles. I'm guessing she knows how many sheets in a pile are tearable and each is "just right". Then they are spread out so she can grab them.
    .
    She fiddles a bit more with them– replacing into several neat piles. The instant he says thank you, she stands grabs a pile and starts tearing.
    .
    So at a minimum, this bit of theater was staged over a few minutes (if not longer).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zepiHyho0WM

  193. Tom Scharf,
    Yup, exactly like when Hitler seized power in Germany! Of course, there is the small detail of Trump seeming to actually like jewish people… oh say, like his grandkids. But almost the same as Hitler!
    .
    I think the trauma making many dems go unhinged is that Trump is actually *reversing* many cherished progressive policies, like defacto open borders and most of Obama’s environmental (and other) regulations. Actual reversal of desired policies is something Dems have not suffered since Ronald Reagan… the Bushes both did little more than resist further “progress”. Trump is very different.

  194. She definitely was piling some paper piles there. It looks orchestrated.
    .
    Pelosi on the handshake snub: "Democrats will never stop extending the hand of friendship". My eyes rolled so far back in my head they almost detached.

  195. Lucia,
    “Sometimes, politicians have to sh!t or get off the pot.”
    .
    I get the feeling Dems in the house are in no mood to get off the pot, no matter the volume they have already produced. Unless cooler heads prevail, I think the House committees will return to constantly investigating Trump. People have already tried to remind them of Einstein’s aphorism about insanity, but so far, they don’t seem to be listening.

  196. That is a relief.
    Now for some fair fighting instead of both hands tied behind the back and tweeting.
    Interesting days ahead!

  197. I think we're seeing Biden's end here. Of course it's too early for certainty. He's in 4'th place coming out of Iowa, he's very probably going to lose in Hew Hampshire next week. He's still up in the nationwide polls but I don't think that's going to last.
    .
    As likely as not, Trump will face Sanders, although that really is speculative. I don't really have a firm opinion on who is going to win the Dem primary, except that I don't think it's going to be Biden. Not unless something really turns the tide for him.

  199. Not only did Pelosi test the paper at the beginning, near the end of the speech, she made partial tears.

  200. Media is still fighting Bernie. They are still reporting Buttigieg in the lead even though Bernie has clearly won the popular vote which was the only thing anyone ever cared about.
    Media instead reports it as 'Bernie closes the gap on Buttigieg' in the delegate count- not the delegates that go to the convention, but the all important tally of 'state delegate equivalents.'

  201. Correction. Apparently Iowa Democrats have always reported SDEs as their only vote total. The .3% loss by Bernie in 2016 was 701-697.

  202. The Republicans want Sanders to win, but one should remember that the left wanted Trump to win not so long ago as they thought he was easy to beat. Sanders is at least authentic, even if it is crazy authentic. As it sits now the right is more fired up, but it is a long time until November, about 10,000 tweets away.

  203. Biden might well be on the way out. But his support won't be going to Sanders. Where that support goes will have a big impact on how the primaries play out. I am guessing Klobucher, if she can keep her head above water long enough to take advantage. That is far from certain.

    Warren is fading, Buttigieg has not established support beyond Iowa and New Hampshire. So maybe it will continue to be a mess, with no one able to consolidate the not-Sanders voters. That will leave the door open for Bloomberg.

    The Bolshie vs. the Billionaire. I don't see any way that ends well for the Democrats.

  204. I am not convinced that Sanders is all that authentic. He used to have a conventional labor union view of immigration; he abandoned that 4 years ago to pander to the SJWs. Now he has gone full open borders. That in spite of the fact that open borders is incompatible with the kind of social programs he promotes. And he is now going along with identity politics, which is anathema to an old-style socialist like Bernie.

    Yes, the left adopts all sorts of contradictory positions. But Bernie knows better, so he is just pandering.

    Then there is the way he has used his political positions to line his own pockets by diverting public and campaign funds to his wife. Yes, that is common; but it contradicts who he claims to be. And he seems perfectly comfortable with the wealth he has accumulated. So he is not really against the rich; he is only against people richer than him.

  205. Rigging Iowa makes Bernie bros super angry.
    If DNC follows thru on changing the rules so the superdelegates can vote, then Milwaukee convention will look worse than Chicago '68.
    Lots of gifts to Trump.

    Ultimately Bernie will be bought off by Bloomberg.

  206. It appears to me that Sanders simply has no backbone. He will not stand his ground and ends up backing down and apologizing to his opponents every time he's challenged.

  207. What some observers appear to see as unusual reactions and behavior from the current crop of politicians, I see as merely getting feelings and behavioral patterns out in the open. While I have a distinct dislike of nearly all politicians and even more so for Trump and Pelosi, what they did to each other the other night was refreshing from the point of view that politicians in general are supreme phonies and can make one gag at their obvious pretending. I have noticed that the public's favorable views of politicians, and I believe government in general, has been in decline ever since it started with Nixon and Watergate where a politician's everyday conversations and behaviors were made public.

    I suspect my parents had a view of politicians and the workings of government that would have come out of the idealized portrayal of a Civics 101 course. It is my hope that later generations will see how government in general works and the very high content of political motivations that run it. At some point a younger generation might, instead of embracing more government to overcome the problems of too much government, decide that they do not want those clowns controlling their lives.

  209. DaveJR (Comment #179534): "It appears to me that Sanders simply has no backbone."
    .
    Indeed. So President Sanders will not face down the Deep-State-Wall-Street-media-Silicon-Valley complex. He will negotiate with it and get some things while giving in on others. The things he will get will be just the things on which that complex agrees with him. So Sanders will end up doing his masters' bidding.

    The Establishment actually has little to fear from Sanders.

    Four years ago, I did not realize that and so felt that if we got a Democrat president, Sanders would be much preferable to Clinton, since at least he would fight for the people against the Establishment. But I now seem him as just a crazier and more crotchety version of a conventional Democrat.

  210. Sanders has been crazy for a long time. One way to measure "authenticness" is taking controversial positions and sticking with them even when it hurts. Another is the ability to talk off script and not caring about the media's gotcha obsession. Another is the ability to convey real honest emotion. I don't think Sanders is faking his hatred of billionaires. Robots like Warren and HRC don't utter a word that wasn't panel tested (deplorables being an exception, ha ha). Reagan was the best in this category IMO. Bill Clinton was also good. Obama was a high talent faker. HRC was a low talent faker.

    Trump is a master at conveying an "I don't give a f*** what they think" attitude and broke the tired and brittle mold of politicians.
    All politicians temper their extremes on low priority issues and they all change occasionally. It's all a big performance but some are better actors than others.

  212. According to @taniel, if Iowa-1 satellite caucuses total more than 600 people attending, then Bernie Sanders has won the caucuses. He took this lead because his campaign was more aware of the rules and dominated these satellites. It is a zoomed-in version of what Obama did to Hillary in 2008.
    Now with all these errors DNC chairman has ordered a recanvass by the state party, and they are modifying the delegate allocation rules for satellites.

  213. Mike M,
    "The Bolshie vs. the Billionaire."
    .
    The humor value is very high. Bernie on the debate stage with Bloomberg, and says something like: "No one should ever have that much money. My administration will advance wealth taxes with a sliding scale to target people like you!" AKA wealth confiscation. Rep Occasional Cortex will be in the audience shouting "Yes! Yes!! Yes!!!"
    .
    None of it will go over real well with Bloomberg, nor with all the tech billionaires who fund the Dems.
    .
    For Trump, Bernie really is the ideal opponent. First: he's nuts. And not just nuts, nuts and very angry. He knows this is his last rodeo, and so every policy is super *urgent*. Second, he can't bring himself to criticize any socialist/communist dictator, even one that has destroyed an economy and thrown multitudes of innocents in prison…. or just killed them. Third, hard to see how choosing to honeymoon in the good old USSR (and downing vodka with the comrades instead of having romantic dinners!) is going to help him in most of the states. Fourth, he can't compromise on socialist principles and "move to the center"…. the public will get to hear an unvarnished Bolshevik argue for his preferred form of government: Government takeover of health care, electric utilities, transportation, etc….essentially a command and control economy. You know, the model that has worked out so well everywhere it's been tried.
    .
    The Dems said Trump was crazy, dangerous, and frightening. Trump wasn't, but Bernie really is.

  214. "The Establishment actually has little to fear from Sanders.
    Four years ago, I did not realize that and so felt that if we got a Democrat president, Sanders would be much preferable to Clinton, since at least he would fight for the people against the Establishment."

    MikeM it might be clearer when you say this if you would better describe what you mean by "Establishment". In my view the only way the Establishment can make a difference to me in my life is by the extent to which it has power over me by way of the government. Sanders is a really big government advocate and thus in his world the government can determine who the favored Establishment is. It might not be the current Establishment but it would be an Establishment nonetheless. Authoritarian governments have Establishments big time.

  215. It turns out that Pelosi broke the law when she tore up the State of the Union speech. She did not just tear up a copy, she tore up the official copy that belongs in the archives.

  216. SteveF (Comment #179541)

    For Trump, Bernie really is the ideal opponent…he can't compromise on socialist principles and "move to the center"…. the public will get to hear an unvarnished Bolshevik argue for his preferred form of government: Government takeover of health care, electric utilities, transportation, etc….essentially a command and control economy. You know, the model that has worked out so well everywhere it's been tried.
    _______

    Capitalism vs Socialism, a passe bebate. Pure capitalism, bad. Pure socialism, bad. Best places to live have a mix of both capitalism and socialism. See Hertitage Foundation. Debate the mix.

    China became an economic power with a "command and control economy." State directed capitalism ain't all bad.

  217. OK_Max,
    “China became an economic power with a "command and control economy.”
    .
    Um, no they remained desperately poor until the government allowed capitalism…. the party is mostly involved in preserving its own power, and lets the entrepreneurs do most anything they want…. including severe pollution and corruption… just not vote.
    .
    I rather suspect we would disagree about what are the best places to live.

  219. China was as poor as every other communist hellhole until 1978/1979. Famine in the 60's. Then Xiaoping implemented limited capitalist policies. Made a world of difference.
    .
    Command economies suck to the extent that they are command economies. Obviously.

  220. Pete has not won Iowa. There are glaring errors in the tally that remain uncorrected by the Iowa Democratic Party. Best estimate is that Bernie is up by .6 SDE.

    For example in one precinct it is Pete 52, Sanders 50, Warren 31, Biden 25, yet Pete and Warren finished with .56 SDE and Biden and Sanders just .28.

  221. SteveF (Comment #179546
    "I rather suspect we would disagree about what are the best places to live."
    _______

    OK, you first.

  222. Hi mark,

    China practices state directed capitalism, which has worked pretty good for them. The command economy is another thing, and hasn't worked so good in the USSR, GDR, N. Korea, or any other place.

  223. mark bofill (Comment #179497)
    February 5th, 2020 at 10:50 am
    Lucia,
    "I agree with you. But tearing up the speech wasn't remotely 'the courteous thing to do'."
    _______

    Sure it was, as opposed to using it for butt wiping or bird cage liner, which I think is what she was implying.

  224. Yes Max, China has an economy that works 'pretty good', if by 'pretty good' you mean better than the mass starvation people suffer under communism.
    Is there some point you are trying to make?

  225. Max,
    If you were less of an imbecile, you might grasp that the *reason* China's economy is working 'pretty good' relative to the past is that they have *decreased* the degree to which the state runs the show. You would be able to generalize from that. But alas. Can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit.

  226. OK_Max,
    The States are probably the best of the 40-odd countries I have visited. Most of the European countries restrict speech far too much and tax too heavily, diminishing quality of life. The influx of Middle Eastern nationals has made many places in those countries dangerous, especially for young women. There are, of course, lots of countries where people with a bit of money can live very well, even if the average standard of living is low; I exclude those from consideration.

  227. I don't know what your problem actually is Max. I don't know that you are an imbecile. I don't know if you are willfully blind, or cognitively impaired, or ideologically possessed, or something else. What *is* apparent is that for whatever reason, you do not speak as if you comprehend the obvious.
    I point it out because it's annoying, and I suspect that you post as you do deliberately to generate annoyance. Maybe you could give it a rest, if it's under your voluntary control. Otherwise, don't expect much courtesy from me. I have to deal with enough fools day to day.

  228. Mark Bofill,
    I do think Max tries to provoke, at least when things are not going in a 'progressive' direction. Trump will remain in office, and if Bernie gets the nomination, there is a very high probability Trump remains in office through January 2025. Bernie is, IMO, just not electable, because the policies he advocates are so economically and socially destructive that he will lose in a landslide. Max will have to get over it.

  229. Steve,
    I agree. It's why I walked back the bit about him being a moron; that's probably not so. It's just as likely he's acting like a moron in order to be irritating.
    If so, he's pretty good at it.

  231. mark bofill (Comment #179559)
    February 7th, 2020 at 9:40 am
    Steve,
    I agree. It's why I walked back the bit about him being a moron; that's probably not so. It's just as likely he's acting like a moron in order to be irritating.
    If so, he's pretty good at it.
    _________

    Thank you, Mark. If it pleases you to think I'm a moron, then do.

    My point was the capitalism vs socialism debate is passe.
    I don't know whether you disagree.

  232. To say something is passe is to say that thing is outmoded or behind the times. So your point is that the capitalism vs socialism debate is outmoded or behind the times. To support this, you point to China's economy and say that state run capitalism ain't all bad.
    .
    I don't think the debate is exactly passe, considering that Sanders is likely to be the democratic nominee. It's not passe in the sense that significant percentages of the population (apparently including you) don't appear to comprehend that socialism adversely affects the economy whereas capitalism advances the economy.
    I think the debate is passe in the sense that the evidence regarding capitalism's beneficent effect on the economy and socialism's baneful effect on the economy [is] plain and well supported in historical example. There *shouldn't* still be debate about this, certainly.

  233. SteveF (Comment #179557): "I do think Max tries to provoke, at least when things are not going in a 'progressive' direction."
    .
    Yep. And when he does that, I try to ignore him.

  235. Sanders will be trying some form of "we will do (democratic) socialism the right way" that is a common argument from those not well acquainted with history. I doubt this argument will work very well in the states previously known as the blue wall. Trump was gifted with picking the right enemies and Bernie is tapping into a lot of frustration/jealously with extreme wealth.
    .
    Neophyte socialists fail to understand that this wealth is being invested and it isn't just sitting around buried in someone's backyard. Do you want Bezos or AOC handling your 401K investments?
    .
    If you have gigantic amounts of natural resources for export than you can implement socialism more effectively, you are redistributing the government's wealth so you aren't taking it away from anyone. Otherwise it tends to just always be wealth distribution by government fiat and unsurprisingly that redistribution favors those with government connections and large scale corruption follows. Government connected people in China tend to be the wealthiest people.
    .
    The wealthier your country is the more socialism it can afford. The US probably looks very socialist in some aspects from the viewpoint of a citizen in 1850. Food stamps, welfare, unemployment, social security, medicare, etc. State owned means of production is crossing a red line very few people are in favor of in the US. The bottom line is "greed works". There is a trade off between incentivizing capitalism and wealth versus the welfare state. At the very least you have to stop the peasants from storming the castle and you don't want to get even close to that.

  236. Bloomberg has been allowed in for the next debate, as the qualification rules were changed. Bernie should skip the debate, and see how much of the field he can get to with him.
    Either that, or he should answer every question with details of how Bloomberg hired DNC Rules Committee members to his campaign before the rules changes.

  237. SteveF (Comment #179555)
    February 7th, 2020 at 8:16 am
    OK_Max,
    The States are probably the best of the 40-odd countries I have visited. Most of the European countries restrict speech far too much and tax too heavily, diminishing quality of life.
    ______

    I wasn't aware of European countries restricting freedom of speech, unless you mean Nazi talk in Germany. Maybe taxing heavily is better than borrowing and running up the national debt.

    I think the best countries are those with the most economic freedom.The Heritage Foundation has 11 countries ranked ahead of the U.S. in economic freedom. Some of them have more socialism (universal health care) than the U.S. So less socialism doesn't necessarily mean more economic freedom.

    But I prefer living in the U.S. because it's what I'm used to. I suspect that's the main reason you too prefer the U.S.

    I recall seeing a ranking of countries by happiness. That's something to consider.

    What do you think are the best places to live in the U.S. ? Here again we might be biased by what we are used to.

    BTW, Bernie would not be my first choice for Dem nominee.

    My preferences in order are:

    Biden
    Bloomberg
    The gay guy
    Warren/Bernie tie

  238. mark bofill (Comment #179564)
    February 7th, 2020 at 10:50 am
    Ok. I'll try that.

    Mark, you made some great points in countering some apparent off-the-cuff and casual defenses of an economy that went from, as you say, a very rigidly controlled one with abject poverty to one that is less rigidly controlled but yet lacks much with regards to individual freedoms. It certainly remains a political system that we would not want to emulate – even by modern liberal statist standards.

    China's economy depends on loans and investments from a state controlled banking system that might appear to be working currently but at some point will have to face the reality of the bad investments that the government is currently attempting to prop up.

    I think it is good that you made your points and if the congenial interloper has no reasoned and concrete retorts, I too, would suggest ignoring him.

  240. MikeN,
    Like most humans, I have been wrong before. But in the case of Bernie, I will be very surprised if Trump loses to him. I mean, most everything Bernie wants to do (Green New Deal, wealth confiscation, marginal tax rates of 90%, nationalizing health care, defacto open boarders…. the list is long) are contrary to many of the personal liberties US citizens enjoy and have enjoyed for a very long time.
    .
    Bernie thought Fidel was a swell guy, in spite of all the assassinations and imprisonments, and the USSR a very good idea, in spite of the gulag and the millions killed by Stalin. And of course, Chaves and Maduro were good men. He's demonstrably deranged, and Trump is not going to hold back pointing that out.

  241. OK_Max,
    "I wasn't aware of European countries restricting freedom of speech."
    .
    You need to get out more. Virtually all European counties have substantial specific limitations on speech (eg you can't say anything bad about Mohammad), and in general you're not allowed to say whatever the government defines as "hate speech"… oh say, like criticizing Muslims because they think it is OK to kill someone who tries to leave Islam or who is unfaithful to their spouse. And of course, you can't say anything good about Nazis. It is the tyranny of the majority.
    .
    WRT economic freedom: Like listing the greatest baseball players of all time (or golfers, or tennis players, etc), such lists are part personal opinion and part the weight assigned to specific types of data. Here is the Cato Institute's list, which places the USA quite close to the top: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/efw/efw2018/efw-2018-chapter-1.pdf
    .
    In any case, Cuba and Venezuela are both far down on the lists… their populations are poor and have no personal liberty. And good old Bernie thinks the revolutions leading the the current economic and civil catastrophes in those countries were good ideas.
    .
    A large Brazilian company I worked with years ago had a giant petrochemical plant project in Venezuela which had been agreed to prior to Chaves. Within a couple of years of Chaves coming to power, the Brazilians wisely bailed out, in spite of having to take a huge financial loss…. my Brazilian friends who were involved said: "Chaves is crazy!"

  242. "To say something is passe is to say that thing is outmoded or behind the times. So your point is that the capitalism vs socialism debate is outmoded or behind the times. To support this, you point to China's economy and say that state run capitalism ain't all bad."

    mark, I'm guilty of poor wording there. I didn't mean to imply State run capitalism is socialism, just that a formerly pure communist state now practices a form of capitalism along with socialism.

    And you are guilty of misunderstanding me in your following comment:

    "It's not passe in the sense that significant percentages of the population (apparently including you) don't appear to comprehend that socialism adversely affects the economy whereas capitalism advances the economy."

    mark, I'm a practicing capitalist. Last year about two-thirds of my increase in wealth was from capital gains. Of course I realize financial benefits from an advancing the economy, but I don't believe economic growth is the only thing that's important. How the growing wealth is distributed also matters, and that's where some of those things called socialism can be useful. I mean things that redistribute wealth (social security, medicare, food stamps, earned-income tax credits, etc.), not nationalization of means of production.

  243. Ok. I don't think anybody here thinks that economic growth is the only thing that's important.
    *shrug*

  244. SteveF (Comment #179570): "Like most humans, I have been wrong before. But in the case of Bernie, I will be very surprised if Trump loses to him."
    .
    Me too, although I will be surprised if Bernie wins the nomination.

    Four years ago, Bernie might well have been able to beat Trump. He was tapping in to much of the same disaffection that Trump used to beat Hillary. But now those voters have seen results from Trump. And they will be repelled by Bernie's embrace of identity politics and open borders.

    At this point, I don't think Bernie's appeal is to those who are badly off. He appeals to those who, like him, are well off and jealous of those who are even better off.

  245. mark bofill (Comment #179573)
    February 7th, 2020 at 1:08 pm
    Ok. I don't think anybody here thinks that economic growth is the only thing that's important.
    *shrug*
    _________

    For heaven's sake, my post wasn't about what people here think, it was about what I think, and was a reply to your misunderstanding about what I think, which you demonstrated in your following statement:

    "significant percentages of the population (apparently including you) don't appear to comprehend that socialism adversely affects the economy whereas capitalism advances the economy.

    What haveI said that makes you believe I don't comprehend the trade-off? Real question.

  246. Max,
    "For heaven's sake, my post wasn't about what people here think, it was about what I think…"
    .
    You responded to Steve in your initial comment. It's reasonable to assume when you respond to someone's comment that you are trying to communicate with them, rather than air your views and ideas independently.
    .
    "What haveI said that makes you believe I don't comprehend the trade-off?"
    .
    You initially said, "China became an economic power with a "command and control economy." State directed capitalism ain't all bad." After I pointed out that their economy only improved after moving away from a command economy towards a freer market, you reiterated you point by saying "China practices state directed capitalism, which has worked pretty good for them.".
    By ignoring the content of my response and by reiterating your initial claim, you gave the appearance of incomprehension.
    .
    Hope this helps.
    .
    If you would like to discuss this further, we can take it offline here and talk about it at this link https://markbofill.wordpress.com/2019/10/23/qp_10-23/ so as not to waste everybody else's bandwidth. Although I am more than half convinced continuing to talk with you is a waste of my time.

  247. OK_Max,
    "I wasn't aware of European countries restricting freedom of speech."
    .
    You need to get out more. Virtually all European counties have substantial specific limitations on speech (eg you can't say anything bad about Mohammad), and in general you're not allowed to say whatever the government defines as "hate speech"… oh say, like criticizing Muslims because they think it is OK to kill someone who tries to leave Islam or who is unfaithful to their spouse. And of course, you can't say anything good about Nazis.
    ________

    I suspect you exaggerate. I doubt I would be breaking the law if I said "one good thing about Hitler, he was kind to his dog, or "kill your wife for adultery and you will be prosecuted."

    Anyway, the freedom to practice hate speech is not high on my list of things that make me happy.

    Speaking of happiness, the U.S. ranks 19th in happiness, falling behind a bunch of European countries. Finland is #1 in happiness.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

  248. mark bofill (Comment #179576)

    You initially said, "China became an economic power with a "command and control economy." State directed capitalism ain't all bad." After I pointed out that their economy only improved after moving away from a command economy towards a freer market, you reiterated you point by saying "China practices state directed capitalism, which has worked pretty good for them.".
    ________

    mark, I misspoke in Comment #179545 when I said "China became an economic power with a "command and control economy." That was what China had before introducing State directed capitalism and as a result becoming a world power.

    I though I had corrected that misstatement in my Comment #179551, addressed to you, when I said the following:

    "China practices state directed capitalism, which has worked pretty good for them. The command economy is another thing, and hasn't worked so good in the USSR, GDR, N. Korea, or any other place."

    And again in Comment #179545) when I said

    "mark, I'm guilty of poor wording there. I didn't mean to imply State run capitalism is socialism, just that a formerly pure communist state now practices a form of capitalism along with socialism."

    But it looks like my initial misstatement is what stuck with you. I believe these quotes show I wasn't as you say "ignoring the content of your responses." Indeed, it might appear you were ignoring mine.
    However, I believe you just didn't read carefully. I don't always read carefully myself

    Thank you for the invitation to discuss this further offline, but I don't have anything to add.

  249. Iowa is taking the position that under the rules they have to accept any incorrect math that is on the results the precincts send in. So my example above stands unless a campaign challenges the results.
    Warren's 31 votes is officially getting more SDE than Bernie's 50.

  250. OK_Max,
    No, I really don’t exaggerate. The prohibitions in Europe are quite real and are enforced.
    .
    You can, and already have, make comments orthogonal to the substantive issues. If someone (accurately) says “Muslims are morally reprehensible to broadly support killing anyone who tries to leave islam.” then you very well may be prosecuted for ‘hate speech’ in Europe. If you agree that is hate speech, and should be prohibited, then clearly you do not support the first amendment. I have spent enough time in muslim counties (and spoken with enough muslims!) to know that many of the views which are broadly held by muslins are utterly contrary to western values, and absolutely contrary to the US Constitution.
    .
    Duck the substantive issue again if you want.

  252. SteveF (Comment #179580)

    OK_Max,
    No, I really don’t exaggerate. The prohibitions in Europe are quite real and are enforced.

    If someone (accurately) says “Muslims are morally reprehensible to broadly support killing anyone who tries to leave islam.” then you very well may be prosecuted for ‘hate speech’ in Europe.
    _____

    SteveF, can you cite a case where someone in Europe was convicted of a hate speech crime for making that statement? I ask because it would seem bizarre to make criticism of a call for murder illegal when murder itself is illegal.

    The First Amendment gives Americans greater freedom of speech than the constitutions of other countries give their citizens. Aside from a few exceptions, Federal and State laws can’t restrict freedom of speech (and expression) in the US.

    The protection under the First Amendment, however, applies
    only to laws, and is not absolute. It does not, for example, extend to freedom of speech on the job, protection from being fired or disciplined for saying something the boss doesn’t like. European workers may have more protection of freedom of speech in the workplace. See https://www.courthousenews.com/human-rights-court-shields-workers-from-speech-retaliation/

  259. SteveF (Comment #179586)
    February 8th, 2020 at 2:39 pm
    OK_Max,
    See for example: https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/08/16/the-rise-of-hate-speech-policing-in-europe/amp/
    .
    European governments restrict what you can say in the public square; very different from companies limiting speech when you are being paid for your time. The two are completely unrelated.
    ____

    No, they obviously are related, both are freedom of speech issues.

    Thanks for the link, but if that answered the question in my previous post, I didn't see it. Can you point it out to me?

  260. OK_Max,
    I did not dig any further because Marc posted other links; perhaps you could look at those as well.
    .
    "No, they obviously are related, both are freedom of speech issues."
    .
    I could not disagree more: in one case laws are passed restricting what you can say…. anywhere and at any time…. under which you can end up in a prison cell, while in the other you are in a consensual employer/employee arrangement, for which you are being *compensated*. I honestly find your take on all this quite bizzarre.
    .
    Do you or do you not think the many European "hate speech" laws are a good thing?

  261. mark bofill (Comment #179584)
    February 8th, 2020 at 2:34 pm
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-free-speech-criticize-muhammad-echr-ruled/574174/
    Don't disparage Mohammed in Austria. It's criminal.
    ______

    Thanks mark, interesting article. It seems to me the hate speech laws in Europe would apply to any religion, and also ethnic groups,
    races, LGBT, and the handicapped. Maybe even people with red hair.

    Christians may be less sensitive to disparagement than members of other religions when they represent the majority, though I wouldn't be sure.

    I saw something about Germany coming down on Facebook (maybe Twitter too) for having hate speech. I kinda like that because I don't like Facebook. I don't like social media in general. Seems to bring out the worst in people, although the worst was probably there all along, and I just did't know it before Facebook.

  262. The relationship between an individual and an employer is a voluntary one in principle, and broadly speaking or generalizing it's largely voluntary in practice as well. In fact, most of our private relationships are voluntary.
    .
    Our relationship with our government is not voluntary, generally speaking. This is why the Bill of Rights is so important.
    .
    I think the USA has done an extremely good job (relative to other nations) of maximizing freedom and liberty while minimizing adverse side effects. I think it's proper that while the government cannot come after me for my free speech, my boss can. My wife can. Heck, even my dog can (well, the labradoodle is the only one with much of a vocabulary). Keep me free of government tyranny. I'll handle the rest of the obstacles.
    .
    [Edit: I started writing this before I saw your post above Max. Therefore this edit to clarify that it was not intended as a response to your post above.]

  263. Thanks Max.
    I don't know how evenly the hate laws are applied. I worry that there is too great an element of subjectivity in the whole idea of hate speech for laws to be a good idea in this area.
    .
    Don't misunderstand me; hate speech sucks. I often think though that government intervention is a cure which is worse than the disease; I think so in this case.

  264. I could not disagree more: in one case laws are passed restricting what you can say…. anywhere and at any time…. under which you can end up in a prison cell, while in the other you are in a consensual employer/employee arrangement, for which you are being *compensated*. I honestly find your take on all this quite bizzarre.
    .
    Do you or do you not think the many European "hate speech" laws are a good thing?

    _______

    "Anywhere at anytime, really? " Like in your house in private conversation ?

    "Bizarre" ? I see nothing bizarre about both being punitive.

    "Do you or do you not think the many European "hate speech" laws are a good thing?" My first reaction was these laws are not a good thing, but I need to look into it further. A lot of what I've read seems
    motivated by islamophobia.

  265. Say Max, I'd like to put you on the spot with a question (or three):
    1) Do you believe a Christian ought to be able to discuss his religious based belief that homosexuality is sinful?
    2) Do you believe a Muslim ought to be able to discuss his religious based belief that homosexuality is sinful?
    3) Is there any difference whatsoever in the ideal handling of the Christian and the Muslim?
    Thanks!
    [Edit: Sorry. One more. In any of the above cases, is this hate speech?]
    [Edit again: by 'ideal handling' I meant, how the law / state should treat them, with respect to hate speech.]

  266. mark bofill (Comment #179593): "The relationship between an individual and an employer is a voluntary one in principle, and broadly speaking or generalizing it's largely voluntary in practice as well. In fact, most of our private relationships are voluntary."
    .
    I think there is more to it than that. Employers can restrict what we say when representing the employer. But I don't think they can restrict what we say on our own time. There might be an exception for people with a high public profile that is associated with a specific employer, such as Tucker Carlson or the CEO of a major corporation.

    But I don't that employers can, in general, restrict my speech. I would certainly object to that. I don't think a voluntary relationship rescinds one's basic rights.

  267. Mike,
    .
    Fair enough. Probably I was oversimplifying.
    [Edit: Although I've been fired for a facebook post. *shrug*]

  268. OK_Max,
    “ Like in your house in private conversation ?”
    I believe most of the laws allow anyone who hears you to make a complaint.

  269. Mike M,
    “ But I don't that employers can, in general, restrict my speech. ”
    .
    Outside of work, in most cases that is true. If you were to start criticizing the company publicly (eg in the local newspaper), and especially if you were mis-representing the company, then they would certainly fire you. Firing you because of your political views is illegal in most states.

  270. Mike M,
    “ But I don't that employers can, in general, restrict my speech. ”
    .
    Outside of work, in most cases that is true. If you were to start criticizing the company publicly (eg in the local newspaper), and especially if you were mis-representing the company, then they would certainly fire you. Firing you because of your political views is illegal in most states.

  271. My facebook post was more or less a Dilbert. Without naming my company (I'm usually pretty discreet about that sort of thing online) I posted something to the effect of 'Finally cracked the code! Management only asks me for schedule estimates to make sure they don't accidentally give me enough time to get the job done.'
    Maybe I deserved to be fired for that. Maybe not. *shrug* Didn't much matter in my book; I moved on to better opportunities.

  272. Follow on questions:
    1 if a person publicly denigrates Christians for believing homosexuality is sinful, is this hate speech?
    2. If a person publicly denigrates Muslims for believing homosexuality is sinful, is this hate speech?
    My answer to all of these is that hate speech is too difficult to precisely define to be legislated.

  273. mark bofill (Comment #179594)

    "I don't know how evenly the hate laws are applied. I worry that there is too great an element of subjectivity in the whole idea of hate speech for laws to be a good idea in this area."
    __________

    mark, I agree with you about the subjectivity, based the cases I've read about.

    But keep in mind I am going by reports from media that opposes any laws regulating freedom of the press.
    ________________________________________________________

    mark bofill (Comment #179596)

    mark, here are my answers to your questions:

    1. Yes
    2. Yes
    3. No

    Answer to additional question: Whether it's hate speech depends. IMO, it's not hate speech If the Christian or Muslim does no more than say he believes homosexuality is a sin. But I think it would be hate speech, if he says I hate these dirty queers for offending God with their disgusting sin, and the world would be a better place if we got rid of this scum. Yes, definitely hate speech.

  274. SteveF (Comment #179599)
    February 8th, 2020 at 5:40 pm
    OK_Max,
    “ Like in your house in private conversation ?”
    I believe most of the laws allow anyone who hears you to make a complaint.
    _________

    SteveF, can you cite a conviction resulting from a private conversation or anyone over hearing a private conversation.

  275. OK_Max,
    That is not the issue. Do you or do you not support the free speech rights that are protected from government by the first amendment? If not, then the rest of your comments make perfect sense, and there is really no point in discussing free speech with you.

  277. OK_Max (Comment #179605): "Answer to additional question: Whether it's hate speech depends."
    .
    You did not answer mark's additional questions (Comment #179603). Instead, you revised your answers to mark's original questions (Comment #179596) as follows:
    .
    OK_Max: "here are my answers to your questions:
    1. Yes (revised to "it depends")
    2. Yes (revised to "it depends")
    3. No (not revised)

  278. I’ve had a baaaaad cold. Slow commenting.

    OK_Max Comment #179577
    **Anyway, the freedom to practice hate speech is not high on my list of things that make me happy.**
    It’spretty high on my list!
    .
    OK_Max (Comment #179583)
    **teveF, can you cite a case where someone in Europe was convicted of a hate speech crime for making that statement? **
    Of course googling these things is hard. But Eugene volokh follows this topic. So I googled using his name and france, and found an article about 54 people being arrested for hate speech in France.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/16/french-crackdown-on-hate-speech-and-defending-terrorism/

    I stripped volokh and france and added England:
    https://reason.com/2018/09/15/britain-turns-offensive-speech-into-a-po/
    This is about a 19 year old who was convicted for hate speech.

    I”m sure I could find more. I see Mark did.

    BTW: I agree with SteveF and Mark that employers limiting speech at work is different from the government having hate speech rules. MUCH different.
    .
    OK_Max (Comment #179605)
    **But keep in mind I am going by reports from media that opposes any laws regulating freedom of the press.**
    I don’t think the fact that Eugene Volokh frowns on laws regulating freedom of the press negates the fact that France DID in fact jail people for hate speech and so on. These things happened. My guess is those who oppose these laws will publicize ALL the instances they learn of.

    BTW: I think hate speech laws having a “but you can say it in your own house exception” are still very, very wrong. People should be able to air their views in public. If they can’t air them in public, there is no free speech. I think free speech is important.

  280. Lucia,
    Don't die of coronavirus on us!
    [Edit: Or anything else anytime soon…]
    .
    RE: Tsiblisi:
    No, I didn't realize that. Seems like an awful lot of trouble to take. Still, if it works for the Dems more power to them I guess.

  281. Mike,
    I was hoping to illustrate that it's hard to draw sharp lines defining hate speech. Maybe I did a poor job of it.
    [Edit: Well, I was also hoping to probe into 'protected group' ideas, but Max doesn't appear to subscribe to that idea with respect to hate speech.]

  282. Hate speech laws are corrosive to democracy. That may be a surprise to some of my fellow leftists. It would not surprise Vladimir, Josef, et al.

    Let speech reign unconfined and may reasoned rebuttals serve as the best antidote to hatred.

  284. Just noticed this Max.
    ——
    But it looks like my initial misstatement is what stuck with you. I believe these quotes show I wasn't as you say "ignoring the content of your responses." Indeed, it might appear you were ignoring mine.
    However, I believe you just didn't read carefully. I don't always read carefully myself
    ——
    No, actually I noticed but refrained from remarking. I will post my response and any further remarks I have on the subject at the link I provided earlier.

  285. SteveF (Comment #179608)
    February 9th, 2020 at 6:24 am
    OK_Max,
    That is not the issue. Do you or do you not support the free speech rights that are protected from government by the first amendment?
    ______

    I support free speech up to a point. I don't support free speech that condones or incites unfair treatment of violence against people.

    Do you support absolute free speech?

  286. Ok_Max,
    In the US the only things prohibited are:
    * Libel/Slander (for which we have torts, not jail)
    * True threats– as in "If you do that, I'll kill you." Or "Lets go round up all the 'X' now!" especially if said with pitchfork and rope in hand.

    You can verbally suggest 'unfair treatment' as much as you like. If you want to say, "I think blue people should not have the right to vote", that's free speech. It might be unfair to blue people but you can say it print it and so on. (Of course, it's likely illegal to prevent them from voting. So actually preventing them from voting is going to be illegal. But you are allowed to move for a constitutional amendment if you so desire, write pamphlets blog or do whatever else you want.)

    Nazi's won the right to march in Skokie in the late 70s. Skokie has a large Jewish population. That was a BIG deal and part of the reason they proposed marching there. For reasons (long story) they ended up demonstrating in Chicago. You know what happened? The Illinois Nazis made a laughing stock of themselves during their big victory demonstration and the Illinois Nazi party collapsed. Pfftttt.

    The cure to bad speech isn't outlawing it. It is letting it air itself and showing itself ridiculous.

  287. Mark,
    I know two people who got quarantined. The went to China for Lunar New year, were flown back ad have to stay home for some amount of incubation period. Both are students of my dance instructor. (This is a big hit in the wallet for him!! They take lots of lessons a week. )
    .
    This virus is hitting the economy in lots of ways. Who'd have thought lost earnings for ballroom dance instructors would be one of them? (Not me!!)

  288. Lucia,
    "This virus is hitting the economy in lots of ways. Who'd have thought lost earnings for ballroom dance instructors would be one of them? (Not me!!)"
    .
    Me either. It's disturbing when you think about it. I read that the flu costs an estimated 26 billion a year in lost wages and extra expenses in the U.S.. It's only a tenth of a percent of our GDP, but. It's just people getting sick with a common virus. Makes me wonder what a *real* & serious epidemic would cost us.

  289. Re lucia (Comment #179611)

    I wish you a speedy recovery. Hope you were vaccinated for pneumonia.

    Because I don't practice hate speech, the freedom to practice hate speech is not high on my list of things that make me happy. I think that makes sense.

    Thank you for the Eugene Volokh links. I was surprised the linked articles were mostly about crackdowns on Islamic people for hate speech.

    In the WaPo piece, the 54 people he refers to were arrested in France for hate speech and defending terrorism following terror attacks that killed 20 people after the Charlie Hebdo satirical
    issue with the Prophet Muhammad on the cover.

    Although the article doesn't say most of those arrested were
    Islamic defenders of Muhammad, that's implied. Volokoh goes on to describe 2 people charged with hate speech in France, both
    Islamic, but I'm sure part of the 54. One of the 2 described in
    the Reason article is Islamic.

    The individual cases are of interest, but I had hoped to find statistics on numbers reported, prosecuted, and convicted. Size matters.

    I brought up freedom of speech in the work place because while Americans my have more freedom of speech in public than Europeans, Americans may have less freedom of speech at work than Europeans.

  290. My understanding is the corona virus is causing quite a bit of disruption in supply chains. China itself has a lot of quarantines going on and economic production (and consumption) is disrupted.)

  291. OK_Max,
    *ecause I don't practice hate speech, the freedom to practice hate speech is not high on my list of things that make me happy.*
    I don't practice hate speech. I nevertheless consider freedom of speech– including hate speech is very important to a well functioning democracy. A well functioning democracy makes me happy. So, I value free speech.

    ** I had hoped to find statistics on numbers reported, prosecuted, and convicted. Size matters.**

    Well then, you might need to do some research on this topic. Sure size matters. Currently, we have numerous "speech codes" on college campuses. UMichigan got sued and settled. There are suits on other big state college campuses. Students have been being threatened to be kicked out, kicked out and so on. The numbers of students affected is not insignificant, so the number is fairly big by my estimate.

  292. It's worth nothing that the nature of speech surpression means the impact can't be measured by merely counting the number of people jailed, fined or kicked out of school. The impact is the effect on all those people who surpress their speech to AVOID the penalty. That is uncountable but very real.

    ** Americans may have less freedom of speech at work than Europeans.**
    Is this true? (Real question.) Do we have evidence of this? (also real question.)
    .
    Even if it's true, I'm not sure it matters. It's fine for employers to dictate some terms of employment. There's really no good reason for a bank teller to be having debates about the relative merits of the various races, sexes and so on while cashing customer checks at the bank, or a steel worker to suddenly go on about their theories about how the need to restrict voting rights of latinos and so on. That conversation is generally evidence of "not working" while on the job.

  293. Max,
    "Because I don't practice hate speech, the freedom to practice hate speech is not high on my list of things that make me happy. I think that makes sense."
    —————-
    I urge you to rethink this. I'm not Muslim, not even a practicing Christian, yet freedom of religion is something I care alot about. I'm not gay, not female, not black, — the list is endless, yet this does not mean the rights of gays or women or ethnic minorities [are] meaningless to me.
    .
    Free speech is crucial. I can't do justice to all the reasons why right here and now, but. It's the cornerstone of our liberties.
    .
    Consider the plight of these puppeteers in Spain
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/puppeteers-arrest-sparks-debate-on-freedom-of-speech-in-spain-1.2531351
    These people were performing a puppet show. Think about that. They were arrested for hate speech because one of their puppets bore a sign reading 'Long live al-Qaeda-Eta'. I don't know these people, yet I am convinced that the idea that they were engaging in hate speech was far from their minds. Probably just as far from their minds as the idea that you may inadvertently do something that could be construed as hate speech is from your mind.

  294. OK_Max (Comment #179623): "Because I don't practice hate speech, the freedom to practice hate speech is not high on my list of things that make me happy. I think that makes sense."
    .
    That is a very shortsighted attitude.

    ———————-
    First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a socialist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a trade unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
    РMartin Niem̦ller

  295. Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote in "The Life of Voltaire" the famous quotation 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. Imagine where we would be if the best the Enlightenment could come up with was 'well, I disapprove of what you say, so I really couldn't care less if you get locked up for saying it. *I'd* never say anything like that…'
    I mean, come on.
    .
    [Edit: Mike M, *exactly*]

  296. lucia (Comment #179620)

    You can verbally suggest 'unfair treatment' as much as you like. If you want to say, "I think blue people should not have the right to vote", that's free speech. It might be unfair to blue people but you can say it print it and so on. (Of course, it's likely illegal to prevent them from voting.
    _______

    Good point. I'll reword.

    I support free speech up to a point. I don't support free speech that incites violence against people.

  297. Re Mike M. (Comment #179628)

    The thing you brought up wouldn't have happened if Hitler and his followers had been jailed for their hate speech. The Nazi legacy is why Germany today comes down so hard on hate speech and denial.

  298. "The thing you brought up wouldn't have happened if Hitler and his followers had been jailed for their hate speech."
    .
    Don't know what makes you so sure of that. Hate speech laws don't prevent hate, they just drive it underground.

  299. But say you're right Max. Say hate speech laws would have stopped Hitler. Hitler is not the end all and be all of evil. The poem Mike cites is moving because it embodies a universal truth, not because it is applicable solely to a period of German history.

  300. I didn't explicitly complete my thought. I should have added — the poem would *still* be moving and universally true even if Hitler had been jailed for hate speech, or even if Hitler had never existed.

  301. OK_Max (Comment #179630): "I support free speech up to a point. I don't support free speech that incites violence against people."
    .
    What do you mean by "incites violence"? We have people who actually claim that speech can be a form of violence.

    In the U.S., speech that incites "imminent lawless action" is not protected. I think that is a good standard.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

  302. OK_Max,
    ** I don't support free speech that incites violence against people.**
    In the US, the criteria for 'not allowed' is honest to goodness violence (physically maim, kill etc.), pretty soon, and not metaphorical.

    **The thing you brought up wouldn't have happened if Hitler and his followers had been jailed for their hate speech. **
    Oh? I'm not so sure it wouldn't have happened if Weimar Germany had had hate speech laws.

    Opps..Mark already made my point. 🙂

  303. Sorry. You can always tell when I'm doing something I don't really want to be doing — because I'll be glued to the comment section's here and in a few other places.
    I'll slow it down.

  304. OK_Max (Comment #179631): "The thing you brought up wouldn't have happened if Hitler and his followers had been jailed for their hate speech."
    .
    Perhaps. But it also might not have happened if people had spoken out.

    The problem with jailing people for speech is that the authorities get to decide which speech is allowed and which is banned. It does not follow that speech advocating bad things will be outlawed. It is just as likely that speech opposing bad things will be outlawed.

    In China, people are not allowed to speak out against the government's treatment of the Uyghurs.

  305. mark bofill (Comment #179633)

    Hitler was a very talented speaker and free speech favors those with a gift for speaking. He was jailed for a while, but I forget why.

    Maybe some hate speech leads to the good rather the bad. I can't immediately think of an example, but someone else may.

    On that other subject, capitalism vs socialism, I initially posted after reading the linked article at bloombeg.com. I should have provided the link in the first place.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-23/the-choice-isn-t-between-capitalism-or-socialism

    I didn't go to your link for further discussion on this subject, but if there is something there you want me to see I will.

  306. Lots of good explanations for why free speech is so critical for protecting liberty.
    .
    I note only that despots pretty consistently do two things when they gain power: they disarm the populous (if gun ownership is common), and they eliminate free speech (including shutting down publications, TV stations, etc). Those two first steps are just about universal for despots because they are virtually required to establish despotic government.
    .
    It is no coincidence that the first and second amendments block the Federal government from ever doing those two things.

  307. OK_Max
    **Hitler was a very talented speaker and free speech favors those with a gift for speaking. **
    Yes. And he likely have adapted to any speech laws that existed. Speech regulations favor those with a gift for speaking EVEN MORE than free speech does.
    .
    **Maybe some hate speech leads to the good rather the bad. I can't immediately think of an example, but someone else may.**
    .
    I guess you missed the example I already posted: Letting the Illinois Nazi's speak resulted in their demise as a political entity in the state. This happened in the late 70s.
    .
    I suspect there may be more. But it will be difficult to convince you they exist if you simply ignore an example pointed out to you before you even asked for one.
    .
    I don't need to read the bloomberg article to know if I'm given an either/or choice, I pick capitalism over socialism. Now I'll go read (since titles are often… well…weird.)

  309. OK_Max….
    Oh. Guess what? Weimar Germany DID have hate speech laws. And they enforced them. So, hhe experiment has already been done. Contrary to your claim those laws "would have" stopped Hitler if only thee existed, the empirical evidence is vaving hate speech laws and enforcing them did NOT prevent Hitler.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-violence

    "
    Researching my book, I looked into what actually happened in the Weimar Republic. I found that, contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer [Streicher's newspaper] was either confiscated or editors taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters. The courts became an important platform for Streicher's campaign against the Jews. In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it.
    "

    Gosh. It looks like OUR free speech– which involved LETTING Nazi's speak (which resulted in them dying out) works. Weimar's hate speech laws actually *fomented* worse feelings. Geeh… Who'd a thunk. (Well… the people here who are telling you (a) hate speech laws don't work and (b) allowing speech is the best way to permit it to be debunked.)

  310. Many years ago my wife and I had a German exchange student for a year, a young woman of 17, entering he senior year in high school. One day during her stay with us I watched a documentary program about WW II. She happened to walk into the room while a film of Hitler, with German audio, was on the TV.
    .
    Her reaction was “Oh! I can understand what he is saying! Who is that?”
    .
    So it seems at least some German students never hear Hitler’s speeches. I find that almost unbelievable. Was Hiter shouting hate speech? You betcha. But only hearing his hate speech prepares you to argue against it.

  312. Lucia,
    The film was of Hitler at some distance (one of his huge rallies), and it was a very old grainy film, so I can’t say she would not have been able to pick Hitler out of a police line-up… but she for sure had not seen films of Hitler speaking, or she would instantly have known who it was.

  313. Wow Lucia (comment-179644), thanks for that. It's always amazing what I can learn when I shut up for a little while. 🙂

  314. Max, I read the bloomberg piece. Not impressed.
    Noting that the U.S. is not pure laissez nous faire capitalist does not mean that discussing socialism and capitalism have no place in our world. Sanders vs. Trump can reasonably be considered a decision between a swing towards socialism or continuation of a largely capitalist system, ergo, it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the merits and disadvantages of each system in our current situation, as far as I am concerned. The observation that choosing Trump does not embody a choice for 'pure capitalism' or choosing Bernie does not embody a choice for 'pure socialism' does not invalidate this.
    [Edit: RE my comments at my blog, no, unless you want to continue the thread about why I thought you didn't understand what I was saying. I don't have a lot of interest in that.]

  315. It's a little like saying that since nobody is completely good or completely evil, there's no place in our world for a discussion of good and evil. I think this is a silly argument that's obviously wrong.

  316. mark bofill (Comment #179649)
    February 9th, 2020 at 7:46 pm
    Max, I read the bloomberg piece. Not impressed.
    Noting that the U.S. is not pure laissez nous faire capitalist does not mean that discussing socialism and capitalism have no place in our world.
    _________

    Maybe you didn't see where I said "debate the mix" in my initial statement (Comment #17954). We already have both capitalism and socialism, and we aren't likely to ever have just one or the other, but we can discuss how much of each we should have . That's what I meant by debate the mix.

  318. lucia (Comment #179644)
    February 9th, 2020 at 6:37 pm
    OK_Max….
    Oh. Guess what? Weimar Germany DID have hate speech laws. And they enforced them. So, hhe experiment has already been done.
    _______

    The Germans must think it works because they are doing it again.

    Hope your cold isn't keeping you up.

    You might consider my grandma's remedy. Rub Vicks salve over your throat and chest. It won't cure your cold, but will make you so uncomfortable you will forget about the cold.

  319. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. The proper mix is no socialism. But capitalism needs regulatory oversight and needs to be tempered with public services and a safety net.

  320. Mike M. (Comment #179659)
    February 9th, 2020 at 11:40 pm
    Socialism is public ownership of the means of production.
    ____

    Strictly speaking, yes, that's the definition, but many people believe it includes social security, medicare, Obama Care, etc.

  321. The Meaning of "Socialism" to Americans Today

    From a Gallup poll in 2018

    “WASHINGTON, D.C. — When asked to explain their understanding of the term "socialism," 17% of Americans define it as government ownership of the means of production, half the number who defined it this way in 1949 when Gallup first asked about Americans' views of the term. Americans today are most likely to define socialism as connoting equality for everyone, while others understand the term as meaning the provision of benefits and social services, a modified form of communism, or a conception of socialism as people being social and getting along with one another. About a quarter of Americans were not able to give an answer.”

    https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/243362/meaning-socialism-americans-today.aspx

  322. Re lucia (Comment #179642)

    **Maybe some hate speech leads to the good rather the bad. I can't immediately think of an example, but someone else may.**
    .
    I guess you missed the example I already posted: Letting the Illinois Nazi's speak resulted in their demise as a political entity in the state. This happened in the late 70s.

    The "demise" didn't last. Arthur Jones, a member of the American Nazi Party, won the GOP primary for Illinois’ 3rd Congressional district in 2018.

    Anyway, I had something different in mind when I said *Maybe some hate speech leads to the good rather the bad." Like the Colonial Americans saying they hated King George.

  323. Max,
    Well, maybe people today are ignorant of what the word socialism means. I don't see much utility in following in the path of their ignorance.
    I think socialists promote this confusion and ignorance actually, as a means of obscuring a dismal record of failure. Not personally much interested in participating in that.

  324. Here's a decent response to the bloomberg article:
    https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article215553335.html
    Salient points:
    1 — Denmark and Sweden aren't socialist, and they are sick enough of being called socialist that they correct American politicians when American politicians call them socialist.
    2 — Regarding the Bloomberg obfuscation, back in 2007 the U.S. was ranked #4 on the Economic Freedom index. Bloomberg used the value from 2013, entering Obama's second term. No wonder we scored so poorly.
    .
    I still personally disagree that Bernie is confused about socialism. He's not confused, he's deliberately avoiding. I don't have time to hunt down a link right now, but the Sanders Foundation unites social democrats with socialists. He knows the difference between the two perfectly well, give me a break.

  325. OK_Max (Comment #179661): "Strictly speaking, yes, that's the definition, but many people believe it includes social security, medicare, Obama Care, etc."
    ———————
    I know. But clear language is essential for clear thought. Sloppy language is easily employed in the service of deception.

    People like Bernie Sanders and AOC are attempting a bait and switch. They sell socialism as being more government services, but their intent is to take over the means of production. I refuse to play along. All honest people should do the same.

  326. OK_Max (Comment #179663): "Arthur Jones, a member of the American Nazi Party, won the GOP primary for Illinois’ 3rd Congressional district in 2018."
    .
    Not very relevant but very misleading. That is an overwhelmingly Democrat district in which the incumbent, Lipinski, typically gets at least 2/3 of the vote. In 2016, he ran unopposed. It would have happened again in 2018 except that Jones saw a chance to make his 8th attempt at that nomination. He won the nomination for the simple reason that nobody else bothered.

    "A perennial candidate, Jones has run for various elected offices since 1976, but has never won an office. In that year, Jones unsuccessfully ran for mayor of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[11] In 1987, he unsuccessfully ran for alderman of the 13th Ward of Chicago.[11] Jones has run for the U.S. House of Representatives as a Republican eight times; in 1984, 1992, 1996, 1998, 2006, 2008, 2012, and 2018."

    "In 2017, Jones declared his intent to run for the Republican nomination for Congress from Illinois's 3rd congressional district in 2018; he was the only declared candidate of that party. His candidacy was repudiated by the Illinois Republican Party[4][3] and the Republican National Committee. … Following his primary victory, Republican party officials encouraged members not to vote for Jones."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_J._Jones#Candidacy

  327. It looks like the Dems might yet avoid disaster. The two most recent polls in New Hampshire show Klobucher in 3rd place, ahead of both Biden and Warren. If she pulls that off, and if the party insiders and donor class then consolidate around her rather than Buttigieg or Bloomberg, the Dems might actually get a nominee who is not finished before the general election campaign even starts.

    Personally, I am rooting for continued chaos.

  328. I said Sanders Foundation, I meant the Sanders Institute.
    Here, near the bottom of the section:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy#In_the_United_States
    "On 30 November 2018, The Sanders Institute[205] and the Democracy in Europe Movement 2025[206] founded the Progressive International, a political organization which unites social democrats with other democratic socialists, labour unionists and progressive activists.[207]"

  329. In my view the right to free speech comes from natural law principles whereby those principals are defined by Professor Edwin Patterson as "Principles of human conduct that are discoverable by 'reason' from the basic inclinations of human nature, and that are absolute, immutable and of universal validity for all time and places".

    Murray Rothbard says freedom of speech originates only from a human being's right to property and further notes that it is not a stand-alone right since, for example, no one has a right to stand on someone's property delivering a speech as that well could be violating that someone's property rights. He further sees Justice Holmes declaration that no one has a right to yell "fire" in a theater as not being the right to free speech being tempered by considerations of the public good, but rather a violation of the theater owner and his paying patrons' property rights.

    Even though there is empirical evidence that free speech is beneficial, in the end in my view it is a right stemming from natural law. I do not believe it has been discussed here yet in these posts but those who would want to limit free speech, at least in some instances, involve cases where someone writes something that it is said to have motivated or instructed someone to commit a crime. A right has to be a right and that it can morally be used for good or bad does not change that it is a right.

  330. Boy does this get tiring … I support free speech EXCEPT for (insert euphemism for my political and ideological opponents).
    .
    Fine, have hate speech laws, and let Trump and a Republican congress manage those. But, but, but, no that's not what I mean, I mean hate speech laws where MY friends are the judges, you know, reasonable common sense laws. My people are never hateful. Tiring.
    .
    Almost all people who want speech limitations are doing so as advocates for other people, they themselves are perfectly capable of handling name calling and are not swayed by the bad arguments of others. The advocacy is typically a transparent self virtue display, performative art for their peers and their own benefit.
    .
    I fully support the right of people to be stupid and spread their stupidity as far and wide as they can. As long as the stupids also allow free debate then sanity prevails almost every single time. It's clearly the better system, and this used to be the prevailing wisdom of academia.
    .
    The only thing stopping the rise of Nazis is hate speech laws? This is a ridiculously weak argument. Communication nannies do not stop hate-think. Nothing drives hate-think faster like an oppressive external entity telling you exactly how to live your life and what you are allowed to think under penalty of the law.

  331. The current limit for free speech is defined as incitement of "imminent lawless action" so that "advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action".
    .
    I am firmly of the opinion that "hate speech" is a necessary evil because it is far too subjective and open to interpretation, which makes it a great authoritarian tool of oppression. A good current example would be the "feud" between "radical" feminists and transwomen. Both sides have grievances against the other. Both sides have some good points. However, claims of "hate speech" seek to win the argument by using the force of the state (and social media) to silence and intimidate opponents into capitulation.

  332. Mike M,
    "If she pulls that off, and if the party insiders and donor class then consolidate around her rather than Buttigieg or Bloomberg, the Dems might actually get a nominee who is not finished before the general election campaign even starts."
    .
    I think the problem may be a lack of enthusiasm by Bernie's (very) left of center supporters. Will loathing of Trump make up for the disappointment of Bernie getting 'screwed' twice by party insiders and big money donors? I don't know. The weird thing to me is that Bernie's supports really seem to believe Bernie would win, rather than lead his party to electoral slaughter. I do not know what planet they are living on.

  333. SteveF (Comment #179686): "I think the problem may be a lack of enthusiasm by Bernie's (very) left of center supporters."
    .
    I agree. But that problem would be much less with Klobucher than with Biden or, even worse, Bloomberg. And it would also apply to Buttigieg, who in addition would have a huge problem with minorities, and Warren, who would also have a huge problem due to being an unpleasant fraud. Klobucher might not be able to hold the party together. But she is probably the only candidate who stands a chance of doing so.

  334. I believe I have a different view of the Democrat candidates and the odds for a far left candidate winning in November than most of the posters here. I would encourage those who think Trump is a shoe-in against a far left candidate to talk to their Democrat and independent voting acquaintances and even some Republican leaning women. The issue is not so much the leftist Democrat as the persona Trump. They will vote for anyone but Trump and probably show up at the polls in large numbers.

    I also do not buy the political spectrum differences some see in the Democrat candidates which to me is more a matter of media labeling. The so-called moderates are attempting to be seen in that position out of political motivation and not by principle. If Trump and the Republicans lose big in November and a so-called moderate wins the presidency we will see how immoderate they might be.

  335. Mike M,
    "… and Warren, who would also have a huge problem due to being an unpleasant fraud."
    .
    That brought a smile to my face.
    .
    Kenneth,
    I hope you are wrong, but I admit there is always the possibility that Trump offends so many people that even an extreme wingnut like Bernie might win. I just do not understand why Trump thinks his foolish tweets and his endless, ridiculous, offensive self-puffery help his chances for re-election. All they do is offend people who would otherwise be happy with most of his policies. Some of his close advisers have to recognize this.

  336. Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #179688): "The issue is not so much the leftist Democrat as the persona Trump. They will vote for anyone but Trump and probably show up at the polls in large numbers."
    .
    There are many people who feel that way. But they are not a large majority and there will be fewer come November when they are faced with a specific Democrat candidate whose flaws will have put on display. I think Trump will have trouble with a candidate who does not scare people away. But I think he is not going to have to worry about that.

    ————–
    Stephen Fitzpatrick (Comment #179689): "I just do not understand why Trump thinks his foolish tweets and his endless, ridiculous, offensive self-puffery help his chances for re-election."
    .
    I can't say that I really understand it either. But Trump pulled off the most amazing political feat in memory. So I think that his judgement on such things is probably better than mine.
    .
    My best guess is that the reason he does it is to motivate his base, knowing that no matter what he does it will not change the way he is depicted by the media. I remember what they did to Romney, who is surely the ant-Trump.

  337. For Trump, the national opinion on him is pretty much irrelevant.
    His re-election is amost entirely based on a handful of midwestern states.
    .
    If someone would put out polling just based on these states that matter, I might pay more attention to them.
    .
    Trump lost by 3 million votes nationally, but won the electoral votes handily. As such, polling at 45-49% nationally means Trump is heading for a very comfortable electoral college victory considering how underwater his polls are in New York and California.

  338. Ed Forbes,
    Trump's polls in battleground states show him losing most of the time to most of the possible democrats. That is not to say the polls are accurate; they could certainly be off, as they were in 2016. But it is unlikely to be a cakewalk for Trump. If Trump does win, he will almost certainly do so with less than half the votes cast nationally.
    .
    I think it is prudent to remember the very narrow margins by which Trump won Florida, PA, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Trump probably needs to carry Florida plus two of the others to be sure to win the electoral college. He certainly can do that, but he could also lose PA, Michigan and Wisconsin… and lose the electoral college.

  340. SteveF (Comment #179694): "Trump's polls in battleground states show him losing most of the time to most of the possible democrats."
    .
    I don't think that is right. Here is a piece from last fall, when Trump's approval rating was way under water, that has those states as basically too close too call:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/2020-election-battleground-state-polls-matter-more-than-national-polls-approval-ratings/

    And a poll from December showing Trump with solid leads:
    https://www.newsweek.com/trump-beats-democrats-battleground-states-2020-poll-1476382

    I didn't find any more recent ones.

  341. Bloomberg, Gabbard the team against Trump.
    Smart, good looking, conservativish.
    Not to mention Gabbard.
    Great to have a candidate with no problems in his background yet [what is wrong with him?]

  342. Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #179679) 'In my view the right to free speech comes from natural law principles "
    –
    Interesting examples.
    Thinking about it I came to realise that I would not object very much to anything a Biker said, no matter how abhorrent.
    But I might object if someone weaker or smaller than me said something I did not like.
    Seems my ideas of free speech in the past have just been run over by a natural law bulldozer.
    Trying to take something away from another person, plans, ideas, beliefs is always fraught. I hate it when people disillusion me. At least speech and discussion, in the early stages at least, rather than any other action designed to limit or interfere or guide another person's decisions and actions is an option.

  343. In reference to the hate speech discussions above, I don't think it can be defined in many instances. For instance:

    1. I believe the Pope is a moron based on his climate pronouncements. I think some people would construe that as hate speech. I think it is true. (To anticipate some issues here, I will state that I went to Catholic schools for about 5 years and have no intrinsic dislike of Catholics. I just think the Pope is stupid)

    2. I believe that Islam is a destructive, immoral religion/ideology that encourages violence and economically dysfunctional societies and that the 90% of Muslims who are good people are so in spite of their religion not because of it. I know there is substantial evidence that my beliefs are true. For sure, this would get prosecuted for hate speech in some parts of Europe.

  344. OK_Max
    **The Germans must think it works because they are doing it again.**
    Perhaps. But that would suggest they prefer not to use the empirical method.

    **Hope your cold isn't keeping you up.**
    Not so much. I did have a dance lesson today. I wasn't entirely up to snuff…. I should be fine Wed.

  345. OK_Max
    **The "demise" didn't last. Arthur Jones, a member of the American Nazi Party, won the GOP primary for Illinois’ 3rd Congressional district in 2018.**
    Primary? In one congressional district? You think that means the demise didn't last? Sorry, but no. It doesn't. (Can you remind me again… are you American? From Illinois? Because… yeah… the demise lasted. One primary in one district doesn't even REMOTELY mean the demise didn't last!!!)

    Sorry, but the demise lasted. But even if 40 years out of the running doesn't impress you, it's still better than what we saw in Nazi Germany where the laws against hate speech quickly resulted in Nazi's taking over the government of the entire country. Well, unless you think it's somehow BETTER for Nazi's to take over an entire country, start wars and kill lots of Jew's than for one candidate to win a freakin' *primary* after 40 years and then lose the election!!!!

  347. Mike M,
    See the state polls here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/state/#
    .
    There are not a lot of results, but what there are don’t look good for Trump in Wisconsin, PA, and FL. It is early, and much can change, but it is clear that Trump might lose…. comrade. 😉
    .
    Like the last election, I think 2020 will be very important. If Trump wins and controls the Senate, he is likely to appoint a solid conservative to replace one of the two oldest progressives on the SC… and that would have big consequences, long after Trump, Pelosi, McConnell et al are gone. If Trump loses, and Dems control both House and Senate, hold on to your wallet, because they will strike the filibuster and pass national health care, confiscatory taxes (but not for hedge fund managers!), and a Vesuvius of laws and regulations to make fossil fuels impossibly expensive. That will crush the economy, both in the USA and elsewhere. They won’t give a sh!t.

  348. Lucia,
    It has been my observation that ‘progressives’ want to control most of what everyone says and does…. you will find few like Tom Fuller who strongly disagree with ‘hate speech’ laws, and many who strongly support those laws. It is only the First amendment which blocks Congress from passing restrictions on speech. I use the scare quotes because I find these things truly frightening.

  349. SteveF,

    " If Trump wins and controls the Senate, he is likely to appoint a solid conservative to replace one of the two oldest progressives on the SC… and that would have big consequences, long after Trump, Pelosi, McConnell et al are gone."

    Maybe, or maybe not. If the Democrats take control of the government, then the first time the Supreme Court rules against something they want, they will pack the court with judges they know will be on their side. Steyer has said he would. Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Warren and Yang have said they are open to it. Biden, Bloomberg, Sanders and Gabbard have said no, but I don't believe they would veto a packing bill if it came across their desk.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/voting-changes/supreme-court-packing/

    The Pest should have also asked Pelosi and Shumer about packing the court.

  352. 95% of the vote for Trump vs Anyone is already locked in. It will be a close election. An open question is how much damage can be done to the eventual Democrat nominee. The public won't really pay much attention until then. It's not clear how many Trump miracle wins are in the cards. Trump fatigue is also a factor.
    .
    Any crazy legislation that passes on a party line vote will result in a voter backlash that will neuter it in a couple years so I don't worry much about progressive fantasies. Medicare for all who want it is an exception that will have staying power, it will then be increasingly subsidized over time to effectively create a single payer system. Health care is a major weakness for the right and they don't appear to care to fix it.

  353. Re lucia (Comment #179706)

    **it's still better than what we saw in Nazi Germany where the laws against hate speech quickly resulted in Nazi's taking over the government of the entire country**

    Lucia, I'm skeptical of the claim hate speech laws resulted in the Nazi takeover. But if that's true, I doubt Germany is doing a re-run of the same laws. I don’t know the history of hate speech law in Germany, but I presume it’s different today than during that period and in earlier years

    German law is proactive, intended to nip potentially dangerous hate speech in the bud. American law is reactive, cracks down on hate speech only when it’s on the brink of causing violence or already has caused violence. Both ways have advantages and disadvantages. I don't know which is better. Maybe time will tell.

    I will say something that bothers me about the American right to freedom of speech. It seems to be in conflict with the freedom to be left alone, not harassed or bullied by anyone who exercise their freedom of speech by attacking the dignity of others.

    BTW, in answer to your question, I am an American, but I am not an Illinoisan.

    Glad you are feeling better.

  354. "It seems to be in conflict with the freedom to be left alone, not harassed or bullied by anyone who exercise their freedom of speech by attacking the dignity of others."
    .
    I don't think I understand this statement, I think you might be in the wrong party if you are concerned about the freedom of being left alone and dignity attacks, ha ha. The intersection of cancel culture (speech must be punished) and free speech advocacy (speech must be protected) is the null set.
    .
    Not sure what "attacking the dignity" means, screaming epithets at people wearing a burka in a public space? You better check your dignity if you wear a MAGA hat at Berkeley. Victimhood is in the eye of the beholder.
    .
    There is a difference between reprehensible behavior by a few idiots and the need to criminalize such behavior. Protecting people from alleged psychological harm needs to have a very high and easily discernible bar as this power can be very easily abused for partisan advantage. Half of my middle school should have been jailed given the threshold some people want to criminalize.

  356. OK_Max,
    “ American law is reactive, cracks down on hate speech only when it’s on the brink of causing violence or already has caused violence.”
    .
    There is no such thing as ‘hate speech’ under the US Constitution. That you equate prohibitions against inciting/causing immediate physical harm/violence (like falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater) with European laws severely restricting free speech (eg no criticism of Mohammad) is so strange to me that I am almost, shall we say, speechless.

  357. OK_Max
    **Lucia, I'm skeptical of the claim hate speech laws resulted in the Nazi takeover. **
    Yeah. I over stated. The laws did't cause a Nazi takeover. More correct: In a place where the laws DID exist, there was a Nazi takeover. In a place where the laws DID NOT exist, a nascent Nazi party withered on the vine and did so *precisely* after winning the right to demonstrate and doing so.
    .
    **I don’t know the history of hate speech law in Germany**
    Well, previously, you said that IF they had had hate speech laws, the Nazi's would not have taken over. But they had the laws which where enforced and the Nazi's took over. If you want to do a slight amount of research, at least read the link I provided. Then visit Wikipedia, which mentions Weimar specifically had laws banning anti-Semitic speech.
    .
    **German law is proactive, intended to nip potentially dangerous hate speech in the bud.**
    Evidently Weimar republican laws was equally pro-active. Nazi's got into power under these pro-active laws.

    **American law is reactive, cracks down on hate speech only when it’s on the brink of causing violence or already has caused violence.**
    We don't crack down on the "hate" aspect of speech at all. We only ban incitements to violence. It doesn't matter if it's targeted toward some unliked group, the government, or what have you. The "hate" vs "love" is irrelevant. This strikes me as precisely correct.
    .
    Notable: So far, Nazi's have NOT taken over our government.
    .
    **It seems to be in conflict with the freedom to be left alone, not harassed or bullied by anyone who exercise their freedom of speech by attacking the dignity of others.**
    .
    You'll have to describe precisely what you mean by "freedom to be left alone harassed or bullied". I have no idea what that "right" would be or what you are worried about. Real bullying and harassment generally doesn't involve speech or when they do involve speech involve *additional* things.
    .
    As far as I can see, preventing harassment or bullying doesn't require infringing free speech. You just reign in the other non-speech items. But examples detailing what behaviors you are worried about might clarify.
    .
    It's true that I can express the opinion that "X" is a loud mouth boor. I can do it at home, I can do it on a blog, I can do it while taking the train to work… wherever I want. Perhaps X would feel I was attacking his dignity. Well… ok. In the US I have the right to say it. He and others have a right to not listen to me. They can ignore, they can express other opinions. That seems like the correct balance to me.

  358. Tom Scharf (Comment #179725): "Not sure what "attacking the dignity" means, screaming epithets at people wearing a burka in a public space? You better check your dignity if you wear a MAGA hat at Berkeley. Victimhood is in the eye of the beholder."
    .
    I agree with all of Tom's post, but feel the need to add something here. Free speech does not protect verbal assaults or 'fighting words, nor does it provide a blanket protection for profanity. And it does not protect slander. The main purpose of free speech is to allow debate and the free exchange of information and ideas. What fits under that heading is broadly interpreted on the grounds that restricting such speech does more harm than good.

  359. Mike M,
    “ And it does not protect slander. ”
    .
    Orthogonal vectors. Slander is a civil issue to be adjudicated in civil court. Hate speech laws are criminal laws, enforced by government. Completely different. The government in the USA does not stop you from stating someone is X, no matter what X is. X could be slanderous, or could *not* be slanderous; the government takes no position on statements which might be slanderous.

  360. Mike M.
    I forgot the profanity thing above.
    .
    Yep. Slander is not protected speech– we've got tort laws. As Steve F wrote, the government has nothing to do with this.
    .
    The reason I want OK_Max to elaborate what this whole "dignity" thing is related to *nonspeech* things you can't do. For example, idea you can't follow someone around carrying a bullhorn and blasting words into their ears. The problem here isn't "speech". You can't stalk people generally; that has nothing to do with speech. You can't pen them in and force them to listen to you. All theses things would be bullying– but the actions that make them impermissable have little to do with speech.
    .
    Merely speaking *while* doing something else illegal doesn't make the other thing legal.

  361. Re lucia (Comment #179728)

    The New Yorker piece you linked is relevant here. I will quote a key statement from the article and tell you what I find wrong with it.

    “In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it."

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-violence

    The New Yorker article seems to assume the post WWII revisions of the law against hate speech did nothing to make the law more effective than it was in the Nazi area. I suspect a comparison would show the current law is much tougher. Obviously the old law wasn’t strict enough, since the offenders just continued to offend.

    If repeat offenses had resulted in longer and longer jail sentences then those Nazis would have been behind bars instead of persecuting Jews. Being soft on hate speech had disastrous consequences for Germany. The Germans don't want it to happen again.

  363. **The reason I want OK_Max to elaborate what this whole "dignity" thing is related to *nonspeech* things you can't do. For example, idea you can't follow someone around carrying a bullhorn and blasting words into their ears. The problem here isn't "speech".**
    ___

    I think you are saying the problem there is behavior. But speech can be bad behavior.

    "Dignity is the right of a person to be valued and respected for their own sake, and to be treated ethically. It is of significance in morality, ethics, law and politics as an extension of the Enlightenment-era concepts of inherent, inalienable rights." Wikipedia

    I think you could extend that to include a group (racial, ethnic, religious, etc.)

  364. mark bofill (Comment #179733)
    February 11th, 2020 at 8:18 pm
    Max,
    If you have evidence that hate speech laws stop hate, I'd be pleased to read it.
    __

    Laws won't stop hate. Fear causes hate.There will always be fear.

  365. OK_Max (Comment #179735): "Laws won't stop hate. Fear causes hate.There will always be fear."
    .
    And laws that are needless and repressive cause fear.

  366. Approaching half the vote counted in New Hampshire, and Joe Biden is at 8.3%. Over on the Republican side, Bill Weld is at 8.8%.

    Sad.

  367. OK _Max,
    Doubling down on a policy that didn’t work the first time around (hate speech laws vs anti-semetism) makes little sense.
    .
    I have discussed the Holocaust with several Germans, and discussed Israel and the current politics of the Middle East as well. Germans have routinely persecuted (and often murdered in pogroms) large portions of their Jewish citizens for many centuries. By the time the Nazis took power in Germany, there were only about 500,000 Jews in Germany, and most of those (about 300,000) fled to other countries when the Nazis took power. Those German Jews who remained were almost all killed in the concentration camps. But most of the jews killed in the camps were not Germans…. they came from countries the Nazis overran. Historically, Germans have regularly persecuted and murdered jews….. the Nazis were just more methodical, and rounded up millions of jews from other countries for killing. With the Nazis, it was a question of scale, not a greater malintent.
    .
    The impression I got (was loud and clear) is that lots of Germans are today stridently opposed to Israel, do not like jews in any case, and would prefer that Palestinians descendants return to Israel and take over the country by the shear number of Palestinian voters.
    .
    My conclusion is that the Nazi’s came to power for multiple reasons, but one of those was the Nazis strident anti-semitism…. views which were widely held and supported in Germany. Hate speech laws do not and cannot force love upon a country’s populous.

  368. Thanks Max.
    It seems to me that at the end of the day the problem is hate, not freedom. Restricting freedom doesn't solve the problem. Expanding legal restrictions isn't the answer.
    Free speech is too important to give up for an ineffective legal barrier.

  369. mark bofill (Comment #179739)
    February 11th, 2020 at 8:55 pm
    Thanks Max.
    It seems to me that at the end of the day the problem is hate, not freedom. Restricting freedom doesn't solve the problem. Expanding legal restrictions isn't the answer.
    Free speech is too important to give up for an ineffective legal barrier.
    ______

    You don't know laws against hate speech are ineffective. Countries which have such laws must believe they are effective.

  370. OK_Max (Comment #179740): "You don't know laws against hate speech are ineffective. Countries which have such laws must believe they are effective."
    .
    A data-free belief that they are effective does not mean that they are effective. And we have at least one data point to the contrary.

    And support for specific laws does not always mean that people think the laws are effective. It could be that the laws serve some ulterior motive or that they are mere virtue signaling. I think maybe I just repeated myself.

  371. Mike M. (Comment #179736)
    February 11th, 2020 at 8:42 pm
    OK_Max (Comment #179735): "Laws won't stop hate. Fear causes hate.There will always be fear."
    .
    And laws that are needless and repressive cause fear.
    _______

    I doubt Europeans live in fear of hate speech laws.

  372. Mike M. (Comment #179741)

    A data-free belief that they are effective does not mean that they are effective. And we have at least one data point to the contrary.
    ______

    Not a data-free belief. That denier prison sentence had a chilling effect on the "it-never-happened" propagandists. Not many willing to serve time, now that they know the price.

    I'm not sure you have one data point. I see vague references to hate speech laws in pre-1945 Germany, but no details on theses laws
    and how they were carried out. It could be the Nazi's perverted the laws or just didn't enforce them. Obviously they didn't prosecute anti-semitic hate speech.

  373. OK_Max
    The hate some might feel is caused by fear of *something other than the hate speech laws*. The hate speech laws won't remove that fear nor that hate. It won't reduce the hate. In general, it can aggravate the fear because quelling the speech– even the hate speech– drives the discussion stemming from the fear under ground.

  374. OK_Max
    **I suspect a comparison would show the current law is much tougher. Obviously the old law wasn’t strict enough, since the offenders just continued to offend. **
    Yeah. Drug laws must not be strict enough because drug dealers continue to offend. That's some logic for you.
    .
    Look, people were *thrown in jail* for violating the law. I'm not sure how much stricter you would want it to be. Execution is stricter. That would certainly shut them up.

    **If repeat offenses had resulted in longer and longer jail sentences**
    Streicher went to jail TWICE.

    **Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer [Streicher's newspaper] was either confiscated or editors taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters. The courts became an important platform for Streicher's campaign against the Jews. In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it**
    .
    I don't know why you've decided (with no evidence) that the Wiemar laws then are different from the laws now. The article doesn't "assume" anything. The guy is reporting a comparison based on his actual research. He plainly says the laws were very similar. Unless you have evidence his research is wrong, just making up a claim they MUST be different isn't a great way to rebut what the New Yorker article says. And making up that claim, when, when in fact you admit (a) you don't know what they were back then and (b) don't know what they are now.
    .
    **Not many willing to serve time, now that they know the price. **
    .
    What History shows Streicher being jailed for his hate speech caused him to GAIN followers. He was jailed twice. That's the empirical evidence we have. Your "feeling" that it should go the other way just crumbles under the evidence we actually.
    .
    **It could be the Nazi's perverted the laws or just didn't enforce them. **
    .
    Streicher being jailed twice would suggest it was enforced.
    The laws pre-existed the Nazi's. The Nazi's rose while the laws existed and were being enforced. The enforcement included jailing offenders.
    .
    Obviously, hate speech against Jews was not illegal AFTER the Nazi's came into power. It was while it was illegal that they rose to power.

  375. Re lucia (Comment #179746)

    **Drug laws must not be strict enough because drug dealers continue to offend. That's some logic for you.**

    This isn't about drug laws, but if longer sentences and heavier fines aren't deterrents, then why not just charge offenders court costs and turn them loose after a short stay (say 30 days) behind bars. Also, save money by freeing all offenders who have already served 30 days.

    **I don't know why you've decided (with no evidence) that the Wiemar laws then are different from the laws now.**

    I think I recall seeing where Germany wrote new laws on hate speech after WWII. That would make sense if, as you claim, the old laws were ineffective. I have seen the current laws online. I haven't been able to find the old laws online, so I can't tell you how they differ.
    Obviously, the denier law didn't exist during before or during the Nazi era.

    To me, what's not logical is the following:

    Germany's pre-WWII laws against hate speech did not keep the Nazis from rising to power. Therefore, the country's current law against hate speech cannot prevent the same thing from happening again.

  377. Here we can see a classic ‘progressive’ vs conservative argument. Conservatives want personal liberty along with personal responsibility for life outcomes, while ‘progressives’ want restricted liberty along with little personal responsibility for life outcomes. It comes down to a question of who rightfully should control peoples’ lives. Same question arises in most left/right disagreements. It is why we have elections… rather than civil wars.

  378. Max,
    A few things.
    .
    1) We agree that hate speech laws don't stop hate. In light of this, I don't understand why you insist tighter hate speech laws would have stopped the Nazis.
    .
    2) Something that I think might be useful to consider is this – is there *any* possible evidence, argument, example or idea that would invalidate your idea that hate speech laws are desirable or positive feature of society? If so, what is it. If not, we are in the realm of faith and further discussion is mostly pointless.
    .
    3) You missed Lucia's point about the drug laws. If we could assume more severe punishments deter breaking of laws, one would expect increasingly severe punishment for drug offenses would have deterred drug use. Interestingly, it's clear you don't *really* believe that more severe punishments deter crime (or you don't care about drug use) because you cheerfully suggested moving towards decriminalization.
    .
    4) It's things like this last that tie into what annoys me about talking with you. I genuinely don't think you're stupid; if I did I'd never call you an imbecile, since intelligence isn't something we can act to change. I think you're disingenuous. I think you either understood Lucia's point perfectly well and chose to ignore it, or you're making no effort to understand. I think you do this fairly often. I wish you'd quit, it's not cute.
    .
    Anyway.

  379. OK_Max
    Yep. I'd previously told you if you even checked wikipedia you'd have found Germany did have hate speech laws. Glad you finally thought to follow up on that.
    .
    The sentence relavent to Nazi's and anti-semitisms hate speech is "The Weimar Republic maintained a number of criminal provisions for hate crimes and anti-Semitic expression[16]"
    .
    I presume you will now read [16].

  380. Oh. Maybe this will help:
    ———–
    To me, what's not logical is the following:

    Germany's pre-WWII laws against hate speech did not keep the Nazis from rising to power. Therefore, the country's current law against hate speech cannot prevent the same thing from happening again.
    ———–
    .
    Because hate speech laws don't stop hate, right? I don't understand how we can agree on that and still wonder about whether laws are effective in stopping hate.

  381. mark bofill (Comment #179750): "is there *any* possible evidence, argument, example or idea that would invalidate your idea that hate speech laws are desirable or positive feature of society?"
    .
    Hee.
    .
    Time to go back to ignoring Max.

  382. I'm sure the new Nazi Party would promise to do Nazi-ism "right" this time, there shouldn't be a bias against this ideology just because a couple countries had bad results in the past. Take socialism for example …
    .
    I'm sure one could promote this ideology without all the hateful rhetoric. A gathering of peaceful like minded people similar to ISIS. Don't taint Islam with the bad actors of ISIS.
    .
    An administration who favored this "peaceful" version of the ideology would simply direct the executive to not enforce those laws in this instance, similar to how illegal immigration is currently handled. It seems laws on the books aren't adequate in many cases.
    .
    In general I find any argument of the form "we must restrict your rights because … Hitler!" to be spectacularly weak in nature.

  384. Recent OK_Max

    **
    OK_Max (Comment #179747)
    [..] To me, what's not logical is the following:
    Germany's pre-WWII laws against hate speech did not keep the Nazis from rising to power. Therefore, the country's current law against hate speech cannot prevent the same thing from happening again.**
    .
    Well… perhaps you should rethink what the ACTUAL logic people presenting you is band then compare it to what appears to be YOURS.
    .
    Recall your earlier OK max
    **OK_Max (Comment #179631): "The thing you brought up wouldn't have happened if Hitler and his followers had been jailed for their hate speech."**
    .
    The “logic” of other people counter arguments is to rebut your claim. That is: the actual logic people are presenting you with is
    (A) Your claim in #179631 is factually incorrect. People in Weimar Germany WERE jailed for anti-semitic hate speech. Nazi’s arose during that period.
    .
    But clearly, contrary to your UTTERLY WRONG claim, the existence and enforcement of hate speech laws including sending people to jail did NOT prevent Nazi’s from rising.
    .
    So the “logic” here is simply to show you the claim you made with great confidence (and scant knowledge of history) was just flat out wrong.
    .
    But now lets turn to considering how the “logic” you attribute to others compares to what appears to be YOUR current logic, (which you seem to have adopted after learning that yes, Weimar had hate speech laws, and yes, they were enforced, and yes people were jailed.)
    .
    Your CURRENT logic seems to be:
    “Even though the hate speech laws did NOT keep Nazi’s from rising to power, we somehow know they WILL this time. “
    Even though B arose under A before, we know A will now PREVENT B from arising. This is utterly nuts. Batshit crazy.
    .
    As far as I can tell, your reason for why they should succeed in preventing things like Nazi resurgences is that the motivation of the laws supporters it to prevent people like Nazi’s from rising to power. Sorry: but lots of laws turn out to not do what its supporters intended. The proponents of prohibition didn’t INTEND to result in a rise in organized crime. It happened. History is replete with stories of unintended consequences.

  385. Person A: "All the Mexicans are taking our jobs, I hate 'em".
    .
    Person B: "The influx of undocumented and uneducated citizens across the southern border is causing wage pressure with unskilled employment in our local communities. This has resulted in justifiable social unrest"
    .
    I see these as identical statements, similar examples can be made for crime, education, etc. One statement is more sophisticated and our hate speech wannabe judges would very likely only prosecute one of them. Sophisticated hate speech occurs frequently in the NYT's and The Atlantic against Trump supporters and white people. One could replace white and black in numerous articles and hand it to the speech police and get different verdicts today. Dignity indeed. Defining hate speech is similar to defining pornography. A "I will know it when I see it" standard for hate speech prosecution is not acceptable.
    .
    If there were to be speech police I think it would be mandatory for the judges to only see redacted versions that removed the identifying characteristics of the targeted group. Many people only want hate speech laws against protected classes. Strangely unprotected classes aren't enthusiastic about this.
    .
    Properly nuanced speech will be allowed, you just need to know how to say it and you need to know the politically acceptable targets. Most people for hate speech laws are confident they will be able to avoid censure and still get their points across. They believe sophisticated hate is different than unsophisticated hate. It's not.

  386. mark bofill,
    I suspect the Dem establishment is now in full panic mode, and will start pushing Klobuchar as their heroine du jour.
    .
    Bloomberg carries lots of baggage from "stop-and-search", which was extremely effective at reducing crime in NYC, but very non-woke…. effectiveness be damned. Hard to see strong black support for stop-and-search Mike, and without that, he is not going to win. Besides, he's about as much a Democrat as Bernie is.
    .
    Bernie is terrifying to establishment Dems, and with good cause. He could lose 40 states along with the House majority.
    .
    Buttigieg may be lower risk than Bernie, but has little support outside college-educated, woke, white liberals…. who are not going to elect anybody: Dems need strong black and latino turnout.
    .
    This is all a huge FUBAR for establishment Dems. I watched James Carville talk about how the wacko socialist policies of Sanders, Buttigieg, et al will bring electoral disaster in November. I admit to being quite amused.

  387. mark bofill (Comment #179755): "Sanders, Buttigieg or Bloomberg, looks like one of these guys will be it."
    .
    If so, it will be four more years of Trump.

    Unfortunately, Klobuchar is still in it. The next two weeks will be a fight to see if she or Buttigieg can get support among minorities. If they can't, then it will be the Bolshie vs. the Billionaire.

  388. lucia,
    "Even though B arose under A before, we know A will now PREVENT B from arising. This is utterly nuts. Batshit crazy."
    .
    Yup. Hate speech laws do not stop hate. 1930 Germany had lots of hate for jews; hate speech laws made no difference.

  389. Tom
    **In general I find any argument of the form "we must restrict your rights because … Hitler!" to be spectacularly weak in nature.**
    .
    Those are generally weak. But in OK_Max's current case, it's even WEAKER because we know restricting rights in this way in the past specifically did NOT prevent ….. Hitler!
    .
    I mean seriously, it's like people reacting to the plague by burning Jews. Which didn't work. Then on the next plague outbreak they propose burning more Jews. Of someone points out it didn't work last time, they then say "Look at your flawed logic. Just because it didn't work LAST time doesn't mean it can't work THIS time". Perhaps they'll suggest changes. Maybe make pile the logs higher and start the fire with lighter fluid.
    .
    As far as I can fathom Max's logic, the method should work because the MOTIVATION is to prevent plague. And if it should work, evidence it did NOT work is…. pffftttt.
    .
    Admittedly, jailing people for speech isn't as horrifying as burning people alive. But the fact that it's less horrifying doesn't magically make it any more effective.
    .
    As for whether current hate speech laws work: Max claims THEY somehow prevent Germans from denying the holocaust. Well, the US has no such law and evidently 96% believe the holocaust happened. They are fuzzy on numbers and can't name the camps. But hey, I also don't know how many people died at Gettysburg and if I hadn't watched "hell on wheels" last night, I wouldn't remember then name of an attrocious Civil War prison camp (Andersenville.) For more, see:

    https://www.newsweek.com/one-third-americans-dont-believe-6-million-jews-were-murdered-during-holocaust-883513

    I have no idea what the percentage of Germans don't believe the holocaust happened. But to show their hate speech laws "work" to keep the number low, the number has to be much lower than our 4% as that appears to be the upper bound of the % of denialists here in the US where we don't have laws. (And given that I get 4% by subtraction, some fraction of those people might merely say "don't know". Given the level of historical ignorance around, that's entirely possible.)

  390. Bernie got 26% in Iowa and 26% in New Hampshire. And people are reacting like he is some sort of an unstoppable juggernaut. That will only increase the anger of his supporters when he fails to get the nomination.

  391. Lucia,
    "As far as I can fathom Max's logic…"
    .
    I think I do fathom his logic: He wants laws in place to keep people from saying things he doesn't want said… and by implication, to keep people from hearing things he thinks they should not hear. It is not complicated, it is just a normal manifestation of the totalitarian tendencies one always finds on the left. It's all about control.

  392. The left does look to be in full panic mode about Sanders, although panic on one side or the other is a permanent state of US politics it seems. All the danger to democracy rhetoric is dropped when the ideologue is on their side, even when it is a socialist, ha ha. It would seem that democracy is curiously used as a synonym for "decent" or "accountable" when the media gets in this mode, kind of a non-sequitur.
    .
    The establishment will turn on Sanders because they are effectively his targets, but the establishment proved impotent against Trump already. Guess who is going to pay for all of Sander's programs? Rich white people, *even if they are progressive*. Performative wokeness will take a back seat to a punishing wealth tax in the voting booth for them, but they don't have large numbers.

  394. I think Max's logic is of a sort that is common on the left. If you have a perceived problem, you pass a law and the problem is solved. Whether the law actually solves the problem is immaterial.

  395. lucia,

    "As far as I can fathom Max's logic, the method should work because the MOTIVATION is to prevent plague. And if it should work, evidence it did NOT work is…. pffftttt."

    That reminds me of Thomas Sowell's book: The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy. ( https://www.amazon.com/Vision-Anointed-Self-Congratulation-Social-Policy/dp/046508995X )

    The intent of a policy to solve a problem is more important than whether it will actually solve the problem. And when it doesn't, you double down rather than doing something different. Unintended consequences are ignored or denigrated. Opponents are demonized. Also, problems are always referred to as crises ( now existential threats ) so that we must take action right now.

  396. Tom,

    Apparently, Sanders is not the second choice of Warren supporters, at least in New Hampshire. If the Democrat nomination process were first past the post, then he might still be odds on for the nomination. But it's not and without a massive increase in his support, he's not going to get the nomination on the first ballot, which would mean he's toast.

    It also looks like AOC will have opposition in the Democrat primary.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/11/michelle-caruso-cabrera-will-challenge-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-in-house-race.html

  397. I agree with DeWitt. With proportionate delegate allotment, Sanders really has no path to the nomination, unless his supporters can so terrorize the Democrat establishment that the ex officio delegates give him the nomination on the second ballot. That will, of course, terrify the public which will seal his fate in November.

  398. DeWitt,

    I will be very surprised if Caruso Cabrera beats Occasional Cortex in a primary. First, there are lots of other candidates, so even if there were strong sentiment against AOC and her crazy policies, that would be split between multiple candidates. Second, primaries are driven by true believers (only a true believer could take AOC seriously!). That is how she beat a long term Dem establishment incumbent in a safe district.
    .
    I would be disappointed if there were not outspoken crazies like AOC to remind voters just how wacky and dangerous the left is, so her remaining in Congress is not so bad.

  399. I think this election more than any in my memory is:
    (A) Trump
    vs
    (B) Not Trump
    .
    It's a referendum on Trump, +-2%. That 2% might make the difference of course, and the left isn't going to be complacent about winning a Trump referendum this time around. The right would be insane to think a referendum on Trump's character is a good thing for them. A good economy vs potential socialism is not a platform I would give good odds to for the left though.
    .
    Humorously if Sanders manages to win then the argument "Evil Russians want Trump to win" gets a lot harder to make with a straight face.

  400. Tom Scharf,

    I think that is correct: Dems are *desperate* for a candidate that allows the election to be a referendum on Trump's personal approval….. cautious, understated, lefty versus crazy-tweet bombastic Trump. A far out candidate like Bernie makes it much more difficult to frame the election that way. Hence a lot of establishment Dems, hair on fire, searching for anyone but Bernie.

  401. In other news, the wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind.
    Jussie Smollett has once again been charged with faking a hate crime (actually felony disorderly conduct) after a special prosecutor was assigned to review the case. This isn't exactly the crime of the century but Smollett has done himself no favors for leniency in the last year. This may already be a "the process is the punishment" case. If he pleads guilty then he will hopefully get what others have gotten for similar crimes, along with a tarnished career for being stupid.

  402. Re mark bofill (Comment #179750)

    **1) We agree that hate speech laws don't stop hate. In light of this, I don't understand why you insist tighter hate speech laws would have stopped the Nazis.**

    If strictly enforced the laws could have stopped the Nazis. When up thread in Comment #179628 I said "wouldn't have happened if Hitler and his followers had been jailed for their hate speech," I didn't mean in jail for a brief period, released, and never jailed for repeated offenses. I meant jailed for long periods repeatedly.

    But the laws were not strictly enforced. The Weimar government was too weak to prevent the Nazis from taking over at a time when Germany was in bad shape. The government was not strong enough to enforce laws and keep order.

    Todays Germany is on firm ground and can enforce its laws.
    Those against hate speech are intended to nip neo-nazism
    in the bud, which given the country's bitter experience with
    nazism, seems like a good thing to do.

    mark, I believe your position is as follows: (a) some laws against hate speech didn't prevent a Nazi takeover from a weak government in a Germany in shambles, therefore (b) some different laws against hate speech will not prevent a similar takeover from a strong government in a Germany that's in good shape. My position is "(a)" being true doesn't necessarily make "(b)" true.

    **2) 2) Something that I think might be useful to consider is this – is there *any* possible evidence, argument, example or idea that would invalidate your idea that hate speech laws are desirable or positive feature of society?**

    Not exactly my idea. I have been arguing the hate speech law side for Germany because I can understand why the country believes it needs such law. This doesn't necessarily mean I would favor hate speech laws for the U.S. I would need to give it more thought. I am concerned about the internet where people can hide behind their computers and spew hate and lies.

    **3) You missed Lucia's point about the drug laws. If we could assume more severe punishments deter breaking of laws, one would expect increasingly severe punishment for drug offenses would have deterred drug use. Interestingly, it's clear you don't *really* believe that more severe punishments deter crime (or you don't care about drug use) because you cheerfully suggested moving towards decriminalization.**

    I don't think I missed Lucia's point, you missed my sarcasm. But that's my fault for not labeling it as sarcasm. Of course I believe more severe punishment deters unlawful behavior.

    **4) It's things like this last that tie into what annoys me about talking with you. I genuinely don't think you're stupid; if I did I'd never call you an imbecile, since intelligence isn't something we can act to change. I think you're disingenuous. I think you either understood Lucia's point perfectly well and chose to ignore it, or you're making no effort to understand. I think you do this fairly often. I wish you'd quit, it's not cute.
    _______

    I'm not sure which of Lucia's points you mean. If you will tell me which one, I would like to address your comment.

  404. Tom Scharf
    “the wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind.Jussie Smollett has once again been charged with faking a hate crime (actually felony disorderly conduct) after a special prosecutor was assigned to review the case. This isn't exactly the crime of the century”
    –
    It may yet become a highly ranked crime of the century.
    Smollett had strong ties to Democrat politicians and the hoax was timed to fit in with a couple of Senators running for President pushing through legislation that linked to the subject of the hoax.
    Good to see public pressure has for once reversed what seemed a miscarriage of justice.
    Doubt anything deeper will emerge.
    –
    Tag
    OK_Max (Comment #179775)
    “If strictly enforced the laws could have stopped the Nazis.”
    If…..could is not an argument with any validity.
    If it was I could get this point through to you.
    If I could jump higher I could touch the moon.
    Etc

  405. lucia (Comment #179751)
    February 12th, 2020 at 6:56 am
    OK_Max
    Yep. I'd previously told you if you even checked wikipedia you'd have found Germany did have hate speech laws. Glad you finally thought to follow up on that.
    .
    The sentence relavent to Nazi's and anti-semitisms hate speech is "The Weimar Republic maintained a number of criminal provisions for hate crimes and anti-Semitic expression[16]"
    .
    I presume you will now read [16].
    ________

    Thanks Lucia, but I already knew that (see Comment #179724). What I don’t know is the complete criminal code on hate speech that was in effect during the Weimar period. It's not enough just to know "The Weimar Republic maintained a number of criminal provisions for hate crimes and anti-Semitic expression." That's not enough detail
    for comparison with the current code.

    I believe the current code is "130 Incitement to hatred (1985, Revised 1992, 2002, 2005, 2015)." It was written in 1985 and as been revised four times, which almost certainly means it’s different than the code in effect during the Weimar period, and I’ll bet broader with more stringent penalties. However, until I see the old code, I can’t be sure about how different. Unfortunately, leads I have found turn out to be paywalled.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

    BTW, “130 Incitement to hatred” is not the only German criminal code governing freedom of expression. For example, “167a” makes it against the law to disrupt a funeral.

    "Anyone who intentionally or knowingly disrupts a funeral service will be punished with a prison sentence of up to three years or a fine."

    http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__167a.html

    Brings to mind that crazy church group that was demonstrating at funerals for gay military members out in Kansas or somewhere. If they had done that in Germany they might have been prosecuted.

  406. OK_Max,
    I know you don't know the code. Yet, despite that, you have maintained (a) it didn't exist, (b) it wasn't enforced, (c) it was wimpier than currently… and so on. Feel free to find out more.
    .
    Of course a code won't be *identical*. It's an entirely different government. They pass new laws.
    .
    **I’ll bet broader with more stringent penalties**
    In other words: you have no idea.
    .
    I think we Americans managed to handle these obnoxious funeral protestors well. Counter protest groups (motor cycle clubs and so on) have come in to protest the protestors, who subsequently somehow lost interest in protesting. All solved without writing hate speech laws.

  407. mark bofill,
    My sorry experience is that engaging ‘progressives’ is an exercise in futility… they are utterly immune to factual reality. The left appears to me motivated by a nearly religious belief system of egalitarian outcomes, one which is totally contrary to history, contrary to the US Constitution, and unrelated to factual reality. Worse, they seem unable to ever change. It is why Bernie can *never* criticize leftist dictators, no matter how dishonest, murderous, and destructive they are.
    .
    Hence your frustration with OK_Max.

  408. Steve,
    I enjoy discussions with some progressives. I don't know exactly why I find talking with Max irritating. I can talk with Joshua all day…
    *shrug*
    Whatever.

  409. mark bofill,
    I find Joshua obnoxious, while Max is mostly just frustrating. Ya, Joshua is a lot more clever. But I think he is utterly dishonest in his comments. Worse, Joshua acts as if he is always the smartest person in the room…. it is clear he’s not. He’s like Trump of the left, but without holding office or having wealth. YMMV.

  410. Hitler was thrown in prison, he wrote Mein Kampf in prison. Prison wasn't the answer to stopping Hitler as it turns out. As for repeatedly throwing people in prison for long and longer terms for * thought crimes *, that's not a world I want to live in. Perhaps you want to read 1984, maybe you can acquire a redacted version without all the thought police sections that all the progressives apparently read. It takes a boatload of cognitive dissonance to be worried about authoritarianism and also support prison terms for thought crimes.
    .
    Hitler exploited resentment from the German people over the WWI ending Treaty of Versailles which was likely too punitive. He gave Europe the middle finger and the Germans supported him.
    .
    We don't know who the next school shooter or the next Hitler will be, we can't just stick everyone with 10 fingers into prison because they share some of the characteristics of previous bad actors.

  411. More than you ever wanted to know:
    The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany
    https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Third-Reich-History/dp/1451651686
    .
    Only a 57 hour audio book! This book was published in 1960 which likely makes it markedly more accurate than almost everything written a generation hence. The presentation of Nazis over time has gotten comically villainous, Hitler might as well be Darth Vader according to our illustrious tellers of truth at this time. Take note that the the winners get to write the history books.
    .
    All Quiet On The Western Front is a stellar book told from a German soldier's side during WWI.

  412. mark bofill (Comment #179781)
    " I find talking with Max irritating"

    SteveF (Comment #179782)
    "Max is mostly just frustrating"
    ____________________________

    I told my wife what you two said,
    and she agrees with both of you.

  414. You guys should take up ballroom dance. Less talking.
    .
    Also, the official rule in ballroom dance is "The woman is always right". So you just have to suck that up and learn that. (You can look this up. Just google: ballroom dance "woman is always right" .
    .
    Jim has discovered an exception. Now he wants to learn Quickstep. I've told him that's too advance for us.

  417. lucia (Comment #179779)
    February 12th, 2020 at 4:32 pm
    OK_Max,

    Of course a code won't be *identical*. It's an entirely different government. They pass new laws.
    .
    **I’ll bet broader with more stringent penalties**
    In other words: you have no idea
    _______

    I do now, and I am surprised by what I found.

    1. Race- or ethnic- based antisemitism was not illegal in the Weimar Republic. Offenses against religions, including Judaism, however, were illegal. All are illegal in today's Germany.

    2. Homosexual acts between males acts are not illegal in today's Germany, but were illegal in the the Weimar Republic and continued to be illegal up until 1994.

    According to the Weimar Constitution “Germans are entitled to free expression of opinion in word, writing, print, image, etc. This right cannot be obstructed by job contract, nor can exercise of this right create a disadvantage. Censorship is prohibited. (Article 118)”

    Anti-religious expressions, including hate speech against Judism and other religions, were illegal, but hate speech against Jews as a race or ethnic group was not. This gave Jew-baiters a freedom of speech loophole. Germany's top Jew-baiter, newspaper publisher Julius Streicher, took full advantage.

    “Streicher, in short, had found a legal loophole that he was able to turn to maximum advantage in the next decade. He and his attorneys continued to insist that his attacks on the Jews were politically motivated, and therefore part of his civic right to free speech. They were, moreover, attacks on the Jews as a race, not as a religion-and as a result not covered by Paragraph 166.”

    “Although antisemitism as such was not illegal in the Weimar Republic, its manifestations could be challenged by private citizens in two ways. One involved libel suits, private actions initiated by groups or individuals seeking redress for unwarranted insults. The other required demanding prosecution under two paragraphs of the Weimar criminal code. Paragraph 130 involved the suppression of speeches or writings calculated to incite class violence; Paragraph 166 forbade "offenses against religion," whether Christian or Jewish.”

    The first way typically was a defense against slander byJew-baiters who fabricated stories about individuals who just happened to be Jewish. For example, in 1925 Streicher’s newspaper Der Sturmer “began a series of articles accusing Nuremberg city official Julius Fleischmann of stealing socks and underwear from the baggage of his comrades while they were in the front lines.” Flieshmann won the case but his reputation was damaged, and Streicher’s fine did not deter him from further antisemitism.

    “Less risk of personal embarrassment was involved in seeking to charge Streicher and Der Sturmer with inciting to violence under Paragraph 130.”Unfortunately, these charges were difficult to prove at the time.

    Unlike the criminal code during its Weimar period, Germany’s criminal code today does make race based antisemitism illegal.
    A 3-month to 5-year prison sentence and a fine may be imposed on
    whoever in a manner that is likely to disturb public peace,

    1.Incites hatred against a national, racial, religious or ethnic group, against parts of the population or against an individual because of his or her belonging to a specified group or part of the population, calls for violence or arbitrary measures or

    2.attacks the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously contemptuously or slander a specified group, parts of the population or an individual because of his belonging to a specified group or part of the population,

    I was surprised to see that paragraph 175 of Germany’s criminal code, which made homosexual acts between males a crime, was in effect until 1994.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Constitution

    http://www.museumoftolerance.com/education/archives-and-reference-library/online-resources/simon-wiesenthal-center-annual-volume-6/annual-6-chapter-6.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175

  418. lucia (Comment #179789)
    February 13th, 2020 at 3:43 pm
    You guys should take up ballroom dance. Less talking.
    ____

    I already get plenty of exercise, but I recall reading something about dancing being good for the mind as well as the body. Something to do with the way the brain works. If that's true, I should take up dancing.

  419. OK_Max
    **Anti-religious expressions, including hate speech against Judism and other religions, were illegal, but hate speech against Jews as a race or ethnic group was not. This gave Jew-baiters a freedom of speech loophole. Germany's top Jew-baiter, newspaper publisher Julius Streicher, took full advantage.**
    Oh? He was sent to jail. TWICE. So evidently, if there was a loophole, he didn’t figure it out how to use it in a way that could keep him out of jail.
    .
    Regardless, I’m sure people can fine “loopholes” with current laws. You just claim the criticism doesn’t have anything to do with someone being Jewish. You just happen to criticize individuals who happen to be Jewish. There are always “loopholes”.

  420. mark,
    **Just in ballroom dancing? I thought it was a universal rule. Huh.**
    In ballroom, in most dances, the first step in a "basic" move has the woman step with her right foot first. The men step with their left. So… The woman is "always right".

  422. The MSM views on Sanders are pretty funny. Not a single person I have seen has written an enthusiastic piece about Sanders, yet he is the most popular polling candidate. The only discussion is how to get rid of Sanders. The most humorous headline was from NPR: "Klobuchar's 3rd Place Finish In New Hampshire 'Shocked The Establishment'", ha ha. What?
    .
    I actually kind of feel sorry for him because he is getting the Trump biased media treatment, albeit without the same level of vitriol. At least Trump has Fox, Sanders has nobody. What is once again most striking is the homogeneity of the views. Nobody likes Trump, and nobody likes Sanders in the entire mainstream media complex? That's a pretty small box to be in for an industry that wants to be a reflection of society.
    .
    Realistically Trump should be a better candidate for the protect the establishment at all cost types than Sanders. Here we would have a posturing anti-establishment type versus a revolutionary true believer anti-establishment type. Given their prior positions on Trump, they won't be caught dead giving Trump support so they don't really know what to say at this point. What a nightmare scenario for them.

  424. Tom Scharf (Comment #179798): "I actually kind of feel sorry for him because he is getting the Trump biased media treatment"
    .
    No he is not, not even close. They are not taking his words out of context to make him look bad. They are not picking through everything he says to find details they can characterize as lies or racism or sexism. They are not picking though his past to find "scandals", even though Sanders has done some very questionable picking of the public purse. Except for the brief Warren kerfuffle, the press has treated Sanders with kid gloves.
    .
    They are plainly rooting against Sanders, chiefly because they think he will get creamed by Trump in November. Sanders would not be as good for the Establishment as the other Democrat candidates would be, but he is no Trump. He does not have either the guts or the backbone for that.

  425. The Atlantic in panic mode: The Democratic Party of 2020 Is Broken
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/democratic-party-2020-broken/606547/
    .
    "Instead of encouraging the nominee to compete for the approval of party elites, the primary process rewards whoever arrives at the ballot box with the biggest, loudest base."
    .
    "In a bygone era of scarcer information, a handful of cable-news channels, radio stations, and print publications set the national agenda. But today, that agenda-setting power has splintered among hundreds of influential podcasts, websites, newsletters, and Twitter and Facebook commentators, all of them building niche audiences that rail against authority. Where once there were gatekeepers, there are now too many gates to keep."
    .
    Curiously these sound like features to me, not bugs. Read on for the inside thinking of those who are dedicated to saving "democracy". To be fair, the point of the article is that the parties should effectively get veto power on their potential candidates. Fair enough, but please don't lecture others on your dedication to the common voters the next day.

  426. McCabe won't be charged for lying to the FBI. Protecting their own, throwing others literally in jail for doing the same. "The interview is the crime" needs to go away, or at the very least be applied fairly.
    Not a good few years for the FBI.

  427. mark,
    Well…. it would be more like forcing women to be on birth control in some way. But…. uhmm… setting aside the civil rights issues….

    (a) WHY force men over 50 to be sterile. Why is that a magic age?
    (b) HOW do we detect which men fathered 3 babies with certainty? Are we going to keep a DNA register of all men and all babies? If a woman cheats on her husband… do the Dad and non-Dad get informed so they know their current baby count?
    (c) Are we going to limit women to 3 babies? (That's easier to track.)

    I don't think we can detect this with any certainty!

    These hair brained proposals to solve what is probably a non-problem almost never go through all the obvious questions. (I don't expect them to be answered. They are a weird category because what I mean is not to present rhetorical questions, but to point out that we would need to discuss all those if we had any intention of making some sort of law about sterlizing someone!)

  428. Why not use Sunstein and Thaler to guide male fertility choices. Nudge them with positive incentives for snipping and mildly negative incentives for staying intact?

    In this country you only need to affect change at the margins, and in select sub groups of the population. That's what choice architecture is best at.

  429. What seems to be neglected in the coverage of the 2020 NH primary is that Bernie only received about half the number of votes that he received in the 2016 primary, 76,324 vs 152,193. That says to me that likely about half the people who voted for him in 2016 were actually voting against Hillary and not for Bernie. IOW, 2020 NH was, in practical terms, a disaster for Bernie. He's going to need closer to 40% of the vote in upcoming primaries to make any sort of case that he should be the nominee in a contested convention. I don't see that happening.

    But who knows. Perhaps Bernie can get, say, Klobuchar to agree to be his VP, with better than even odds of succeeding him during his first term if elected. But I wouldn't be sure that Klobuchar delegates would necessarily vote for Bernie under those circumstances.

    Of course, as in 1952, the Democrats could nominate someone who wasn't even a candidate before the convention began if it looks like nobody has enough pledged delegates to win on the first ballot.

  430. Lucia,
    My youngest daughter was conceived when I was 56 years old. She is both very beautiful and a sweetheart. The desire to sterilize men over 50 seems a bit extreme.

  431. mark, lucia and Steve,

    Considering that the US fertility rate is currently is 1.779 births/woman, less than the long term replacement rate of about 2.1, I don't see the significance of three fertilizations/man unless it's to give the less successful a better chance.

  432. Thomas Fuller (Comment #179804)

    Thomas, thank you for bringing Sunstein and Thaler to my attention.

  433. mark bofill,
    The great thing about the left is that they are perfectly consistent: 1) evil, and 2) stupid. You can count on those just as you count on the sun rising each morning.

  434. Thomas Fuller,
    Yup, evil and stupid. I suggest you try to get past telling people what to do. You won’t, of course.

  435. Happy Valentine's Day all!
    I must've missed a kerfluffle. Steve, I know you think that lefties are evil. I expect you know I don't think that (I mean, sure; some are). There's a legitimate place for their perspective in my view, although I do think we've gone overboard towards the left in our culture today. But I don't think it was always so or will forever be so.
    *shrug*

  436. Mark,
    The issue is not so simple as people who want higher taxes and wealth confiscation (though they obviously do), or who want affirmative action… AKA selective racial discrimination, but in a ‘good’ way (though they want that too). The issue is that the left wants to control everyone and everything, down to who can procreate. That is why I say evil and stupid.

  437. Regarding the vasectomy thing, I think the proposal was made knowing it would never pass merely as a vehicle for expressing displeasure with the swing towards further abortion restriction in Alabama. I expect it wasn't seriously thought through.

  438. Steve,
    I understand I think. My problem is that I think 'the left' is broader than just the totalitarian/socialist wing of the progressives.
    My daughter is sort of left, for example. She's not evil. She's *wrong* on a lot of things, but I think it's not unusual for young adults to take awhile to grasp certain realities. She's not stupid, just young and naive. At least that's what *I* think.
    [Edit: I think part of the problem is that the extremists on the left are also among the noisiest.]

  439. Mark,
    Thomas’ reference to ‘nudge’ is symptomatic of the problem. Who exactly should select the appropriate ‘nudges’, like pushing men to have vasectomies? Real question. I object to the whole idea that certain people, especially government bureaucrats, are better able to choose ‘desirable’ behaviors and ‘nudge’, cajole, push, or punish, financially or otherwise, those who disagree. I guess what sets me off most is the unbridled arrogance.

  440. Steve,
    Yeah, fair enough. Shall we set up a social credit system like they're working on in China next? God I hope not.
    People on the left put forward a lot of stupid and evil stuff. I don't think they have a monopoly on evil stupidity though, and they don't all speak with one voice. … it just sometimes seems that way (like they all speak with one voice).
    Somebody (Haidt or Jordan Peterson or someone similar) had the idea that the left isn't very good at drawing boundaries / excluding members of the left who go too far. I wonder if there might be something to that.

  441. Mark,
    Let me give you an example of the absolute stupidity I object to: The sugary drinks portion cap rule for New York City…. championed by none other than now presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg. It was a rule that prohibited the sale of any sugar containing drink larger than 16 fluid oz in NY City. Fortunately, it was blocked by a court in New York. That Bloomberg could think such a rule was a good idea means there is no limit to the level of control of personal behavior he would promulgate if given a chance. Mike made lots of money creating Bloomberg Inc. That doesn’t mean he should control people’s behavior; all available evidence is that he is in fact evil and stupid.
    .
    FWIW, I believe that some on the left are motivated by good intensions. But we ought not forget what paves the road to hell…. as well as the road to tyranny.

  443. Mark,
    The left has no monopoly on evil and stupid… Bloomberg was (nominally) a Republican after all. Maybe a better distinction is an embrace of the idea that people’s personal choices should be controlled by government.

  446. Mike M,
    I guess the DOJ realized they weren't going to get a conviction from a DC jury… even while comparable crimes by Trump supporters get hammered. I looked at the makeup of the DC circuit…. nearly all active judges are Obama appointees, as is the judge overseeing the Roger Stone case. It will be interesting to see what that judge does now that the jury foreperson turns out to be a visceral opponent of Trump who made fun of the pre-dawn raid (with automatic weapons!) on Stone's FL home she appears to have misled the court about all that during jury selection. The sensible thing would be to throw out the conviction and ask the DOJ if it want to re-try the case. I very much doubt she will do that.

  447. I really don't care at all about whether men are encourated/incentivized/ordered to get vasectomies.

    I am interested in why mechanisms for achieving policy goals are not considered.

  448. Thomas Fuller,
    "I am interested in why mechanisms for achieving policy goals are not considered."
    .
    Coercion of the unwashed masses by their intellectual and moral superiors is not a valid "mechanism". You know, like forcing people to purchase what they don't want to purchase.

  449. "I am interested in why mechanisms for achieving policy goals are not considered."
    ————–
    Thomas Fuller,
    My problem isn't with 'kinder, gentler' mechanisms per se, although there are subtle dangers that associate with the use of subtle tools in my view. I may elaborate on this later.
    But basically, government is neither wise enough nor benevolent enough to engineer society. I'm not an anarchist, yes, the government has a role. The role of government should be kept to the minimum necessary. Government should be the tool of last resort, used sparingly. Again, because government is neither wise enough nor benevolent enough to avoid increasing the amount of suffering, evil, tyranny, and general wrong in the world very often.

  450. mark bofill (Comment #179825): "But basically, government is neither wise enough nor benevolent enough to engineer society."
    .
    I second that. There is a place for government action. But when in doubt, inaction is safer.

  451. mark bofill (Comment #179825)
    "But basically, government is neither wise enough nor benevolent enough to engineer society. I'm not an anarchist, yes, the government has a role. The role of government should be kept to the minimum necessary."
    _________

    mark, the minimum necessary for what? Real question.

  452. Max,
    It's a good question, and maybe it's an ongoing question without preset boundaries. What is the proper limit to the role of government?
    As events progress, as technology advances, as things change, humans face new situations. When are we faced with a situation that requires the government to act?
    I don't have the answers. Maybe this is one of the reasons it's good to have free speech and different perspectives out there.

  453. I can say personally that my notion is that government should act to prevent societal collapse; prevent invasions, widespread lawlessness, widespread epidemic…
    Government should maintain the framework of laws, the financial system (?), keep order, keep us free, and past that leave us the heck alone.
    .
    [Edit: But I am neither wise enough or benevolent enough by myself to determine how humans ought to live. [strike original sentence] It's a complicated problem.]

  456. Here's the historical justification for limited government in the US:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_government#Justification
    ————
    Among the assertions were that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that governments are instituted in order to preserve these rights.
    ————
    It would probably be reasonable to say this is an important element of the role of government in the United States. To preserve the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

  457. Mark Bofill,
    “What is the proper limit to the role of government?”
    .
    That is, of course, the fundamental question, and what divides the country along partisan lines. The mildest of those on the left see government as a force for good, while I see it, at the very best, as a necessary evil, and almost never a force for good. Those on the more extreme left see individual liberty as without value, and a clear evil in and of itself. The desire for totalitarian socialist government among these folks is very strong. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of compromise between these political judgements.

  458. OK_Max (Comment #179827): "the minimum necessary for what? Real question."
    .
    The minimum necessary for what is necessary.

    In other words, we should ask: Is it *really* necessary that the *government* do this?

    If the answer is "maybe", then the answer should be "no".

    If the answer is "but it seems like a good idea", then the answer should be "no".

    If the answer is "somebody ought to do it", then the answer should be "no" unless it can be shown that the government is the only somebody that can or will do it.

    Of course, different people will have different answers. Some people think there is no need for the government to run a court system and some people think that it is really necessary that government ban plastic straws. As mark says, resolving that is a job for free speech and democracy.

    The point is not to provide a magic formula. The point is that we should have a healthy skepticism about what the government can and should do.

    A lot of the conflict in our society comes from people on both sides advocating for government action to promote that which they would like to see happen. I think that if people would only advocate for those things that they can plausibly argue that the government NEEDS to do, we would find it less difficult to come to agreement.

    ———
    Addition: There is a lot of "people should do xxx, so the government should make people do xxx". That leads to a lot of conflict. We'd be better off with less of that.

  459. Mike M,
    “I think that if people would only advocate for those things that they can plausibly argue that the government NEEDS to do, we would find it less difficult to come to agreement.”
    .
    A bit like saying good health is the answer to terminal cancer. The fundamental disagreement is about what government needs to do. I probably agree with you that government needs to do much less than it tries to do, but that is a bit beside the point.

  460. I wonder how much mischief (or benefit, but in my view it's probably mischief) came from Jefferson writing 'pursuit of happiness' instead of 'pursuit of wealth.' I read that the term pursuit of happiness was actually a euphemism for the pursuit of wealth, although I haven't verified this. I know Locke viewed the three fundamental rights as being 'life, liberty, and property'.

  461. mark bofill (Comment #179832)
    "It would probably be reasonable to say this is an important element of the role of government in the United States. To preserve the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
    ________

    If it's the government's role to preserve the right to the pursuit of happiness, then I would think it's also the government's goal to do things that make more people happy, but the way presidents and senators are elected is rigged against that goal.

    What makes most voters in the least populous States happy may be different than what makes those in the most populous States happy,
    but the former has more say so in elections. In the Presidential election of 2016, for example, Wyoming, had one elector for about every 200,000 citizens, while California, had one elector for about every 700,000 citizens.

    Rankings of countries by happiness of citizens indexes show the U.S.
    well behind European countries where governments are not as limited as the in U.S. Of course happiness of citizens in these countries may be better for reasons in addition to their governments, but the contribution the governments may be making is something to think about.

  463. But even so, there is much difference in my view between preserving the right (the freedom) to pursue something and providing that thing.
    .
    I don't want the government to give me fish. I want to go fishing.

  464. Max,
    Regarding this:
    "but the way presidents and senators are elected is rigged against that goal.

    What makes most voters in the least populous States happy may be different than what makes those in the most populous States happy,
    but the former has more say so in elections. In the Presidential election of 2016, for example, Wyoming, had one elector for about every 200,000 citizens, while California, had one elector for about every 700,000 citizens."
    —————–
    That's a whole other conversation. I'm not 100% sure I want to dive into that.
    [Edit: Maybe it would suffice to say that there's a difference between 'the pursuit of happiness' and 'tyranny of the majority'?]

  466. Mike M. (Comment #179834)
    February 15th, 2020 at 3:23 pm
    OK_Max (Comment #179827): "the minimum necessary for what? Real question."
    .
    The minimum necessary for what is necessary.

    In other words, we should ask: Is it *really* necessary that the *government* do this?

    If the answer is "maybe", then the answer should be "no".

    If the answer is "but it seems like a good idea", then the answer should be "no".
    _______

    I personally would not follow those rules . If I think "maybe" I should do something (buy a new car, switch cable providers, revise my investment folio), I don't automatically say no. I say yes or no after thinking it over. Governments should do the same.

  467. OK_Max (Comment #179837): "If it's the government's role to preserve the right to the pursuit of happiness, then I would think it's also the government's goal to do things that make more people happy"
    .
    The second part of that statement does not follow from the first. Here is a succinct statement as to why that is:
    .
    OK_Max: "What makes most voters in the least populous States happy may be different than what makes those in the most populous States happy"

  468. mark bofill (Comment #179840)
    "Maybe it would suffice to say that there's a difference between 'the pursuit of happiness' and 'tyranny of the majority'?"
    ______

    mark, I haven't thought that one over, but I would say you are right.

  469. OK_Max (Comment #179842): "I personally would not follow those rules . If I think "maybe" I should do something (buy a new car, switch cable providers, revise my investment folio), I don't automatically say no. I say yes or no after thinking it over."
    .
    Of course you do. So do I. That is very sensible for individuals.
    .
    OK_Max: "Governments should do the same."
    .
    Complete and total nonsense. The government is not an individual, but it imposes its decisions on individuals. So it should defer to individual decision making whenever possible.

    Your approach is a recipe for conflict.

  470. Mike,
    "The government is not an individual, but it imposes its decisions on individuals. So it should defer to individual decision making whenever possible."
    ————–
    Thanks. I was searching for a way to explain this in less than a thousand words. You did it in less than twenty five. Well done.

  471. Mike M. (Comment #179843)
    February 15th, 2020 at 4:31 pm
    OK_Max (Comment #179837): "If it's the government's role to preserve the right to the pursuit of happiness, then I would think it's also the government's goal to do things that make more people happy"
    .
    The second part of that statement does not follow from the first. Here is a succinct statement as to why that is:
    .
    OK_Max: "What makes most voters in the least populous States happy may be different than what makes those in the most populous States happy"
    _______

    Those in the least populous States are not denied the right to the pursuit of happiness. The right to pursue, however, doesn't mean much without the means to achieve. Nevertheless, I have the right to pursue my dream of owning a penthouse overlooking the Pacific by buying lottery tickets.

  472. That's sarcasm, right?
    [Edit: My follow up question is, do you imply that there is no opportunity for upward mobility in the US? But maybe I'm utterly not comprehending what you are trying to say.]

  473. Mike M,
    “ The government is not an individual, but it imposes its decisions on individuals. So it should defer to individual decision making whenever possible.”
    Yes, but once again, that is just a description of the fundamental disagreement. If Government confiscation of *all* wealth above $500K, with subsequent distribution of that wealth on a per capita basis across the entire population, increases ‘happiness’ for the majority, is that a good idea? My response is: only if legalizing theft of individual property is your goal. But that *is* in fact always the goal of the left, whether explicit or implicit.

  474. Re Mike M. (Comment #179845)

    "The government is not an individual, but it imposes its decisions on individuals. So it should defer to individual decision making whenever possible.
    ________

    I don't know what you mean by "whenever possible."

    Anyway, your idea of deferring to individual decision making whenever possible sounds good until I consider (1) many people make irrational decisions, not only harming themselves, but hurting others, and (2) many people make rational decisions that harm others, either because they don't know or don't care.

  475. mark bofill (Comment #179848)
    February 15th, 2020 at 5:00 pm
    That's sarcasm, right?
    [Edit: My follow up question is, do you imply that there is no opportunity for upward mobility in the US? But maybe I'm utterly not comprehending what you are trying to say.]
    ______

    It's true, that penthouse is my dream, but I have given up the lottery, which means I'm no longer pursuing the dream.

    Sure, there is opportunity for upward mobility for almost everyone.
    There is opportunity to be all you can be. It just takes hard work and luck to work your way up the ladder. Some of course start out higher on the ladder and don't have to work as hard or need as much luck.

  476. OK_Max,
    Well… in response to that, I'll point out
    (a) governments often make irrational decisions harming huge number of people and
    (b) governments often make seemingly rational decisions that harm at least some and sometimes many people.

    I'd also note the number of people who can be harmed by government action generally exceeds that that can be harmed by an individuals action.

    So Mike M.s idea still sounds pretty good to me.

  477. mark bofill
    **I can say personally that my notion is that government should act to prevent societal collapse; prevent invasions, widespread lawlessness, widespread epidemic…**
    .
    The epidemic one is timely. I'm practically a hermit in some ways. But I know two women who were quarantined! (Amazing number given how few people have been. I think I mentioned it above. Anyway, they didn't get sick.)

  478. OK_Max
    ***If it's the government's role to preserve the right to the pursuit of happiness, then I would think it's also the government's goal to do things that make more people happy, but the way presidents and senators are elected is rigged against that goal. **
    .
    Ehrmm… No. Preserving the right to PURSUE happiness does not mean trying to MAKE people happy. And it most certainly should involve the governing preventing anyone from *persuing* happiness in order to "make" then happy.
    .
    By definition my right to *pursue* happiness means *I* get to decide what to do or chose to make myself happy. Not you. Nor the government. If I fail… ok. But my right is to *pursue*.

  479. OK_Max (Comment #179850): "Anyway, your idea of deferring to individual decision making whenever possible sounds good until I consider (1) many people make irrational decisions, not only harming themselves, but hurting others, and (2) many people make rational decisions that harm others, either because they don't know or don't care."
    .
    We have laws against harming others. People making bad decisions are not the government's problem, at least as long as they are not being helped along by unscrupulous individuals seeking their own gain. But that falls under harming others.

    Methinks you are playing dumb. Very annoying.

    ————
    Addition: One can take what I said and twist it to cover anything unless you keep in mind the basic principle: When in doubt, leave people alone.

  480. Max,
    Do you not prefer the freedom to make your own mistakes to a government that directs you to do 'the optimal thing?'
    .
    You don't have to agree with me. We can speak frankly and disagree, if we actually disagree.
    .
    If I'm not free to make decisions (and inevitably mistakes), I don't think I'd learn or grow. I certainly wouldn't enjoy my life nearly as much!

  481. :/ I get the impression you're trying to avoid a fight with me.
    Which is fine. But it's not disagreement that bothers me. I have yet to nail down exactly what does get under my skin, but I'm pretty sure it's not that.

  482. mark bofill (Comment #179856)
    February 15th, 2020 at 6:30 pm
    Max,
    Do you not prefer the freedom to make your own mistakes to a government that directs you to do 'the optimal thing?'
    ________

    mark, I can't give you an example of the government ever directing me to do the "optimal thing." Maybe you have examples from your personal experience or can give hypotheticals.

  483. OK_Max,
    **mark, I can't give you an example of the government ever directing me to do the "optimal thing."**
    Well…. I can't either. So I'm not surprised you can't think of the government ordering you to do anything *optimal*.
    .
    I can think of *sub-optimal* things the government requires me to do
    I'm required to pay self-employment tax. That's requiring me to do something sub-optimal *for me*.
    .
    Being ordered to buy insurance under Obamacare was sub-optimal for lots of people.
    .
    I certainly prefer a government that doesn't order me to do *sub-optimal* things. Ordering people to do sub-optimal things is what they would likely do. So I tend to prefer the order as few things as possible, as quite often the things they insist on are SUB-optimal.
    .

  484. lucia (Comment #179852)
    "I'd also note the number of people who can be harmed by government action generally exceeds that that can be harmed by an individuals action."
    ________

    Sure, it's hard for one person's actions to do as much harm as a government's actions. But I don't think we know whether the harm done by all government actions is greater than the harm done by all individuals acting on their own. My guess would be individual acts do greater harm. I'm talking here about non-criminal actions by governments and individuals. Criminal acts are a separate issue.

    I can think of a number of times I have been harmed by decisions made and acted on by other individuals. Others may say the same thing about me. Aside from taxes and traffic laws, the government pretty much leaves me alone.

  485. OK_Max
    **But I don't think we know whether the harm done by all government actions is greater than the harm done by all individuals acting on their own.**
    Perhaps not. But we equally don't know the harm done all individuals acting on their own is greater. And I tend to think because the harm by each individual is not 100% correlated by that with another individual, it tends to be less than that by the government which is a single, entity imposing the same decision on lots of people.
    .
    **I'm talking here about non-criminal actions by governments and individuals. **
    Sure. And I tend to think non-criminal acts by individuals generally cause almost no harm either individually or collectively. If they cause harm, those acts then to be criminalized. So, I'm, in fact reasaonbly confident the collective effect of this is less than the harm by governments.
    .
    Criminal acts are, of course, criminalized.
    .
    **I can think of a number of times I have been harmed by decisions made and acted on by other individuals. **
    .
    Perhaps. But you haven't given details. I'm guessing you were not imprisoned in a gulag or killed. Governments can do that. Laws against hate crime can result in people being imprisoned. The soviets sent people to the gulag for "wrong speech". Without details I obviously can't weigh the horrors of the harms to you against the ones possibly inflicted by governments. My inclination is to think those inflicted by governments are worse.
    .
    **Aside from taxes and traffic laws, the government pretty much leaves me alone.**
    .
    Which is I think is great. It's also what most of us here and MikeM think the government should do. You, on the other hand, appear to be advocating things like sending people to prison for speech. That is to say: you appear to be advocating the government STOP leaving you alone and start sending people to jail. For. Stuff.

  486. lucia (Comment #179859)

    I can think of *sub-optimal* things the government requires me to do
    I'm required to pay self-employment tax. That's requiring me to do something sub-optimal *for me*.

    Being ordered to buy insurance under Obamacare was sub-optimal for lots of people.
    ________________

    Well, you got me on those, Lucia. I understand what you mean by sub-optimal.

  487. OK_Max (Comment #179862)

    **Aside from taxes and traffic laws, the government pretty much leaves me alone.**
    .
    Which is I think is great. It's also what most of us here and MikeM think the government should do. You, on the other hand, appear to be advocating things like sending people to prison for speech. That is to say: you appear to be advocating the government STOP leaving you alone and start sending people to jail. For. Stuff.
    __________

    lucia, I do not advocate jailing Americans for hate speech, and I'm sorry it appears to you that I do. By defending the hate speech laws of Germany, I could have unintentionally given the impression I was advocating the same laws for the U.S. I believe that given Germany's history a case can be made for it's hate speech laws. I can understand why the German's want these laws.

    BTW, I just saw a ranking of countries by freedom for citizens. As I recall Germany was in 16th place and the U.S. was in 17th place. Many other countries with laws against hate speech were in the top 10. I haven't gone over how the rankings were determined, but believe freedom from worries about things like crime and lack of health care were considered.

  488. SteveF (Comment #179849)
    "If Government confiscation of *all* wealth above $500K, with subsequent distribution of that wealth on a per capita basis across the entire population, increases ‘happiness’ for the majority, is that a good idea?"
    _________

    No, that's a terrible idea, and I don't know why you think $500K is much wealth.

    A windfall might cheer up a person for a little while, but I doubt it would result in lasting happiness. I have more money than I used to have, but I'm no happier. Not that I don't like having more. It hasn't made me less happy.

  489. OK_Max,
    I don’t think you read my comment correctly. I wrote *if* the government confiscated all significant wealth. I was not suggest that $500K is great wealth, and I certainly was not suggesting that confiscation would be a good idea. I was not even arguing that would actually make people happier… at least not in the long term. I was pointing out that there are lots of really damaging things governments can do (and many have done!) claiming it would make people happier. Lucia is correct: what makes people happier is allowing them to pursue happiness, not the government deciding what will make them happier.

  490. "I haven't gone over how the rankings were determined, but believe freedom from worries about things like crime and lack of health care were considered."
    ——————————–
    That's not freedom. Look, people in prison are free from worries about housing, jobs, healthcare, what they're going to eat, what they are going to wear, and so on. They aren't *free*. 'Freedom from' is a verbal slight of hand that sort of sounds like it means the same thing as freedom. It doesn't.
    [Edit: Dead people are free from all worry as well.]

  492. OK_Max
    **lucia, I do not advocate jailing Americans for hate speech, and I'm sorry it appears to you that I do. By defending the hate speech laws of Germany, I could have unintentionally given the impression I was advocating the same laws for the U.S.**
    Yes. You did give the impression you advocate those laws generally, which would include the US. I'm now puzzled why you would think those laws are somehow useful in one country and but wouldn't want them here.
    .
    **As I recall Germany was in 16th place and the U.S. was in 17th place. Many other countries with laws against hate speech were in the top 10.**
    I'm always suspicious of people who create rankings. I'd have to see the list of things on which they based their ranking to decide if I believed it meant anything at all.
    .
    **but believe freedom from worries about things like crime and lack of health care were considered.**
    .
    Ok. Then the ranking is clearly just a PR ploy by people who want government health care. It doesn't really rank 'freedom'.
    .

  493. OK_Max
    **I have more money than I used to have, but I'm no happier. **
    Well… there is age.
    When I was young and had very little money, I had the *prospect* of making money to be comfortable when I became older. Now I am older and have enough to be comfortable, but less prospect to make a lot (partly owing to lack of time for my money to grow).
    .
    In both cases I am happy. If I'd had neither prospect to make money or money, I think I'd be pretty unhappy.

  494. "I have more money than I used to have, but I'm no happier."
    ——————–
    Since we're sharing personal perspectives on money, here's mine. I care about how much money I make for varied reasons. One is that people depend on me to provide for them (younger children, a college kid, an aging parent, pets) to some extent or another. Providing for my loved ones is something I take pride in, and something that supplies a sense of meaning in my life. This is probably the top reason for me.
    .
    Money is also security in the sense that it helps me/my family cope with unexpected problems with minimal disruption to everybody's life. Additionally, having money means more flexibility to live life on my terms.
    .
    Money is also the score of the game for me. It's *fun* to try to make more. I know this last one sounds pretty shallow or superficial, but ~shrug~ what can I say. It's true.

  495. Luica,
    "Ok. Then the ranking is clearly just a PR ploy by people who want government health care. It doesn't really rank 'freedom'."
    .
    Yup, that is so common a ploy that it ought just bring laughter… it is dishonest 'hidden' advocacy. Exactly the same ploy is used when the "economic costs of fossil fuel use" are calculated as far greater than the draconian, and hugely expensive, mandated substitution of non-fossil fuel alternatives…. "external" costs of using fossil fuels enter the calculation, even while those external costs are as often as not ginned-up green sentiment, exaggerated long term risks, and predicated by a strong desire for government control of, well, most everything. The value of lost liberty and opportunity to pursue happiness never enter into the calculation.

  496. If having more money doesn’t make you happy, Max, why not give it away to people who could use it, for example, to reduce their medical bills?

  497. mark bofill,
    **Money is also the score of the game for me. It's *fun* to try to make more. I know this last one sounds pretty shallow or superficial, **
    .
    Not any more shallow than me thinking it's fun to make a dress and have people tell me how lovely it is and how talented I am. 🙂
    .
    Honestly, sometimes you have to admit you find certain things fun even if some "other" people claim it's not supposed to be what you enjoy, what you "should" value or what "gives life meaning".
    .
    Heck, I have a (still single) friend who tried online dating for a while. She always seems to think she is "supposed" to be "idealistic" (in some way.) She's day things like "Well… he doesn't really HAVE to be smart an educated." (As in, she doesn't want to be seen as "judging" and people told her having standards like that is somehow shallow.) I told her that was NONESENSE. She has ALWAYS cared about that. She could never enjoy the company of someone dim or uneducated. That in this regard she should 'embrace her shallowness'.
    .
    FWIW: I don't really think wanting that is shallow. But honestly, when dating, or picking among many things to spend your time, if someone tries to convince a particular choice is "shallow" while something else is "high minded", and you should somehow "fix" yourself, sometimes you just have to decide to embrace your shallowness.

  498. Thanks Lucia. I agree. The older I get the less I care about what I'm 'supposed to' be. Whatever it is I am at this point in my life, it is what it is and I'm pretty much good with it.

  499. The vasectomy bill was just a political stunt about abortion, but it would have been humorous when the SJW crowd got wind of the demographics of the people who would have been required to get vasectomies.

  500. SteveF (Comment #179872)
    Luica,
"Ok. Then the ranking is clearly just a PR ploy by people who want government health care. It doesn't really rank 'freedom'."
.
Yup, that is so common a ploy that it ought just bring laughter… it is dishonest 'hidden' advocacy.
    _____________

    It may come as a surprise to you and Lucia that the rankings were done by the libertarian Cato Institute and presented in its publication titled The Human Freedom Index – 2019.

    “ The Human Freedom Index presents the state of human freedom in the world based on a broad measure that encompasses personal, civil, and economic freedom.”

    https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new

    in my previous post whatI said from memory about the freedom index rankings wasn’t completely accurate. Germany, number 8 among all nations, ranked higher than I had recalled, and the U.S. at number 15, lower. Also I now don’t believe anything specifically about health care went into the index.

    “The jurisdictions that took the top 10 places, in order, were New Zealand, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Luxembourg (tied in 6th place), Finland and Germany (tied in 8th place), and Ireland. Selected countries rank as follows: Sweden (11), United Kingdom (14), United States (15), Taiwan (19), Japan (25), South Korea (27), Chile (28), France (33), South Africa (64), Argentina (77), Mexico (92), India (94), Brazil (109), Russia (114), Turkey (122), Saudi Arabia (149), Iran (154), Egypt (157), Venezuela (161), and Syria (162).”

  501. OK_Max,
    *Who* did it doesn't make any difference to my opinion. If "freedom from worrying about (anything)" was counted, I consider it a ploy. Had the Cato instituted counted that, I would have considered their count a ploy.
    .
    You now say that wasn't a metric to count a country as free. Oh. Well….
    .
    I'm perfectly willing to believe our country is not the most free. What I am not willing to do is take anything that counts "freedom from worrying about healthcare" as a sign a particular country is more free than another.
    .

  502. Okay, reset.
    What are you arguing Max? That hate speech laws make us more free? Real question.
    .
    [Edit: I agree with Lucia above.]

  503. Tom Scharf,
    **the SJW crowd got wind of the demographics of the people who would have been required to get vasectomies.**
    As written it sounds like old gay guys would have been required to get vasectomies at their own expense. I'm *pretty sure* if any went to court and the state tried to insist on keeping the law, the challenge would have made it to SCOTUS and the old gay guys would have won. I mean…WHAT is the government interest to make them undergo an actual operation? Pretty much bupkiss. (Honestly, there is very little government interest in forcing birth control on older people whether male or female. Ok… less for female… )

  504. So I'm looking at the report. The U.S. does relatively poorly in Rule of Law (6.9). Procedural justice 7.6, civil justice 6.7, criminal justice 6.5. What does this mean? In the methodology section around page 320 it looks like they are saying that they outsourced this measure to the 'Rule of Law Index' from the World Justice Report guys, am I interpreting that correctly I wonder.
    .
    Criminal justice 6.5, really. Color me skeptical.

  505. Exploring the interactive data over here:
    https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/wjp-rule-law-index-2019
    It looks like the U.S. craps out in justice because we're a bunch of racists. Really! Our civil justice is not free of discrimination (4.2 score), our criminal system is not impartial (3.6 score) equal treatment and absence of discrimination (5.1 score).
    .
    I don't know about this rabbit hole. I got other things to do…
    Maybe I'll crawl around in it more later, but. So far I'm not all that impressed.

  506. Mark,
    Having money does improve ones ability to deal with our justice system. Connections can matter too. I'm willing to believe we aren't stellar on all factors.
    .
    Circling back: any dings we get on this would NOT be improved by implementing "Hate Speech" laws.

  507. Alright, that's fair enough.
    .
    She wears the blindfold because justice is impartial, the sword because justice is strong, and the scales because justice ain't cheap…

  508. lucia (Comment #179869)
    OK_Max
    **lucia, I do not advocate jailing Americans for hate speech, and I'm sorry it appears to you that I do. By defending the hate speech laws of Germany, I could have unintentionally given the impression I was advocating the same laws for the U.S.**
    Yes. You did give the impression you advocate those laws generally, which would include the US. I'm now puzzled why you would think those laws are somehow useful in one country and but wouldn't want them here.
    ______

    I have reviewed all my comments on the subject. In #179630 I said
    "I support free speech up to a point. I don't support free speech that incites violence against people." After further thought, I will revise that as follows: I support free speech up to a point. I don't support free speech that calls for violence against people.

    European nations were devastated by WWII, the U.S was not. That's why these countries support stronger laws against hate speech than we have in the U.S. They don't want another hate-speech fueled Nazi takeover. Regardless of whether these laws against hate speech can prevent such a takeover, the laws are useful if they make the citizens over there feel better. The same laws wouldn't be useful in the U.S. if they didn't make Americans feel better, and judging from the response here, such laws would make at least some Americans feel worse.

  509. mark bofill (Comment #179879)
    February 16th, 2020 at 12:24 pm
    Okay, reset.
    What are you arguing Max? That hate speech laws make us more free? Real question.
    _________

    I think there's more to freedom than freedom of speech.

    I think you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

    Actually, you have been sipping a little of that Cato report, so I give you some credit.

  510. RE: "I think there's more to freedom than freedom of speech."
    .
    Well, why didn't you say so in the first place. *Of course* there is more to freedom than freedom of speech.
    .
    .

    RE: "I think you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Actually, you have been sipping a little of that Cato report, so I give you some credit."
    .
    (deep breath 1..2..3..4..5..6..7..8..9…10)
    …Didn't help…
    Why not just say explicitly whatever it is you got to say, instead of all the leading around to Cato reports you're doing? Possibly sometimes the horse gets frustrated with being led around and, not actually being a horse but a human, I don't know maybe he would appreciate clear and direct communications, so as not to waste his time.

  511. Not to mention that that is one hell of a condescending analogy there Max. Do come and share more of your enlightenment with us cattle when you get a chance, and use small words so we can understand you, or better still; lead us to your wisdom in small stages, so we can grasp it.

  512. mark, that does like I was talking down to you. I should have thought more before commenting. Sorry about that.

    Before getting involved in this discussion about freedom of speech I thought the U.S. was number one in freedoms. Now I don't think so.
    Digging at a subject and discussing it has been profitable for me. I have learned, grown. I owe you and others here for that.

  513. OK_Max (Comment #179886): "I think there's more to freedom than freedom of speech."
    .
    Indeed there is. But in the long run, I doubt there is much freedom of anything without freedom of speech.

  515. OK_Max
    **That's why these countries support stronger laws against hate speech than we have in the U.S. They don't want another hate-speech fueled Nazi takeover.**
    Sure, this may be WHY they are making a MISTAKE and doubling down on that policy– which existed while Nazi's rose. But that's not going to make me think the policy will either (a) work despite failing before or (b) is somehow "right".

    **Regardless of whether these laws against hate speech can prevent such a takeover, the laws are useful if they make the citizens over there feel better. **

    Uhhmm.. no. The whole "feel better" while "not actually working" is a big problem. I'm sure the Weimar laws (which did not prevent Nazis from rising) made some people "feel better". But that doesn't MAKE THEM WORK.
    .
    In contrast: we have at least SOME evidence OUR laws prevent the Nazi's from rising (i.e. "Nazis in Skokie incident"). In the long run that make a whole lot more people "feel better" relative to Nazi's rising and then doing what Nazi's do.
    .
    I'll accept a small amount of "discomfort right now" to avoid "death camps" in the future. I'm pretty sure people in death camps don't "feel better".

  516. OK_Max
    **I thought the U.S. was number one in freedoms. Now I don't think so.**

    Well.. I never thought we were necessarily #1 in freedom. So ahead of you on that.

  517. I am not persuaded by a quick look at the report, but I have no particular reason to believe that the US is the most free. But whatever.

  518. mark,
    The freedom ranking is clearly not totally off. The more free countries are certainly at the top and the less free at the bottom. But we knew which these were without the ranking.
    .
    I'm not sure you can really give a numerical rank to "most free". OTOH, I'm also not sure you can find a numerical rank for "best university" ad so on. That doesn't stop people from trying.

  519. Yes, I don't think it's utterly wrong, and yes, I think comparison by ranking is suspect. Weighting of things that are awfully hard to objectively compare (how many units of criminal law score measure up to how many units of religious freedom, for example) matters. It seems pretty fudgey to me.

  520. It looks like Canada ranks ahead of the U.S. and at or near the top of the various lists of freest countries. Having lived for many years in Canada and now back in the States, I don't see it. I suspect it all has to do with what you emphasize.

  521. I'm interested in how you can be for certain hate speech laws but be against putting people in jail for hate speech. Repeated noncompliance on laws like this almost always lead to jail. As for inciting violence the details are important, unclear how one draws the line here clearly. For example, Twitter's political drama queens recently outright advocated punching Nazi's. Someone needs to explain to me how that will be tolerated while advocating punching the "wrong people" should be punished. It is these conflicts which make the laws unworkable.
    .
    Ultimately one's support of these type of laws comes down to whether you believe you can trust society's judges. I don't believe I can trust them given the suffocating ideological bent of academia and the prevalence of social justice shout downs.

  522. Freedom indexes and vague measurements like them are entirely predictable given the report's source. Curiously many a UN human rights measurement shows the US severely lacking. The exact questions, who gets asked, and the weighting of the scores makes them more art than science.
    .
    Ironically a source such as the Cato Institute is motivated to show less freedom because their agenda is to obtain more freedom. What can be useful is the trend of a rigorous measurement over time.

  523. Re mark bofill (Comment #179896)

    Weighting of variables in the freedom index may be more of an issue in cross comparisons of countries than in year to year changes. As long as there is consistency in the measure of the index, it should be a good indicator of change.

    That the freedom index was made up of a large number of variables, most receiving equal weights, may makes bias in favor of any one variable less likely. I'm not sure of this. A statistician should know.

    After a cursory review of the variables in the freedom index, I can't say anything stood out to me as needing more weight or less weight.
    One might disagree with "rule of law' and "security" receiving weights of 12.5% each, while other personal freedom variables, such as religious freedom received only 5%. I would not. I agree with the following quote from the report: "Without security or rule of law, liberty is degraded or even meaningless".

    However, I haven't studied the report enough to understand exactly what all of the variables mean and how they were quantified. If I look closer I may find things I suspect are weaknesses.

  524. Tom Scharf (Comment #179899)
    February 17th, 2020 at 10:41 am

    Ironically a source such as the Cato Institute is motivated to show less freedom because their agenda is to obtain more freedom.
    ______

    That motivation occurred to me too, particularly for biasing down U.S. performance, since Cato is an American organization with an agenda for promoting it's version of freedom in the U.S. But just because Cato has motivation for bias doesn't mean their report on freedom is biased.

    Besides, a report rigged to show most European countries ranking higher in freedom than the U.S. could backfire on Cato if used as evidence we should be more like Europeans. I may be behind the times, but I don't believe that's what Cato wants.

  526. Max,
    "One might disagree with "rule of law' and "security" receiving weights of 12.5% each, while other personal freedom variables, such as religious freedom received only 5%. I would not."
    .
    It doesn't really matter what you I or think, or whether or not we agree with the weighting for our own anecdotal personal reasons. What matters is whether or not the weighting is 'correct'. How are the weightings arrived at? How do we know they're correct? It appears to me we know neither.
    .
    It's OK. It's a model. I don't have a better one. So long as we don't expect too much from this fudgey model perhaps it will suffice.
    .
    What are we doing with this model? Say I provisionally accept it. So what?

  527. mark
    **How are the weightings arrived at? How do we know they're correct? It appears to me we know neither.**
    I'm not sure the weighting can be "correct" or "incorrect". On specific individual things we can identify whether a system grants more or less freedom. But "amount of freedom" isn't like height. It may not be possible to quantify.
    .
    Honestly, I can say having the right to own, control and sell property makes me "more free" than not having that right.
    Having the right to vote makes me "more free" than not being able to vote.
    But I can't for the life of me figure out whether the an index to quantify my freedom should be weighted equally between the two and if not, which of the other two is more important.
    (Honestly, since both these were rights granted women within the history of our country, I'd say to me as an individual, my right to OWN PROPERTY is actually more important to my "freedom" than my right to vote. But I don't want to lose either!)

  528. "I'm not sure the weighting can be "correct" or "incorrect". On specific individual things we can identify whether a system grants more or less freedom. But "amount of freedom" isn't like height. It may not be possible to quantify."
    .
    Lucia,
    Yup. I'm not sure the idea even makes sense in principle, forget about whether or not it's implemented properly.

  529. mark bofill (Comment #179903)

    It doesn't really matter what you I or think, or whether or not we agree with the weighting for our own anecdotal personal reasons. What matters is whether or not the weighting is 'correct'.
    _____

    I think you have dismissed that idea to quickly. We have a Consumer Price Index, so something similar for freedom seems possible. Would a survey of Americans to determine freedom preferences be a basis for your 'correct weighting' or am I missing your point?

    I don't know whether people have given much thought to which freedoms are most important to them. I haven't until now. Most important to me is economic freedom, and least important is religious freedom.

    I

  530. Pew did such a survey. The most important freedom to those surveyed was religious freedom, followed by freedom for women (equal rights), and freedom to vote.

  531. *shrug* We could delve into that. But before I'd go there, I'd ask again, to what point? Does it make some difference if I think this report is questionable or not? Where are we going with this.
    .
    All three of the above are meant to be the same question phrased slightly differently.

  532. OK_MAX
    **We have a Consumer Price Index, so something similar for freedom seems possible.**
    No. Things are sold for money and the amount exchanged can be quantified. So the average price of a basket of goods today actually CAN be estimated. The number of "freedom points" today cannot be.
    .
    It's true that one can debate whether the "basket of goods" selected makes sense for finding how the cost of living changes. But you CAN assign a price to a basket of goods and people do so routinely during economic exchanges.

    **Most important to me is economic freedom, and least important is religious freedom. **
    You say that about religious freedom. Likely no one has tried to force a religion on you or tried to prevent you from exercizing the one of your choice. I am VERY glad I am not required to continue to be a Roman Catholic. Can't say I personally worry about my right to arm bears very much.

  533. "Can't say I personally worry about my right to arm bears very much."
    ….
    Whaaaaaaaat?
    :p
    .
    "If you're not happy single, you won't be happy taken. True happiness comes from gun ownership and not relationships."
    (anonymous wisdom from Facebook)
    .
    [Silly tag]

  534. Uhm. To clarify my silly remark. Max, lucia myself, steve, and presumably others are married. The single / taken relationship thing was part of the original quote and has no significance here. It was just a silly quote I thought was amusing, being an easily amused, simple sort of guy.

  535. mark,
    I've got to say… that true happiness mantra is no worse than a lot of more common platitudes. I mean…. Do you 100% believe that material things CAN'T contribute to "meaning" in life? I think sometimes they do. Or that "Good things come to those who wait?" Well.. not always. So on.

  536. Lucia,
    I've come to believe that some large percentage of everything I run across is wrong. Much of what people put forward as true is rubbish.
    What I read in books, what I hear on the news. I want to say most, but I'm not certain of that. Certainly applies to platitudes too.

  537. Maybe a better way of putting it. I realize that 90% of these people don't know any better than me, setting aside hard math science specialists and hard facts. The politicians, the philosophers, the editorialist, the preachers, the economists, the writers, .. meh. We none of us know squat.

  538. Mark Twain: "What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so."

  539. ucia (Comment #179909)

    ** Things are sold for money and the amount exchanged can be quantified. So the average price of a basket of goods today actually CAN be estimated. The number of "freedom points" today cannot be.**

    Lucia,I believe through surveys you can quantify the importance the public attaches to each recognized freedom. Pew quantified in the linked survey. I've yet to look, but their may be others.

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/11/which-freedoms-are-most-important-to-you/

    **You say that about religious freedom. Likely no one has tried to force a religion on you or tried to prevent you from exercizing the one of your choice. I am VERY glad I am not required to continue to be a Roman Catholic. Can't say I personally worry about my right to arm bears very much.**

    When I was kid (elementary school age) Southern Baptists told me I was going to hell if I didn't do what they said because they spoke for God. I believed them. You might say that was an attempt to force a religion on me.

    The reason I said freedom of religion is not important to me is I am not a member of an organized religion nor do I attend church. If by freedom of religion, you also mean freedom from religion, yes that's important.

    **I personally worry about my right to arm bears very much.**

    Bears keep to themselves and have a lot of freedom. Wolves not so much because they belong to packs. Population density compromises freedom.

    The right to own arms isn't high on my list of freedoms, and I don't currently have any, but I do like target practice, so I go to a shooting range where I can rent a far greater variety of firearms than I would ever consider owning.

  540. Huh. Arm bears. I wasn't saying 'whaaat' because of the reversal (someplace between my eyes and my conscious mind autocorrect occurred).

  541. "quantify the importance the public attaches to each recognized freedom."
    .
    I don't see why the importance the public attaches to each freedom means much of anything. People take things for granted all the time, usually the more fundamental and stable the thing, the more it can be taken for granted.
    .
    [Edit: We tend not to give much thought to things we take for granted and leave them out of our consideration. I think it'd be easy for people to never think about the importance of some things taken for granted.]

  542. OK_Max
    **Lucia,I believe through surveys you can quantify the importance the public attaches to each recognized freedom. Pew quantified in the linked survey. I've yet to look, but their may be others. **
    So? Even if you can find the survey, a survey response to the question "how much do you value" is NOT a "price" .

    **I believed them. You might say that was an attempt to force a religion on me. **
    Perhaps. But you haven't had a government try to impose it on you. And evidently, your parents didn't either. So no one with power tried to force it on you.

    **The reason I said freedom of religion is not important to me is I am not a member of an organized religion nor do I attend church.**
    I'm not a member either. I'm an atheist. Freedom of religion is very important to me.
    .
    I can imagine situations where the right to bear arms WOULD be important to me.

  543. OK_Max (Comment #179916): "I believe through surveys you can quantify the importance the public attaches to each recognized freedom."
    .
    But that tells us what we need to know in only a very indirect way. As mark points out, people take things for granted and often don't think about the consequences of things. Then they say things like:
    OK_Max: "The right to own arms isn't high on my list of freedoms, and I don't currently have any"
    .
    A person who says, for example, "I don't care about freedom of religion because I am content to belong to the state church" is a person who does not much care about liberty. The same applies to the person who does not care about the right to bear arms or freedom from illegal searches on the grounds that such things do not affect them.

    You care about liberty only to the extent that you care about the liberty of others in your society.

  544. Mike M,
    “ You care about liberty only to the extent that you care about the liberty of others in your society.”
    .
    Could not be more true. But don’t be surprised when ‘liberty’ is construed by many to mean “guaranteed health care”, “free college tuition”, a guaranteed job, and a guaranteed income. And don’t forget slavery reparations. It is the same wacko conversation, over and over again.

  545. To bastardize and borrow simultaneously from Robert Heinlein, our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are somewhat illusory.

    We die. We imprison others or are imprisoned ourselves. We gulp Prozac down like candies on Halloween.

    Which is to say that those are noble aspirations and a caution to the State not to arrogate unto itself the power to interfere with them without cause.

    There is no reason that as a state evolves that it should not establish other aspirational goals. Universal healthcare in my mind should qualify. It advances the other aspirational goals. It will do the most good where the most good is needed. We see it work and work well elsewhere. The French are not poor, the Swedish are not fools, the Canadians are not unhappy. As Bernie never tires of telling us, we are the only developed country in the world that does not have some form of nationalized healthcare.

    The definition of developed country has evolved, even as has development. I wonder that we can call a country without national healthcare developed at all.

  546. Re Mike M. (Comment #179920)

    Mike M, I was going to reply to each of your comments, but it’s getting late and I need sleep.

    Anyway,I suspect what you are saying boils down to this:

    You think you know what’s good and I don’t.

    If that is what you think, my reply would be this:

    I think I know what’s good and you don’t.

  547. Thomas Fuller,
    Setting aside that just a decade ago all I heard similar claims about how wonderful ACA would be (which I do not set aside, but for the sake of argument): An extra three or four trillion a year at least. Where does that money come from?
    .
    Max,
    Personally, I try to adopt an attitude of humility and not screw around with a complicated system that works pretty well already.

  548. OK_Max (Comment #179923): "You think you know what’s good and I don’t.
    If that is what you think, my reply would be this:
    I think I know what’s good and you don’t."
    .
    I hope that you will not be so horribly confused after you get some sleep. I said nothing of the sort.

    I think I know what is good for me better than you know what is good for me.

    I think that you know what is good for you better than I know what is good for you.

  549. Thomas Fuller (Comment #179922): "our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are somewhat illusory. … Which is to say that those are noble aspirations and a caution to the State not to arrogate unto itself the power to interfere with them without cause."
    .
    Nonsense. Our fundamental rights are not illusory or merely aspirational just because they are not absolute and unlimited.
    .
    Fuller: "There is no reason that as a state evolves that it should not establish other aspirational goals. Universal healthcare in my mind should qualify."
    .
    OMG. If the people come to believe that (sadly, they are well on the way) then our fundamental rights will become illusory. Then it will be only a matter of time until the illusion is shattered and liberty is completely lost.

    I don't like to shout, but sometimes it is needed. OUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS DO NOT DERIVE FROM THE STATE.

    It is fine fine for the body politic (NOT the state) to establish various goals and aspirations. But those must never be confused with RIGHTS. If we make that mistake, then it will only be a matter of time until we have no rights.
    .
    Fuller: "As Bernie never tires of telling us, we are the only developed country in the world that does not have some form of nationalized healthcare."
    .
    Bernie Sanders is an ignorant fool.

    We have four forms of nationalized healthcare: Medicare, Medicaid, government subsidies for employer provided insurance, Obamacare. If those are not "nationalized healthcare", then there are few countries with nationalized healthcare. And there is no democratic country on earth with universal nationalized healthcare.

  550. The concept of "the right to arm bears" occurs in a very funny book by Jasper Fforde: The Big Over Easy ( https://www.amazon.com/Big-Over-Easy-Nursery-Crime-ebook/dp/B000PDYVRU/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3TBFD1NQFPZAR&keywords=the+big+over+easy&qid=1582038221&sprefix=the+big+over%2Caps%2C379&sr=8-1 ), in case anyone is interested. The premise of the book is that nursery rhyme characters can exist in the real world. The protagonist is one DCI Jack Spratt who indeed eats no fat and works in the nursery crimes division of the Reading, UK police force. The plot involves the murder of one Humpty Dumpty, who was indeed a giant talking egg.

  551. It seems to me that your typical progressive / atheist cares a great deal about freedom of religion. Ask them about the right for Muslims to practice their faith and build their mosques wherever they want (which I support).

  552. It looks like Sanders in the lead heading towards Super Tuesday. He appears to have Nevada sewn up and Biden is plummeting in [South] Carolina polls.

  553. Funny, but not surprising:
    .
    "Only 34% of Germans, 25% of Greeks and Italians, 36% of Czechs, 33% of Hungarians and 41% of the French believe their country should fulfill its (NATO) treaty obligation if another European country is attacked."
    .
    "Meanwhile, Europeans still, mostly, trust America. Seventy-five percent of Italians believe the U.S. would rally to NATO’s defense if Russia attacks, as do 63% of Germans and 57% of French."
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/europeans-try-to-have-it-both-ways-11581974424

  557. Joe Biden appears to me just this side of obvious mental decline; his word choice is odd and often inappropriate. His temper is oddly out of control and he routinely attacks voters who ask questions about his political problems… I suspect I am not the only person who notes Biden's strange behavior. He hasn't reached the level of Robert Muller's obvious mental incompetence, but there is a real chance that level is not far off. I will be shocked if Biden remains in the race for long after South Carolina, where his showing will surely be below expectations.

  558. That 35% for Sanders in Nevada is fishy since the total is 101%. So it must be 35% of decided voters and more like 30% of all voters.

    Since Nevada is a caucus state, there is *zero* chance that Sanders will take all the delegates. There is no realistic chance that he will take a majority of delegates in Nevada.

  560. Threats of violence from Bernie's campaign staff are nothing new:
    https://offgridsurvival.com/bernie-sanders-campaign-team-caught-talking-about-killing-dissidents-violence-is-coming-in-2020/
    From what I have seen, Bernie does not seem bothered by it.

    But don't worry. Bloomberg is just the superhero the Dems need to face up to the Bros, then go on to vanquish Big Bad Orange:
    https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/El-Bloombito-The-Incredible-Spider-Hombre.jpg

  561. Mike M. (Comment #179925)

    **I think I know what is good for me better than you know what is good for me.**

    No, doubt !

    **I think that you know what is good for you better than I know what is good for you.**

    I may not, but my wife knows.

  562. SteveF, I think Mueller was putting on an act before Congress. Every time he wanted to give an anti-Trump answer he seemed to understand things perfectly and gave very clear answers.

    If Mueller can charge obstruction of justice for what Trump did, then Mueller should be charged with perjury for not presenting the whole truth.

  563. MikeN,
    If Mueller was acting, he should be nominated for an Oscar.
    I watched my father descent into dementia… If it was an act, Mueller has it down perfectly. I do not doubt Mueller hates Trump… if for no reason other than firing his long time pal Comey.

  567. I'm actually looking forward to the debate tonight.
    .
    I get the sense that [there is no unanimity on] who the greater evil is, Bloomberg or Sanders. My schadenfreude over the Dem predicament is great. Perhaps in the end they'll team up to defeat the Psychic Dark Lord Trump [DarkPsychicForce.com] , but for now it's pretty entertaining.

  568. I have also gotten curious enough to tune in to the debate. But I don't know how long I will last before I have to choose between turning it off or throwing stuff at the screen.

  569. It's everybody against Bloomberg! KerBlam!
    .
    And now Buttigieg turns on Sanders! Pow!
    .
    Warren declines to attack Sanders. Awww..

  571. If I said Buttigieg has a hard-on for Sanders, people might misunderstand that as a homophobic slur considering his sexual orientation.
    But Buttigieg has a hard-on for Sanders. Just sayin…

  572. Bloomberg isn't prepared for close in fighting. Maybe it's been the practice of the earlier debates that's sharpened the other knives and toughened their skins, but [whatever the reason] Bloomberg is not holding his own.

  573. Bloomberg and Biden seem a bit out of their depth. Buttigieg has been coming off really well. Klobucher pretty good also.

  575. Bloomberg is taking on water. He should have known that stuff was coming on the non-disclosure agreements.

    Warren has landed hits on Bloomberg, but I doubt she is helping herself.

  576. Jeezsus. I'm almost starting to feel badly for the Bloomberg weasel. They're ripping him to shreds.

  577. There is a story that if you put a crab in a bucket, it can climb out, but if you put a bunch of crabs in a bucket none can get out because they pull each other down. What we have here are 6 crabs in a bucket.

    Well, Warren stood up for the sisterhood.

  580. Lucia, I'm sure we'll be seeing more of the same. I think time is running out and the pressure is on. The savaging isn't over.

  583. I don't watch presidential debates…. far worse than pornography: destructive and appealing to people's worst instincts. Will Bloomberg survive? Donno, but he is sure a tempting target for Dems.

  584. Now it has moved on to destroying the economy in the service of anti-scientific nonsense. So they are all pretty much in agreement.

  586. Bloomberg smacks the socialists back! Finally.
    [Edit: Well, it's been fun. But 5 AM approaches relentlessly. Nite all!]

  588. My takeaways — Bloomberg diminished his chances of winning the nomination, nobody else moved significantly. Sanders odds probably improved by default.
    I think Sanders is going to win the nomination, based on current trajectories. We're less than two weeks out from Super Tuesday; time is running out for the situation to change.

  589. (I know, I know; limited base, plurality vs majority, contested convention. I still think when the smoke clears Sanders is going to be the one.)

  590. I thought Klobuchar did very well and had by far the best closing statement. But I doubt she moved the needle enough to really change her outside position.

    Bloomberg took a lot of incoming and did not handle it well. He did have a moment when he smacked the socialists. He showed his true colors in his closing statement: a soulless technocrat. He surely hurt himself.

    Buttigieg came off really well without really displaying any substance, but a bit too slick. The first presidential candidate to be purpose bred in a laboratory.

    Warren was an effective harridan. She did a lot of damage to Bloomberg but I doubt she helped herself except when she defended Klobuchar for drawing a blank on a name.

    Biden seemed more ready to move into a retirement home than the White House. But he might have been a winner just because Bloomberg was a loser.

    Bernie was Bernie. I can not see that guy winning over the suburban soccer moms who gave the Dems their big win in 2018. He is definitely the favorite, but far from a lock.

    The big question is whether three candidates can survive Super Tuesday in decent shape. If so, there will be a brokered convention.

  591. Mike M.,

    "The first presidential candidate to be purpose bred in a laboratory."

    I thought that was Obama.

  592. Mike,
    " can not see that guy winning over the suburban soccer moms who gave the Dems their big win in 2018. He is definitely the favorite, but far from a lock.

    The big question is whether three candidates can survive Super Tuesday in decent shape. If so, there will be a brokered convention."
    .
    Yup. But after the perception that the DNC establishment shafted Sanders for Clinton in 2016, will they dare to not nominate Sanders? They might. But I think they are less likely to repeat that move in 2020. It's muddy waters and I surely could be wrong.

  593. MikeM.,
    I didn't watch. Some comments based on what you report:

    * Smacking the socialists will help Bloomberg AFTER the nomination but might not before.
    * Like it or not, Buttegieg being gay WILL lose him votes AFTER any nomination. (I wish I could say it won't, but it will.)
    * Biden WILL embarrass himself in some important way if nominated. Whether that matters…. dunno.

    Honestly, I think the best nominee to go toe to toe against Trump is Kloubucher. But it doesn't look like she's going to be nominated.

  594. lucia (Comment #179973),

    I very much agree with all your points.

    Blacks and Latinos are much more likely to be religious than other Americans. And those who are religious tend to belong to conservative denominations. They will not be comfortable with a gay couple in the White House. That might or might not be enough to get them to change their votes. But Buttigieg compounds his problem by being so preachy while expounding views on Christianity that are offensive to many Christians.

    It is one thing to say to religious voters: "I respect your religious views, but you should not try to impose them on others." Minority voters are down with that. But it is very different to say, as Buttigieg seems to: "I don't think you understand your own religion." That will give minority voters a high-minded reason to vote in accord with their discomfort.

  595. Lucia,
    "Biden WILL embarrass himself in some important way if nominated. Whether that matters…. dunno."
    .
    For sure, if Biden were to get the nomination, but that now seems unlikely. Besides, his family has been feeding at the influence trough for so long that there are unlimited potentially damaging revelations. He is like the Clintons on a smaller money scale, but he is not smart enough to avoid culpability like the Clintons.
    .
    I agree that Klobuchar would be the strongest candidate against Trump…. but sitting at 5 or 6% in all the primary polls makes her a very unlikely nominee. I am guessing she really just wants the Vice Presidency…. and Sanders could definitely choose her.

  596. The other debaters basically ignored Old Joe last night. As if they regarded him as irrelevant and thought they'd be seen as mean for attacking him. Like mocking grandpa because he can't remember where he left his glasses.

    The candidates are making a huge tactical error by not vigously attacking Sanders. If they let him get a commanding lead in delegates, there might be no choice but to nominate him. I suspect they all know that, but are afraid that whoever does attack him will alienate his supporters enough to kill their own chance at the nomination. So they are hoping that one of the other candidates will do that.

    I am a little surprised that the party establishment has not thrown their support behind Klobuchar. I suppose that they are afraid they will look bad if they do that and she loses anyway.

  598. MikeM,
    Changing votes is not the only possible problem for a candidate. Voters just not showing up is also a problem.
    .
    ** I am guessing she really just wants the Vice Presidency…. and Sanders could definitely choose her.**
    Yes. But weird ticket. Still, these pairings tend to be weird.
    .
    If that is the ticket… and Bernie dies…. We could have our first woman in the whitehouse.

  601. Is that how it works? Neat. I never knew that.
    Ty Lucia!
    [Thought they had to win first for the VP to continue on]

  603. Maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that if Bernie were to be nominated and pick Klobuchar as his running mate, if he died a week later that Klobuchar would be the nominee.
    She *could* be. But everything I read seems to agree that the democratic party would select a new candidate according to democratic party rules. I read here on Ballotpedia regarding the 2016 race:

    The procedures that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) would have followed if the Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race are a bit simpler than the RNC's. The chair of the DNC is required to call a meeting, and the DNC holds the authority to elect a replacement nominee by majority vote.

    Article 2, section 1 of the Rules and Bylaws of the Democratic Party states that the DNC has the authority to fill vacancies in the nominations for president and vice president. "The Democratic National Committee shall have general responsibility for the affairs of the Democratic Party between National Conventions, subject to the provisions of the Charter and to the resolutions or other official actions of the National Convention. This responsibility shall include, but not be limited to … Filling vacancies in the nominations for the office of the President and Vice President," reads Article 2.1(c).

    Article 2, section 7 states, "a special meeting to fill a vacancy on the National ticket shall be held on the call of the Chairperson, who shall set the date for such meeting in accordance with the procedural rules provided for in Article Two, Section 8(d) of these Bylaws." Article 2, section 8(d) reads, "all questions before the Democratic National Committee shall be determined by majority vote of those members present and voting in person or by proxy."

    https://ballotpedia.org/State_laws_and_party_rules_on_replacing_a_presidential_nominee

  604. "Buttegieg being gay WILL lose him votes AFTER any nomination"
    .
    He will lose some, but I don't think a lot, unless he makes the mistake of marketing his gayness as making him a better person / President. He needs to follow Obama's lead here. He needs to keep his distance from the LBTQ-ASEDGHJBK-WESDYUHLCV militants.
    .
    The more Sanders stands as the winner of the "which one of these people doesn't look like the other" sweepstakes, the more he can pull off a Trumpish nomination win with the others splitting the vote.

  605. The coronavirus could yet play a major role in this election. If and when it lands in the USA in force you know who will surely be blamed and it could tank the economy for several months. The liberal media outlets are already pre-blaming Trump, far be it to alternatively be a test for proving government competence in action.
    .
    Beyond the CDC (which has good clear information BTW) the response to this outbreak involves a mishmash of city, state, and federal bureaucracies which have to work together effectively.

  608. Tom,
    I haven't seen media pre-blaming Trump. I did read WHO complain Americans over-reacted. (I think WHO is wrong.)

    mark,
    My understanding is, generally, like it or not, blacks are not pro-gay. That's the category I was thinking he'd lose, and likely it would be by "not turning out to vote for him".

  609. The Coronavirus Outbreak Could Bring Out the Worst in Trump
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/02/trump-response-coronavirus/606610/
    .
    Some Experts Worry as a Germ-Phobic Trump Confronts a Growing Epidemic
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/10/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-epidemic.html
    .
    The coronavirus is not much worse than the flu at the moment depending on what characteristic you are looking at.
    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html

Comments are closed.