GeorgiaDon

In part, it had to do with "shrink government to a size where you can drown it in a bathtub". Deeper, and more insidious than that, it goes back to white people not wanting to pay taxes to provide services to freed slaves. Boston historian Heather Cox Richardson writes about this from time to time on her blog/newsletter. And yes (before someone brings this up), this was the policy of the Democrats when they were dominated by Southern politics and the Dixiecrats, before the Democratic and Republican parties traded souls around the time Republicans went all in on the Southern Strategy. Hard to believe that at one time the Republicans were the party of civil rights. Also hard to believe they have become the New American Fascist Party, but there you go. Don

I disagree. A minimum tax could work. Don

She's in deep trouble then. Don

Sensory overload on jump 1 is very common. You may have done better than you think but just don't remember, a common byproduct of sensory overload. You did pull by yourself which suggests you were more aware than you remember. The overload thing should get better with each jump as you gain experience. I bet you will find your next jump to be a very different experience. Don

The "no jurisdiction excuse" is free license for a losing president to do absolutely anything in the lame duck session to hold on to power. Even worse, if the Senate is controlled by the same party as the outgoing president belongs to they can simply refuse to schedule the trial and allow an impeachment to "expire" without being addressed. This is of course what Moscow Mitch did. No doubt if the outgoing President was a Democrat they would have managed to get the trial done, just as they got Barrett confirmed to the supreme court after arguing a year was too rushed for Garland (among other excuses). The Republican Party has truly shown themselves to be the American Fascist Party, determined to hang on to power at the cost of American democracy. The next time we elect a Republican Senate and a Republican to the White House there will never need to be another legitimate election, as this batch of fascist hypocrites had laid out a road map to establishing a dictatorship.

Barry Manilow. Maybe put "Mandy" on a loop, over and over and over...

I agree with you that what he did to incite the mob and send them to attack Congress to stop the count of the electoral votes and to go after Pence, Pelosi, and other so-called "traitors" was obviously criminal. However Alan Dershowitz is already arguing that what Trump did was "protected political speech", perfectly legal under the first amendment. I expect that to be the main line of defense at the Senate trial, perhaps alongside the argument that it is unconstitutional for the Senate to try an ex-president. Dershowitz, you may recall, argued at the first impeachment trial that a president could violate any law so long as he believed that it would be in the interests of the country for him to do so, even if the President would also benefit. That was the ultimate get out of jail free card of course. In Dershowitz's world it seems the President can do anything, perhaps including leading an insurrection, as long as the President believes that the country will be better off if he stays in power (even as a dictator) rather than let Biden take over. The President, congresscritters, and many government officials enjoy broad immunity from prosecution or being sued for things they do while exercising their lawful duties. If it were not so, everyone in government would be buried alive under lawsuits brought by any and everyone who disagreed with their decisions and government could not function. The question re Trump is, will his lawyers (Dershowitz et al) be able to convince a court that he was acting in his legal capacity as President to summon a mob, get them enraged, and sic them on Congress to block an essential government function (the peaceful transition of power). This might be where we get to see if there really are "Trump judges" on the Supreme Court.

While I would be happy to see him rendered destitute I don't see that happening. His whole life has been spent around lawsuits, even when he loses he just appeals until the other side runs out of money. At his age he can easily use legal games to run out the clock. I would hope that felony criminal charges including incitement of insurrection and felony murder would be a different matter.

I wonder if Trump will have actual legal liability from the insurrection. Will he be able to claim immunity as he was performing an "official act" as President? I would like to see him charged and tried in court. The impeachment and Senate trial is purely political of course, with no criminal penalties. If I, as a private citizen, was to organize or participate in a crime and as a result people were killed, I would be charged with felony murder. It's not necessary to be the "trigger man" to be charged or convicted.

Well I suppose when they're covered in shit that might make them sticky.

These photos are emblematic of the damage Trump and his enablers have done to this country. There is no way such a military presence should be necessary at an inauguration, which should be a celebration of democracy. I hate it that they have created such an environment of alarm and fear. It also sickens me that after all this they are playing the "can't we all get along", "let's let bygones be bygones" tune. Republicans need to be treated as if they are the viper in the story about the "farmer and the viper" (or it's many variants, such as "girl and serpent" etc).

Bad cut and paste from the article. First they quote her sister, then her sister's husband. It's clear in the article that Cave is the husband of the dead lady's sister. Of course, in parts of Georgia anything is possible, he could be her husband, brother-in-law, and biological brother all at the same time I suppose.

Most of the fast turnover countries are parliamentary democracies as I am sure you know. The structure of government is very different and leadership can change unexpectedly, as for example with a vote of non-confidence or if someone calls a snap election and miscalculates/loses. Bureaucrats do all the day-to-day work and can carry on irregardless (there's a deep state for you!) so it's easier for politicians to play musical offices without gumming up the works too badly. Having lived under a parliamentary democracy (Canada) for half my life and the US system for the other half, I think the parliamentary system works better. If a leader is a total screw up it's a lot easier to get rid of them. Plus, I would have loved to see Bush or Trump be forced to appear in Congress to take questions from the "loyal opposition" at frequent intervals. Also minority governments force the ruling party to compromise and adopt at least some policy priorities of smaller parties in order to form alliances.

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't see anything in the article about not prosecuting specific offenses. I do think we over-criminalize a lot of things, but the appropriate response is to revise the law, not ignore it. As far as sentencing is concerned, once upon a time judges were allowed to judge, taking the totality of circumstances into account. That has been replaced to a large extent by mandatory sentences, legislated by politicians for political purposes ("tough on crime" campaigning advantages for example). For an example of "over-criminalizing" I think we can look to the "war on drugs". We could have opted to treat the problem as a medical issue (addiction) and as a poverty issue (few accessible alternatives for making a decent income). I know it is more complicated than that, but those are major factors. By dealing with drug problems only through the criminal justice system we built a prisonocracy that is horrendously expensive, so entrenched it is difficult to reduce in scope, have a larger share (by far) of our population in prison or parole than any other developed country, exacerbated racial problems (as these are highly correlated with issues of poverty), and contributed to generations of kids growing up without fathers (which makes everything worse). Unfortunately many of the needed reforms have been captured under the slogan "Defund the Police" which makes discussion of the issues highly political and a target for political attacks by the Republican party. I live in Georgia and still have cable TV (in the process of getting rid of that) so I see all the commercials related to the runoff elections, and I can attest to the fact that any wiff of a suggestion that one penny be diverted from the police to any alternatives is used as a club to bludgeon Democrats. I live in a rural county (not a neighbor of Ron though) and I assure you those commercials have a big effect on my white "working class" neighbors.

This is tragic, I'm so sorry to hear of your loss. Sorry and angry that so many people are going through this when a rational response from the "people in charge" could have done much to reduce the carnage.

Just to be clear, are you saying that it is a mistake to no longer ask for cash bail in "misdemeanor, nonserious or non-violent felony cases"? An astonishing number of people are held in jail because they cannot make bail. As a result, they lose their job, housing, often their vehicle, custody of their kids, etc. All over a misdemeanor or non-violent offense they have not (not yet, at least) been convicted of, offenses that often merit a fine rather than jail time. This is a great way to trap people in a cycle of poverty. Don

I wonder if there is still enough time for the House to impeach Trump a second time? Don

I didn't mean to suggest that you were being disingenuous and I apologise that I worded things so it could be read that way. I think the source you quoted did deliberately phrase things to leave the wrong impression.

The article in question was written by a journalism student, about a lecture given by an economist with no medical or public health training, and published in the student newspaper. It is disingenuous at best to pretend that a newspaper article about a lecture like this one is in any way an official statement by the Hopkins medical/public health school. The economist in question apparently.had an agenda, as they misstated key facts about the disease and completely ignored several published studies that show a large number of excess deaths since February, compared to all previous years for which such records have been kept. It's not surprising, I suppose, that an economist would seek to downplay the pandemic if they valued money more than lives. I'm sure everyone can appreciate that an article.in the student newspaper is in no way an official statement by a University about anything. I assume the student journalist accurately reported.what the economics professor said. I think in that case the appropriate response would not have been to remove the article from the on line version of the paper. Rather, there should have been a vigorous debate in subsequent issues of the paper, and the economics prof should have been criticized for using their lecture to spread easily debunked misinformation.

I'm confident in believing this is just as credible as all your other SHTF predictions. I have no doubt that this is what Trump is trying to pull off. I also am quite sure that if he were to succeed it would be the end of the USA. Republicans have proven themselves to be reduced to minority rule, using legislative tricks to hold on to power despite representing an ever smaller share of the population. This strategy would impose one-party rule on the country, where the current POTUS could use completely unsubstantiated allegations to deprive the entire population of any meaningful ability to vote so he could re-appoint himself as "dear leader". There is no way that several states would accept such an arrangement. I could see California+Oregon+Washington as their own country, maybe with a couple of adjoining states, the New England states+Pennsylvania (in part)+Virginia (in part)+Michigan (in part)+Wisconsin (in part) as another country, and the South and middle of the current USA becoming KingTrumpistan (or maybe New Israel, or just Butfuckistan). Not that Trump or his sycophants give an actual shit about the US.

You are missing the point. If it worth it to society to invest that kind of money in fighter pilots or astronauts, why is it not worth it to invest in a skilled workforce who can do things that are useful to industry and to society in general (such as engineers, doctors, research scientists, teachers, etc). Especially considering the return the government would see on their investment, in terms of higher lifetime taxes paid and enhanced economic activity. You can't have an advanced IT industry, or pharmaceuticals, or (insert industry of choice here) without a skilled work force. In many industries employers have to rely on immigrants because the US is not producing enough trained US citizens, and yet we allow the price of entry to a career (i.e. the high cost of education) to exclude a large fraction of the potential work force. Other countries remove the economic barrier, and in exchange expect rigorous programs so that the people who get through and ultimately graduate are the ones who are the most determined, and so (presumably) are the most likely to make a real contribution to the economy.

Here is an article from Forbe's that discusses the cost of training military pilots. A basic qualified F-16 pilot costs $5.6 million, an F-35A pilot costs $10.15 million, and an F-22 pilot costs $10.6 million. There are universities that specialize in aeronautical training. Why not let would-be fighter pilots pay for their training themselves? Why should the taxpayer have to pay for that? For the cost of a single fighter pilot I could train 20-30 PhDs in biotechnology, immunology, or infectious disease research. What would be the better deal for the economy? I can assure you the Covid vaccine was not developed by Donald J Trump tinkering in the White House bunker, it was developed by highly trained scientists. There's your reality.

The majority of people with an education after high school, especially a university degree, earn significantly more than people who only finished high school, or who dropped out. Their major doesn't matter all that much (excepting a few areas such as accounting perhaps), many employers are mainly interested in knowing that a potential employee can stick with a program long enough to graduate. As a result they pay quite a bit more in taxes over their lifetime. You could look at it as an investment: put in tens of thousands up front, get back hundreds of thousands long term. If you tell everyone "you're totally on your own" the only people you will see becoming engineers (as one example) will be the people who have both the smarts to get through the degree, and the money to do it with. IOW your pool of potential engineers will be kids from well off families. Alternatively, if you take family wealth out of the equation you can open up the opportunity to select for ability and end up with a larger set of really talented engineers for the work force. BTW the main reason why college/university tuition has increased so much is that state funding has shrunk dramatically compared to 30 or 40 years ago. Also you don't want to limit your pool of potential faculty to people who are unable to get/hold on to a job in industry, which means universities have to compete with the private sector for talent. Speaking for myself, after putting myself through undergraduate, a Master's degree, a PhD, and 2 postdoctoral fellowships, I am not going to settle for a $25,000 salary for the privilege of teaching at a university (undergraduate and graduate courses, plus running a research lab to train grad students) when I could earn many times that amount in industry.

Also, Biden is not being provided with the daily national security briefing he should be getting to ensure he is aware of threats to the country when he takes over. Of course, the biggest threat right now is Trump and everybody with any sense already knows that.

Well OK, but that has more to do with avoiding prosecution in New York than it does being humiliated about losing.