The Case Against Sally Yates

Below is my column in The Hill on the possible nomination of Sally Yates as the next United States Attorney General. One of the names on the short list is Judge Merrick Garland who would not only be unifying for the country but unassailable at a confirmation hearing. However, Yates’ record raises serious questions about her judgment and actions at the Justice Department.

Here is the column:

As Joe Biden fills out his Cabinet, more attention is drawn to the position of attorney general and one of the most cited names on the short list, which is Sally Yates. Her consideration is surprising for a president-elect who has pledged to unify the country and move beyond the destructive politics of the last four years. I always admired the obvious talent and intellect of Yates. But my overall assessment of her changed dramatically almost four years ago, when she staged an epic battle with a newly inaugurated President Trump and thereby forged her own legend.

Yates had only a few days left in government when she became acting attorney general in January 2017, following the departure of Attorney General Loretta Lynch. One week later, Trump signed an executive order that restricted travel to the United States from seven Muslim majority countries. Yates then took the unprecedented step of ordering the Justice Department to refuse to assist the president in implementing the ban.

I was an early critic of the travel ban, which had glaring errors like the absence of exceptions for legal residents or green-card holders. (Those errors were corrected in an amended order.) The ban was an issue upon which Trump campaigned and won the presidency and he wanted to move in that first week to carry out some of his core promises. But the order was poorly drafted, poorly executed and, ultimately, poorly defended. Yates could have worked with the White House to seek changes, as would later occur; instead, she ordered a federal department to refuse to assist the president.

In issuing her order, Yates dismissed a review by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel which found the order to be lawful. Yates did not expressly reject that conclusion; she simply stated that she was not convinced the order was “wise or just” or was “lawful.” It is not the job of Justice Department attorneys to decide if a president is acting in a “wise or just” manner but, instead, only if the action is lawful. If Yates felt the order was unlawful, she could have resigned, as did Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus in the infamous “Saturday Night Massacre” under President Nixon. However, she apparently did not want to be known simply as someone who resigned a few days before she was scheduled to leave office.

Yates knew exactly what she was doing, and what Trump would have to do: He rightfully fired her. It was a brilliant political move by Yates. With only a couple days left in her post, Yates engineered her own firing and became a self-made hero for Democrats everywhere. It did not matter that former Justice officials, including outspoken critics of Trump, questioned whether her action was ethical or justified. Former Justice official and Harvard professor Jack Goldsmith pointed out that Yates neither determined the immigration order to be unconstitutional nor cited any basis for refusing to defend it. Accordingly, he said, Yates left the impression of “insubordination that invites the president to fire her.”

Yates knew that she would be fired and her replacement would carry out the obligations of the Department to assist the President of the United States. Many of those lawyers did not agree with the travel ban but they did they job as they had promised to do in representing the United States.  Yates maintained afterward that she believed the ban might still be discriminatory, even with revisions. This was a question that divided career attorneys inside the Department and the OLC had found the order presumptively lawful. These lawyers proceeded to defend the order (and later amended versions) to allow the courts to address the issue of discrimination.

Yet the media followed the rule cited by the newspaper editor in the movie, “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” — “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” The legend of Sally Yates lived on. Indeed, she made sure it did. She was given a high-profile speaking role at the Democratic National Convention, as the personification of a new Justice Department’s commitment to the rule of law. She declared: “I was fired for refusing to defend Trump’s shameful and unlawful Muslim travel ban.” The problem is that her statement is untrue. She never declared the order unlawful.

While the order was tweaked and changed, the main ban on Muslim countries remained and challengers took it to the Supreme Court in 2018. There, the challengers insisted the changes in the order did not alter the main objections to a ban on Muslim countries. The court upheld the travel ban, reversing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It held that Trump had a “sufficient national security justification” for his order. It also held that, despite most of the banned countries being Muslim-majority, the ban “does not support an inference of religious hostility.”

Trump later expanded the ban. In other words, Yates prevented the Justice Department from assisting the president on a ban that was later found lawful, as her own OLC staff concluded.

What is most remarkable in this story is not that the ban was upheld, since there were strong arguments on both sides. It was that Yates never determined the order to be unlawful and did not leave it to the courts to resolve the issue. This was not her only controversy. Yates signed off on the application for secret surveillance of Carter Page, which was found by the inspector general to be riddled with errors and based on faulty information. Page was never charged with any crime. There is no indication that Yates made any substantive inquiries on the basis for the application, which she now says she would not have signed if she knew what she knows today. She just signed it and assumed it was legal, despite the targeting of a campaign aide in the opposing party.

Yates also showed little concern over the basis for investigating Michael Flynn, another key aide to the incoming president of the opposing party. While she recently expressed a lack of clear memory on the issue, prior reports linked her to raising the possible use against Flynn of the Logan Act, a notoriously unconstitutional law that has never been used to secure a single conviction since its creation in 1799.

The basis was Flynn’s conversations with Russian diplomats shortly before becoming Trump’s national security adviser. There was nothing unlawful or even uncommon in such a communication. Indeed, then FBI Director James Comey reportedly told President Obama and Vice President Biden that the meetings appeared legitimate. Yet Yates reportedly went to the White House to raise the alarm and, in a 2017 interview, she had no memory problems in declaring that “there is certainly a criminal statute that was implicated” by the conduct of Flynn.

So the legend of Yates was largely self-created and media sustained. Biden can create a more lasting legacy at the Justice Department, but he first will need to sever it from its mythological past.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.

403 thoughts on “The Case Against Sally Yates”

  1. Jonathan: Back on 11/23 you argued in a column that Democrats had launched a campaign of “harassment and threats” against Trump campaign lawyers. You called these “attacks on democracy and the rule of law” and were “threatening and abusive”. You said the “attacks” are a “dangerous form of demagoguery that should be denounced by people of good faith…” Since your column all the spurious lawsuits by the Trump lawyers have been dismissed because they failed to present any evidence to support the allegations of “voter fraud”. The only administration official to contradict Trump’s false claims about the election was Chris Krebs, the now former head of cybersecurity at Homeland Security. He said the 2020 election was the “most secure in United States history”. For his willingness to speak truth to power Krebs was immediately fired by Trump.

    Yesterday, Joe diGenova, a Trump campaign lawyer, attacked Krebs on Newsmax for questioning Trump’s false voter fraud claims. About Krebs deGenova said: “Anybody who thinks the election went well, like that idiot Krebs who used to be the head of cybersecurity that guy is a Class A Moron. He should be drawn and quartered. Taken out at dawn and shot”. As a person of “good faith” shouldn’t you also be denouncing diGenova for “threatening” a public official who was simply doing his job? Krebs joins Sally Yates as two administration officials who were willing to be fired rather then violate their duty to uphold the Constitutional order. As a firm supporter of Trump’s continuing legal challenges to the election I am not sanguine you will be calling out Joe diGenova anytime soon.

    1. Krebs told a gargantuan lie. The depraved liar claimed that this election was the most secure in our history despite the fact that he KNEW that he was COMPLETELY IGNORANT about almost every one of the elections he was comparing this one to. Your TDS has to overwhelm your senses if this fact was not immediately apparent to you.

      And Yates is the one member of the Obama administration who clearly committed sedition.

    2. Sally Yates is a fraud. Mr. Turley is finally coming around to the amount of fraud and corruption in the deep state. Sally Yates personified the deep state. She was a huge part of the Cabal. Now she has decided to have amnesia. Where is Durham? Barr? Wray? They had no problems going after DJT, Carter page, Roger Stone, Paul Manafort and General Flynn!! Now Barr has Durham blocking PDJT from disclosing everything that was classified. Redactamonia those documents per Billy Barr(who does not want to step on toes or fingers). Krebs is just a liar and deep stater.

  2. Jonathan: When Donald Trump took office he made it clear he didn’t what immigrants from “shithole countries” to get anywhere near the US. He found a willing accomplice in Stephen Miller who got Trump’s ear by channeling his boss’s hatred of anyone who didn’t look like him. Miller turned Trump’s gut animus toward immigrants into actual policy–like the Muslim ban. Like Trump, Miller sees immigrants as “born of a contempt for this nation, for our law enforcement officers and for the citizens who live here…” Kind of ironic language coming from someone whose Jewish grandfather fled to the US in 1903 to escape anti-Jewish pogroms in Russia. Miller would probably not be here had his policies been in effect when his grandfather landed on Ellis Island. This is what happens when a young man turns his back on his own family history and embraces fascism.

    Now when Trump put the Miller inspired Muslim travel ban into effect it was challenged in the courts and struck down by all the courts as illegal and unconstitutional–including the Ninth Circuit. Then the Roberts loyal Trump majority on the Supreme Court reversed and held the Muslim ban legal on the shakiest of grounds. One constitutional scholar called the decision like “putting lipstick on a pig.” Justice Sotomayor compared the 5-4 majority opinion to the infamous 1944 decision upholding the incarceration of Japanese- Americans. She added: “History will not look kindly on the court’s decision today–nor should it”.

    Now you seem to think Sally Yates had a duty to enforce the Muslim travel ban despite her doubts at the time about its legality or constitutionality and the nation’s history of welcoming immigrants and the effect of the policy that discriminated against immigrants based on their religion. Yates took a principled position, refused to enforce the ban and was fired. What’s not to like about her willingness to speak truth to power. Apparently, you believe government lawyers have a duty to enforce laws even though they feel they are unjust. DOJ lawyers resigned over AG Barr’s interference in the Flynn case. It was a matter of principal. How does that differ from what Yates did–except she waited to be fired? What’s remarkable is that you have learned very little from history In 1933 Hitler purged Jewish and Socialist judges and lawyers out of fear they might oppose the the 1935 Nuremberg race laws that took away the civil and property rights of Jews in Germany and led to the Holocaust. After the war Nazi jurists were tried and convicted of “judicial murder”. They could not rely on the defense that they were merely carrying out the law. Telford Taylor, writing in the Holocaust Encyclopedia, says of theses cases: “This case is unusual in that the defendants are charged with crimes committed in the name of the law. These men, together with their deceased or fugitive colleagues, were the embodiment of what passed for justice in the Third Reich.” The lesson here is that it’s better to go down fighting against an unjust law than be complicit in its implementation. Sally Yates is the embodiment of resistance to unjust laws.

    I think Sally Yates decision to refuse to enforce the Trump/Miller racist and discriminatory Muslim travel ban was the right thing to do. I think history will vindicate her despite your feeble attempts to discredit her and destroy her reputation.

    1. “Now you seem to think Sally Yates had a duty to enforce the Muslim travel ban despite her doubts at the time about its legality or constitutionality and the nation’s history of welcoming immigrants and the effect of the policy that discriminated against immigrants based on their religion. Yates took a principled position, refused to enforce the ban and was fired.”
      ******************************
      More of Dennis’ Hate America First philosophy.

      It wasn’t a “Muslim” travel ban yet he insists on calling it that even though most Muslim countries like Indonesia and Saudi were excluded. In fact the restriction initially only applied to seven countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen which incidentally do correspond to most anybody’s definition of Sh!thole countries. “The ban was ultimately expanded to “Myanmar (which officials referred to by its former name of Burma), Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania. Existing restrictions imposed against Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen under a third iteration of the original travel ban and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018 also remained in place. Among the six countries added, Sudan and Kyrgystan are majority Muslim, with Christianity and Islam more closely split as the main religions in Tanzania and Nigeria. Myanmar is predominantly Buddhist and its government has been accused of encouraging an ethnic cleansing campaign against its Muslim minority, the Rohingya — making the country one of the world’s biggest drivers of refugees in recent years.”

      So no, Dennis, even hate won’t make Myanmar a “Muslim” country. Thus, Yates’ position was neither moral nor principled nor even consistent. It was political.

      Facts are pesky, Dennis. They don’t morph to suit you. Oh and another fact for you: the countries listed have sizable numbers of radical Muslims who want to kill, maim, dismember or simply hack you and yours. You’ll never screen ’em all out so the question has to be asked: why do you hate you and your so much as to joyously accept that risk? Mania/self-loathing comes to mind but it’s not lost on me that throughout history people just like you ran places like Troy.

    2. Can we cut the stupid – anyone who does not agree with you is a hateful racist BS ?

      Did Trump ban immigrants from China, India, Philipines ?

      What kind of white supremecist is He ? One who prefers yellow people over brown people ?

      Are you capable of making sense ?

      Do you have a problem reducing or stopping immigration from countries that are bringing us terrorism, and gang violence ?

      And what is this idiocy on the left that Islam is some protected class ? Couldn’t you have found a less racists, homophobic, transphobic mysoginyst religion to crawl into bed with ? Like maybe Jerry Falwell and Liberty U ? Or Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church ?

      Or do you just want all (or even 10%) or the 750M people world wide who want to come to the US to arrive tomorow ?

      Personally I am libertarian – I have zero problems with real open borders. But I am not so stupid as to beleive that we can continue any government entitlement programs AND open borders.

      Since you are not giving up entitlements – YOU need to figure out who YOU are letting in and who YOU are not.

      I will make it real easy on you. I will offer you an immigration policy that pretty much every republican and every libertarian in the country will accept.

      Get the government out of immigration. Anyone who wishes can come to the US provided that:

      A). They are capable to taking care of themselves and will not be permitted any form of government assistance.
      B). Someone else sponsors them and agrees to care for them if they need assistance.

      Don’t care where they come from – shithole countries, rich countries, white ones, black ones, christian, muslim.

      You, your church, Act Blue, Microsoft can sponsor whoever they want. But YOU will be responsible for them – not government.

      I will bet immigration will TANK. But go ahead prove me wrong.

      I will bet that If you can get Pelosi and democrats to sign on that Trump and republicans will too, and we can have a completely new immigration policy before years end, With no limits on who can come here or from where they come, and the only constraint being sponsors not government will be responsible for them.

        1. Insult not argument.

          I do advocate for open borders – for goods and people, I also expect the pre-requisites for those to work – an end to the entitlement state.

          The only promise that you can sustainably make to immigrants is freedom. The only promise you should make to citizens is freedom.

    3. Yates is free to speak her mind and act as she pleases – as a private citizen.

      As the attorney General of the US she is obligated to enforce the current US policy – and that includes Executive orders she does not like.

      If you can not enforce the policy of the current administration – quit or expect to be fired.

      Barack Obama expected no less, Joe Biden will expect no less. Trump was entitled to no less.

      The next republican to win the presidency – and that will likely be in 2024. Has received a clear message from the Trump presidency.
      On day one Fire everyone.

      1. John Say predicted a Trump victory in 2020, so his predictions are useless. Against all evidence he predicts what he wants to happen.

        1. I did ? Perhaps you would cite where I did that ?

          I predicted several things regarding this election:

          That the polls were likely wrong – they were.

          That Trump had more support than claimed – he did.

          That mailin elections would raise the risk of fraud – they did.

          As to predicted in the OUTCOME.

          I explicitly stated that I HOPED the election would not be close. Specifically to avoid the scenario we have now.

          I did not “predict” either A biden or Trump victory – specifically because Mailin voting substantially changes voting – it not only increases the level of fraud dramatically it also results in massive increases in the number of people who vote – because it is far too easy to vote.

          I have REPEATEDLY said that was a bad thing.

          Neither we – nor any country that wishes to be stable should want high voter participation.

        2. I have responded repeatedly to this FALSE claim of yours. In great detail.

          Why is it you that you insist on lying – even about inconsequential things.

          Had I predicted an erroneous outcome to this election – I would own it, and would be far less embarrased than Pollsters should be right now.

          I do not make my living predicting elections.

          But I did not make a specific prediction regarding the winner of this election.

          I did make a number of election predictions – such as that Mailin voting would prove disasterous, and that the polls were wrong.

          I have a far better track record than the so called experts with respect to the things I have predicted.

          Based on my ACTUAL record – rather than your lies about me,

          Perhaps I should become a professional election handicapper.

          Regardless, we do not consider those who inaccurately predicted the latest football contest reprobates or liars.
          Failing to predict a sports contest (or getting such a prediction correct) says NOTHING about your integrity or morality.
          It is not even factual error

          But those who lie about others – that is a moral failure, a lack of integrity and a factual failure.

          JF you are not to be trusted.

          Not because I say so. But because you have lied about people and about facts, and you continue to do so.

          1. John Say on several occasions during the fall assured his fellow travelers about the likelihood of a Trump victory . He’s lying now, or delusional.

            1. “John Say on several occasions during the fall assured his fellow travelers about the likelihood of a Trump victory . He’s lying now, or delusional.”

              JF – why do you keep repeating this brazen lie ?

              While I have no problems owning a false prediction, this is NOT one that I made.

              My posts are all publicly available.

              I have not made actual predictions regarding the winner of the election since Covid became serious.

              That, Mailin balloting, the rioting, all made prediction pretty much impossible.

              Regardless, Why do you think it is acceptable to lie about something that can easily be checked ?

    4. Learn what “discriminatory” means. Every law is discriminatory. Discrimination is fundamental.

      In regard to immigration from “s**thole countries”, the science says there’s good reason for it, Bet the Left hates science.

      1. I would appreciate the “science” behind limited immigration.

        I am aware of arguments, but those are not science.

        Regardless, the evidence for free exchange of both goods and people is compelling.

        Production will always seek the most efficient means. Where labor is a factor – either it will seek low cost labor within a country or low cost labor outside the country.

        We can send low skill low paying jobs to mexico, or China or we can bring in immigrants working for low wages.
        What you can not do is force production to be significantly more expensive than it needs.

        If you want some actual “science” – more accurately statistics and economics on this issue and many related issues you can try

        The Ultimate Resource II by economist Julian Simon – it is available free online.

        This is the most thorough debunking of the malthusian nonsense offered constantly by the left.

        BUT the same evidence also debunks anti-immigrant nonsense.

        The issue is fundimentally the same, the only resource whose scarcity is an actual issue – is the human mind.
        More is always better.

        http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/

        1. Free exchange of people? What does the “exchange” “of people even mean? Who are the actors doing the exchanging?

          By the way, you addressed a different point than the one about s**thole countries. Read David Sloan Wilson on breeding hens to increase egg production. You don’t breed the hens that lay the most eggs. You breed the hens whose henhouses produce the most eggs.

          The problem with your perspective is that it ignores the future. We don’t care about production in the present. We care about aggregate production, most of which will occur in the future. And the way to increase production over time is to build capital, not consume it. Immigration consumes capital.

          1. Your hen breeding digression beautifully demonstrates YOUR problem.

            YOU do not have the right to decide how other humans breed – so long as they do not use force.

            You are manufacturing a problem – basically something you do not like, and then imposing a top down solution.

            The left does this all the time.

            I am presuming you are not a leftist, so why engage in their tactics and logic errors ?

              1. William, above you wrote:

                “Immigration consumes capital.”

                How so? Do you understand the national and regional economic benefits of low paying and hard working immigrants at the bottom and the innovation at the top from docs, engineers, and researchers all lured here by our previously world leading university system, and most of whom want to stay? By the way, we are starting to lose our edge on this, which still has us at the forefront of new technology and medicine as China is aggressively developing their university system and their presence on the world stage and especially at developing countries. We cannot avoid globalization, but we can compete and succeed in it if we are smart.

                1. Amazing. I am hard pressed to find a single thing that you have said that is wrong or that I disagree with.

                  I would note – though there are some specific issues with China at the moment – Xi is a bad shift to greater authoritarianism and that is bad for china and the world.

                  More generally competion between the US and China or any other country is GOOD.
                  Further China’s gains with respect to free exchange do not come at our expense.

                  Free exchange is NOT a zero sum game. If it were it would never happen.

                  The US should fix its education system – that is good for all of us – including China.
                  China should improve its education – that too is good for china and the US.

                  China’s standard of living has risen dramatically over the past 50 years.
                  That has been very good for the chinese.
                  But it is also good for the US.

                  At the moment there are 3 C19 vaccines headed to the US market.

                  But relatively unheralded is that there are 5 Chinese vaccines in mass production right now.
                  There are 1B doses coming from China before March.

                  The Chinese vaccines are more traditional – lower risk in terms of development, but it is also produced less stringently.
                  They are not mRNA vaccines that “won” the race in the US.
                  BTW the mRNA vaccine is a real game changer.
                  The actual vaccine was developed 2 days after C19 was genetically sequenced – that is almost a year ago.
                  Everything since then has been about safety testing and production of a new technology we have little experience with.
                  mRNA vaccines are in theory much safer than traditional vaccines.

                  It is highly likely we will see LOTS more mRNA vaccines in the future.
                  Aside from pfiser and moderna – mRNA vaccines were actually available from biohackers in April.
                  At small scale they are a garage technology.

                  With more experience there is not a reason that we can not have an mRNA vaccine for something in the future in weeks.

                  But the chinese vaccines are still important – china has pushed the development of a traditional vaccine to less than 1 year.
                  The norm is 4 years. The chinese vaccine is a single dose vaccine, it is also easier to store and transport. It probably does not have the 95% effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines. and it likely has more risks and side effects. Risks and side effects those of us in the first world are not willing to take. But the Chinese vaccines have a more important role in stopping C19 globally.

                  And just as the big companies that we are seeing will make billions, So will the chinese.

                  Put simply we need BOTH. And we will need the benefits of the sped up development of both in the future.

                  The world is a much better place as a consequence of the rapid development and deployment of all the C19 vaccines.

                  Finally – all of this – probably even the incredibly rapid development of the Chinese vaccines is the consequence of Trump.

                  There is zero possibility that Biden or Obama could have done this.
                  The driving force is the one part that the left chaffes at the most.

                  Trump does not take no for an answer.
                  Many many many people were responsible for this.
                  But Trump’s leadershop – his unwillingness to take no for an answer is why these vaccines exist today.

                  Myriads of people – including Faucci, who Biden is apparently keeping. said the vaccines could be done fast – but not this fast.
                  At every step Trump refused to take fast enough for an answer.

                  I would also note – Trump was RIGHT, the experts were WRONG.

                  BTW this is a very common issue. Experts are inherently unwilling to commit. they are fearful, and not willing to take risks or personal responsibility.

                  Trump funded development of something like 12 vaccines – because that increased the odds one of them would be here faster.
                  He also understood that competition as well as a brass ring for the winners was a powerful motivator.
                  He also heavily involved the logistics people in the Army.

                  The military is inefficient and wasteful. But when they have a clear objective they are better able than anyone else to force there way through obstacles. There are instances in the quest for this vaccine where the military airlifted equipment to the drug companies – because there was no other way to get that equipment overnight. There is another instance in which a military unit was sent to a rail yard to tear it apart to find a package that was critical and had been lost in shipping.

                  When you get your C19 vaccine it should remind you, that you voted for the guy who could not possibly get this done this quickly.

                  I would also ask you another question.

                  What if Trump had been able to get the vaccine to us all by August instead of December – except the vaccine was less safe ?
                  What if a vaccine was possible in august – but there would be 50,000 people who would die from the vaccine rather than Covid ?

                  Should we have done that ?

                  The answer is yes – and it is just math. Fewer total people would have died from a less safe vaccine sooner.

                  Even now – the current vaccines appear to be very safe. But even if they kill 10.000 people – that would not be worth a 10 day delay to make them safer.

                  The what if scenario I offered is with near certainty – not hypothetical.
                  It is near certain that we could have the same vaccines we have now months ago, but the risk of there not working or having harmful, even fatal side effects for some would be higher.

                2. “Immigration consumes capital.”

                  How so? Do you understand the national and regional economic benefits of low paying and hard working immigrants at the bottom and the innovation at the top from docs, engineers, and researchers all lured here by our previously world leading university system, and most of whom want to stay?

                  No, there are none.

                  1. You asserted “Immigration consumes capital,” and John asked you “How so?” Are you going to answer him?

                    You seem to be confusing “No, I don’t understand that” with “No, there are none.” The former doesn’t imply the latter.

                    1. I agreed with Joe – including the “How So ” assertion.

                      There must be pigs flying somewhere.

              2. If it did not apply in some way to humans – your remark was not an analogy but an off point digression on chickens.

                My counter notes that the analogy does not work for humans – not for breeding, not for anything else.

                Other animals are property – we can morally completely control them.
                Humans are not property.

                There is a presumption in most every effort at top down planning that humans can be treated as property.

                1. It applies to humans. It has nothing to do with breeding of humans. Both of which should be obvious.

                  You don’t import people from “s**thole countries (i.e., unproductive henhouses). If you import anyone, you bring them from productive countries (productive henhouses).

                  And this thing about “top-down planning” is silly. Immigration restriction is the epitome of bottom-up planning.

                  1. “It applies to humans. It has nothing to do with breeding of humans. Both of which should be obvious.”

                    If it applies to humans – then it applies to breeding of humans.

                    You get to create any analogy you wish.
                    You did not get to control how others apply it.

                    My application is not only valid, but demonstrates the flaw in your analogy.

                    I would note that my point is not specific to “breeding” – my point is that we very rarely apply top down structures to humans – we do not to breeding, and we should not most of the rest of the time.

                    Top down arguments – YOUR Analogy – very rarely apply to humans.

                    It is the top down issue that I am criticising. Breeding merely makes the error obvious.

                  2. “You don’t import people from “s**thole countries (i.e., unproductive henhouses). If you import anyone, you bring them from productive countries (productive henhouses).”

                    We do not import people. Individuals make choices on their own. You are still not getting your own error – your anlogy was top down central planning, your view of immigration is top down central planning.

                    “And this thing about “top-down planning” is silly. Immigration restriction is the epitome of bottom-up planning.”

                    Of course they are not – you are far too smart to buy that. Government decisions are ALWAYS top down.

                    Regardless, I will give you an example of an actual bottom up approach to immigration that Republicans and possibly democrats should be able to accept.

                    Get rid of nearly all restrictions on immigration – we can probably restrict criminals.

                    Require that every immigrant must have a US sponsor, and that Sponsor takes real meaningful responsibility for that person.
                    i.e. if that immigrant can not support themselves that the sponsor will have to. And make sure that has teeth.

                    That is it.

                    Government does not decide what countries people may come from.

                    Businesses may sponsor people – possibly for employment.

                    Charities, churches, families and individuals may sponsor people. Muslims, hatians, people from shithole countries – where ever.

                    That is what bottom up actually looks like.

                    Bottom up means that decisions are made at the bottom – by individuals, not government.

    1. Anonymous Email From Arizona Tech Worker Alleges 35,000 Votes Given to Democrats in Pima County: Witness

      A copy of the email was displayed during the event on Monday, as cited by retired Army Col. Phil Waldron. Waldron alleged that the information was from a Pima County tech support provider. The event was held by some Republican members of the Arizona State Legislature, which also included statements from President Donald Trump’s lawyers.

      https://www.theepochtimes.com/anonymous-email-from-arizona-tech-worker-alleges-35000-votes-given-to-democrats-in-pima-county-witness_3598878.html

      1. Populist, ‘who’, pray tell, publishes The Epoch Times? And do urgent, newsworthy stories get published only there?

        1. Populist, ‘who’, pray tell, publishes The Epoch Times?

          Is your search engine censoring your ability to get that answer? It took me 5 seconds using DuckDuckGo to get it.

          The Epoch Times was founded in the United States in the year 2000 in response to communist repression and censorship in China. Our founders, Chinese-Americans who themselves had fled communism, sought to create an independent media to bring the world uncensored and truthful information.
          https://www.theepochtimes.com/about-us

          Next question.

          1. Chinese anti-communists, eh, Olly? And one should note Fox News is owned by ‘Australian’ anti-communist.

            1. Chinese-Americans, you know, like African-Americans, Italian-Americans, etc. In other words, AMERICANS. And like most Americans, ardently opposed to communism.

              Other than a self-censored search engine and a highly dysfunctional left-half of your brain, what other challenges are you strapped with?

          2. Epoch Times is associated with Falun Dafa. This is not a secret. Victims of the CCP who are afraid that meditation exercises threaten their shaky grip on power

            That’s who Joe Biden was in bed with financially, but of course, the mass media blacked that out, because they’re in bed with CCP too

            Heck, I don’t blame CCP, they are waging information warfare on a USA they consider an adversary

            I blame our TRAITOROUS BILLIONAIRE SOCALLED AMERICANS

            who wage information war on US– the workers and middle class subjects of their lordships, Bezos, Zuck, Gates, and company

            -Saloth Sar

            1. Anonymous, what about Charles Koch? Or Sheldon Adelson?

              Or are certain billionaires the ‘good guys’?

              Wait a second, isn’t Trump a billionaire? He claims to be. However Trump has several hundred in loans due in the not-so-distant future.

              Yeah, it’s funny when people emphasize how ‘billionaires’ support Democrats while pretending Trump never bragged about his wealth.

              1. liquidate Kroch bros, major globalists, big time free traders, and part of the “Never Trump” crowd

                Adelson backed Trump because he is an enthusiastic zionist and knew Trump would help secure more peace in middle east for Israel and its neighbors. but otherwise he is a gambling magnate who preys on the stupidity and greed of people who can’t afford his tables. So i am not a fan.

                The only one I like is Elon Musk who is a true industrialist and a fine American. The other 704 of them are garbage. Basically when a group is 99.9 percent bad, you can just quit worrying about the exceptions and look to the rule.

                As for Trump, we have been told by Democrats a thousand times, that he never really was a billionaire, around 900 M or so. Ok, i will take their word for it. he makes the cut. In my thinking, a rich man has not served the American workers so well., since old FDR reigned in his own class for the good of our nation.

                Saloth Sar

              2. You do realize that Koch is a globalist and is against Trump. Trump is a billionaire but globalism at the expense of Americans is not to his taste. He is for America, not China.

                I don’t think Adelson’s activities involve taking American jobs away and sending them to China. Instead he creates wealth and some of his foreign wealth brings money to America and the host country but not from the American worker.

                You can’t seem to understand that the American government is supposed to protect the people of America, not the Chinese and not the American billionaire class who should only be protected in the same fashion as the regular American citizen.

                1. I am not a fan of Adelson but I am not in a huff against him either. His zionism is no problem for me., I have no problem with Israel. Sure, some billionaires are better than others. i like Musk. but that does not matter. at the scale of Bezos, Zuck, Bloomberg, and the rest, the issue is not their productivity the issue is their dominance over all political aspects of America. They utterly dominate it. That can’t be allowed to continue because now we see where it leads. They lock us up and rake in another trillion from the Fed in 2020 and steal the election to boot. So I say, they are the enemy. That’s what I understand. and I understand Republicans and conservatives, whom I like, need to wake up and smell the coffee about this.

                  Bottom line. We have a problem with billionaires. You can pick five you like and give them a pass but the other 700 are at the root of every problem we have.

                  “populism” needs to threaten billionaires, not coddle them. they need to feel fear, that is the only thing they will understand. fear and loss and pain. This is the only way. They are using the power of laws against us, and if we don’t use the power of laws against them, we are toast.

                  When I say law however, I mean extreme measures that will neutralize them . Arrest, imprisonment, expropriation using RICO, whatever it takes. Then more laws to stop them from the mischief they do while we play tiddlywinks batting around “ideas”

                  do the math. there is a qualitative factor in play with regards to scale. billionaires have gone to far and there will be no true “populism” until they are cut down to size

                  Saloth Sar

                  1. “Trump was not bold enough”

                    I think your assessment isn’t worth much. He made mistakes. That is true, but he came to office with support of the American people but he didn’t have a Rolodex so along with being besieged by the deep state he was besieged by those who were suppose to work with him, but caused harm. He also didn’t have the support of the elite, the media or Hollywood. Most of Congress was against him and that included Republicans many of whom are globalists and live off of the globalist dollar.

                    Most of his Presidency was under the threat of impeachment where many Republicans kept their mouths shut or pretended to be helping when they were looking out for themselves instead of the people.

                    He did a lot of good using up what little capital he had and he made tremendous changes changing a lot of the dynamics in Washington. Not noticing Trump fighting almost alone you say “Trump was not bold enough”. One has to question how you came up with such a statement.

                2. Populist, Adelson’s wealth comes from China!! Or more specifically, the Chinese island of Macao. There Adelson’s casino cranks out all the cash any billionaire donor could need.

                  1. Casino’s don’t send American jobs or American industry out of the country. You are too dense to understand that.

                    1. Populist, Chinese are holding the jobs in Adelson’s main casino. Those jobs were never ‘here’. Not on American soil.

                    2. The more you talk, anonymous, the more of an idiot you seem to be. When industry is outsourced American jobs are lost and filled by others. That is not what is happening when building casinos in Macau. No American jobs are lost. In fact American jobs are gained as is American wealth.

                  2. Who cares ? It is leftists that are fixated on political money.
                    Most of the rest of us just like to rub your face in your own hypocracy.

                    Just as we like to rub your face in the failure of Blue states with Covid whenever you wish to pretend that there was something government actually could do – aside from not send infected people to nursing homes.

              3. Democrats are being attacked for their dependence on money from Billionaires because YOUR ideology rejects billionaires as evil.
                It is called attacking you for hypocracy.

                I do not care how much money you get from Wall Street.

                But YOU bemoan the money in politics – while taking the lions share.

                But it serves you and your billionaires right.

                You spent 10B in 2020 – to get this ?

                You might as well have piled money up and lit a match to it.

        2. “Populist, ‘who’, pray tell, publishes The Epoch Times? And do urgent, newsworthy stories get published only there?”

          Who cares ?

          What is true is not determined by who speaks it.

          If Hitler says the sun will rise tomorow – the sun will not refuse to rise because Hitler spoke it.

          Facts are facts regardless of where they are reported or who is the publisher.

          With specific respect to Epoch Times it is published by Chinese disidents – oppenents of the Xi regime, and Epoch Times has been noteworthy for the best coverage of Xi’s efforts to repress hong kong as well as other errorts by Xi to repress Chinese citizens.

          Or should we fawn over New York Times who allowed Xi’s government to propogandize about its use of force against the citizens of Hong Kong in the NYT editorial page ?

          Are all left wing nuts hypocritical idiots ?

          Not a big follow of Epoch Times – but they meet the minimum credibility requirement of NOT being the New York Times.

        3. Who owns the Washington Post? The richest American whose net worth is said to have increased by 75 Billion during the Covid crisis, Jeff Bezos. What does he and his newspaper support? Globalization which means lower income and fewer jobs for Americans. What do Democrats care? They are supported by the globalists who don’t care about ordinary Americans so will do everything they can to increase their profits and put a Democrat in charge. After all Jeff Bezos is the major owner of Amazon. That 75 Billion dollar increase in his net worth comes from closing down his competition and blaming Covid.

          That is where the BS you publish on this blog daily comes from. That is one of the major reasons the WP hates Trump so much that it was willing to destroy the reputation of the WP. Bezos only paid a quarter of a Billion dollars for it.

          The Epoch Times is on the side of Americans. It started by exposing the human rights violations in China and to keep Hong Kong free. That is not up your alley. You like the Chinese concentration camps and China gobbling up more people.

          1. https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/us-billionaires-have-gained-1-trillion-pandemic-started

            Populist try A TRILLION

            “FEE SPEECH” IS A TOOL OF GLOBAL CAPITALISTS, traitors to America. quit worrying about speech and start thinking how to win
            dispense with the slogans and ask: how do we destroy our enemies, the billionaires?

            they are waging information warfare on the American working and middle class. we need to wage it kinetically, then we have a chance

            Saloth Sar

          2. I am glad to have been asked about the Epoch Times because with the MSM and social media censoring news people need to know about other news outlets to hear the truth. Here are two others that are relatively new and others have already posted from. You won’t like them any better than the Epoch Times, but none of these three lie like the Washington Post that has become a rag.

            https://populist.press
            https://justthenews.com

          3. America should take a lesson from the CCP where dealing with its billionaires comes into question. CCP is serious about keeping political control and not ceding it. But in America, billionaires own it from top to bottom. read this story.

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

            In war there are no “rights.” the billionaires are making war on us and we should make war on them

            Saloth Sar

          4. Populist, why did Trump cut taxes to the very rich when folks like Jeff Bezos scarcely needed a tax cut???

            1. I’ll venture and answer. Trump’s thinking was immature. He needs to grow up and realize that the enemy is not just the faceless bureaucrats of the “deep state” or the CCP or the Democrat leadership, it is the BILLIONAIRES who own them all, or, at least in the case of ccp, have an alliance with them.,

              Trump was a move in the right direction but not quite the dictator he was said to be. Not even close!

              Otherwise his billionaire enemies would be taking dirt naps instead of cooking up more misery for all of us.

              Saloth Sar

              1. Trump is not in love with Billionaires as a group nor does he support the globalist agenda. He actually supports Americans and the American spirit.

                1. America is more than an idea. It is a place and it is filled with people of flesh and blood who were born here. We are alive but threatened with increasing political and economic irrelevance in the age of “covid” and AI and robotics. We can be liquidated to help the billionaires achieve their ‘net carbon neutral” dream and I think they plan on doing exactly that if we let them. This sounded crazy to me when I heard the notion years ago, but after 2020, I buy it.

                  Billionaires are our enemy. They are globalists and they will destroy America as a sovereign entity if we allow it and then we will be even more exposed to their mischief. It may mean OUR Holodomor

                  Trump was not bold enough, he knows they are, obviously, but he never said so. He should have. People would have flocked to his flag even more. Well, Im saying so.

                  The reality is this. We are in need of a dux bellorum. The hour is late. Next year will be all the bad things of 2020 and more.

                  If that is not Trump then it is somebody else. Who will not take orders from billionaires nor pull punches from them.
                  ,One who will fight them and punish them until they take orders from him.

                  Saloth Sar

                2. Given that this discussion is cutting along different fault lines.

                  Not only don’t I give a $h!t about globalism – but ultimately it is a very good thing for all of us.

                  Regardless, my issue is big government NOT big business. I doubt the latter can survive without big government – but so long as it does – that is fine. Shrink the power of government and let the rest fall where it does.

                  The purpose of government is 3 fold.
                  First and most important to prohibit the initiation of force – by individuals, by businesses.
                  Any exchange that is free is acceptable and none of governments business.

                  Second to assure that we all keep our agreements. If I give you a dollar in return for a burger and you give me an empty bun – it is the role of government to assure that you live up to your agreement.

                  Third to assure that when we harm others we are forced to make them whole. If you drive your car into my porch – you must put my porch back the way you found it.

                  There is little else we need from government.

                  All that America actually needs to be great – is for government to do its actual job and otherwise get out of our way.

                  I have zero concern with the US competing with China. China has plenty of problems of its own, and until it resolves them there are significant limits to what it can accomplish.

                  But I would positively note that under Trump – the rest of Asia is rising – at China’s expense.

                  That was inevitable, but Trump sped it up.

                  1. “Not only don’t I give a $h!t about globalism – but ultimately it is a very good thing for all of us.”

                    That type of statement is very raw. Everything has its good points, but to excess it can be harmful. I believe in globalism, but not to the extent that it hurts American citizens in both the short and long term. Sending our healthcare product lines to China (OC meds Masks and many prescription drugs) wasn’t a good idea. It made the nation lack important things that only the enemy of the nation could supply. At the same time it took good jobs from Americans not because of marketplace theory rather due to anti-marketplace practices.

                    The theory you provide is good but the results of your narrow view are terrible in the present and for the future. I agree with the theory, but certain factors create market failures in a global fashion as politics, concentrated market power and other externalities enter into economic decision making. This can lead to exploitation.

                    “I have zero concern with the US competing with China.”

                    ‘US competing with China’, but is it the US competing with China or a third party American behemoth dealing and China competing with the US because one person or company gains advantage working in tandem with that foreign nation? Should those companies release military information to the Chinese for the short term benefit of the behemoth? Should those Americans for short term gains give the Chinese the intellectual property of the companies? According to your own rules the market place demands transparency but that is not what is occurring in these situations. Not giving “a $h!t about globalism” is dangerous.

                    1. I am not seeking conflict with you.

                      That said – just because the left is wrong about nearly everything – does not mean that all alternatives views are correct.

                      I do not espeicially like the term “globalism” it is a misnomer and it implies top down global planning. Large scale top down planning is universally disasterous.

                      Conversely actual free markets – even global ones are universally beneficial. Free Trade is so incredibly beneficial that it is net positive even if only practiced by ONE SIDE.

                      To the extent what I offer is a “theory” it is one like Gravity – that has been proven over and over and over historically.

                      I would note that the goal is NOT jobs – good or otherwise. It is prosperity.

                      A few decades ago we heard similar rants that we should fight to keep “good jobs” making textiles and cloths in the US.

                      Today the “good jobs” that left the US for China, are leaving China for even poorer countries.

                      A job that can not sustain a high standard of living is NOT a “good job”.

                      Amaericans should never oppose the shift of low skill low paying jobs to the poor people in other countries.

                      That is a win-win – for them and us. Our standard of living rises – as our workforce shifts to more and more valuable jobs.
                      And those countries win as they rise out of poverty.

                      As a Child I was beaten by Nuns to put dimes and nickles in milk cartons for the starving millions in Bangeledesch.

                      Today I hear the left rant when a few Bangladeshi’s are killed in a factory fire – but what I hear – is there are factories in bangelesch, a few are dying from poor working conditions – not millions from starvation.

                      Unlike you – I grasp that the US can compete globally and at home – no matter how “unfair” the market conditions.

                      One reason for that is that all “unfair trade” harms those who engage in it more than anyone else.

                      If China wants to subsidize US consumers – we should let them.

                      I am overall LESS upset with Trump’s positions on Trade than yours – because as Larry Kudlow explained – the goal of Trump’s trade policy has been free markets – NOT trade barriers and trade restrictions.

                      With respect to free trade – you could start with Adam Smith. First England and then the US became the wealthiest nations on earth, and they did so in a world of Free Trade – but also a world where more outher countries were “cheating”

                      England was a nothing country in 1492. Spain ruled the world, It pillaged the new world, It had most of the gold in the world – and yet as it accumulated gold – England became richer and Spain poorer.

                      There are myriads of other examples.

                      China and India particularly but numerous other countries including the US have benefited pretty much everything you deride.
                      The whole world – including the US has gotten far more wealthy over the past 50 years.

                      That is the direct consequence of rising economic liberty.

                      The winner of all trade wars – is the country with the lowest barriers.

                    2. I agree. The word globalism is a lousy word meaning too many different things to too many different people.

                      Free trade and free markets are good but the word free has definitional problems.

                      It is called a theory because it is a theory. Unfortunately theories work under prescribed circumstances some of which you mention in your reply. That doesn’t mean the theory is good in all circumstances.

                      “The winner of all trade wars – is the country with the lowest barriers.”

                      Trade is only one aspect of country’s well being. If you only watch out for one part invariably you will fail.

                    3. You say Globalism is a problematic term.

                      Fine. What is it that you are actually opposed to ?

                      We might find alot of common ground.

                      The fundimental requirements for free exchange are “the rule of law”

                      i,e,

                      Barring the initiation of violence as the means to accomplish goals (criminal law).

                      Requiring that agreements are kept – Civil Law.

                      Requiring that those harmed are made whole – Tort law.

                      Those are the fundimental obligations of government – domestically and internationally.

                    4. John, I base my views predominantly on America’s well being weighting the balance to most benefit working families with young children.

                    5. I do not disageree that US foreign policy should be decided solely on the basis of the best interests of americans.

                      But the economic FACTS are that free trade – even trade that is only free on the US side is more benficial to americans than unfree trade.

                      I would further note that most of the things you think are Bade for americans are on the net good.

                      If China or other nations wish to subsidize their goods to US consumers – that means american consumers are essentially being subsidized by the chinese people.

                      Yes, a small cost MIGHT be paid by US workers, but that is always less than the gain to consumers.

                      It is axiomatic in economics that the country with the lowerest barriers to trade benefit the most from trade.

                    6. “But the economic FACTS are that free trade – even trade that is only free on the US side is more benficial to americans than unfree trade.”

                      It depends on what you call free trade and recognition that trade is not the only component that can work towards the betterment of America.

                      “I would further note that most of the things you think are Bade for americans are on the net good.”

                      That is a very big swallow and is something you can choke on.

                      “If China or other nations wish to subsidize their goods to US consumers – that means american consumers are essentially being subsidized by the chinese people.”

                      Standard textbook explanation but doesn’t take everything into account. For the most part I agree with that statement which Milton Friedman made all the time but he recognized where it fell apart and how to explain himself.

                    7. “It depends on what you call free trade”

                      Nope. If the US chooses to engage in completely free trade unilaterally – ignoring misconduct in trade from other countries – we will still benefit more than restricted trade.

                      “recognition that trade is not the only component that can work towards the betterment of America.”
                      True – but free trade is merely the international version of free exchange.

                    8. >>“It depends on what you call free trade”

                      >”Nope.”

                      Almost everything discussed is dependent on a mutual agreement of definitions.

                    9. “Almost everything discussed is dependent on a mutual agreement of definitions.”

                      No!

                      We do not have to negotiate the meaning of words. Again that is more left wing nonsense.

                      Outside of poetry and fiction the meaning of words is exists BEFORE the conversations starts.

                      Word may change meaning over time – that is not inherently a good thing, and regardless it is supposed to be very slow.

                      Particulalry in the sphere of things like government – the use of force, it is critical that words be predefined, narrow
                      and stable in meaning over the long term. Because we are dealing with force.

                      Games with the meaning fo words actually harm our ability to think – most of us use words to think.

                    10. >>“Almost everything discussed is dependent on a mutual agreement of definitions.”

                      >No! We do not have to negotiate the meaning of words. Again that is more left wing nonsense.”

                      Nonsense. People interpret words differently. Your favorite word force, one I like, according to Merriam-Webster has 6 major meanings for the noun and 9 major meanings for the verb. These meanings are broken down into more precise meanings where some of the more precise meanings are broken down as well. To add to the confusion there are a multiplicity of acceptable dictionaries that can provide slight twists in the definition and of course English words different countries can have different meanings. Your rigidity in the definitions of words is similar to the frigidity of a lot of people on the left. You accept only your definition and they accept only theirs.

                    11. “People interpret words differently.”
                      Meaningful communication requires a common understanding of the meaning of words.
                      Even your thinking is effected by the meaning of words.

                      I would strongly recomend a heavy dose of orwell. Word games are one of the more evil and effective tools of the left.
                      Destroy the meaning of words and you can deprive many people of the ability to think some thoughts.

                      Specially with respect to law and government and the use of force, we must use words as plainly as possible.

                      “Your favorite word force, one I like,”
                      It is not my favorite, it is just more clear than alternatives. It is also important to understand that all government is force.

                      “according to Merriam-Webster has 6 major meanings for the noun and 9 major meanings for the verb.”
                      And yet, without a dictionary I bet you were very clear about what I intended.

                      And that is precisely my point.

                      “These meanings are broken down into more precise meanings where some of the more precise meanings are broken down as well.”
                      Most of those definitions were inapplicable.

                      Did you think when I said Government is force – that I meant it is a marine brigade ?

                      I tend NOT to use words – especially when discussing government that require nuance or precision.

                      A significant part of my point is that none of us can communicate if for every consequential word we use, we must have a discussion about the defintion used.

                      “To add to the confusion there are a multiplicity of acceptable dictionaries that can provide slight twists in the definition and of course English words different countries can have different meanings. ”

                      Not relevant to this discussion.

                      When we make laws – we do not expect people to parse the definitions through a dictionary before deciding to obey them.

                      Judges and lawyers might – particularly if the meaning of the words have changed over time.

                      “Your rigidity in the definitions of words is similar to the frigidity of a lot of people on the left.”
                      Maleable meaning is possibly the most common leftist tactic to Nor is it new.
                      Again read Orwell.

                      “You accept only your definition and they accept only theirs.”

                      No they change definitions constantly
                      Again Orwell – this is a tactic – an effective one.
                      But it destroys communications and thought.

                      But the purpose of exchanges for the left is not meaning or communications.

                    12. “Meaningful communication requires a common understanding of the meaning of words”

                      That is why “God” invented dictionaries and young people are taught how to use them.

                      “I would strongly recomend a heavy dose of orwell.”

                      Orwell and I are well acquainted. Maybe you need to become more acquainted with the man.

                      You keep accusing me of distorting words, but it is your fear that pushes you to do that. When words are confusing I believe in clarification and dictionaries which in most cases would lead to agreement. I find some things fuzzy. You do not, but then at times you do and those times I believe have been pointed out when they occurred.

                      “all government is force.”

                      What does that mean? I say that in a farcical way because the statement by itself is near meaningless. If government is asleep, deaf and blind, does that represent force or a lack of force?

                      “And yet, without a dictionary I bet you were very clear about what I intended.”

                      I may have been clear but then later when you admitted to gray and fuzziness I was not so clear even though I was relieved.

                      “Did you think when I said Government is force – that I meant it is a marine brigade ?”

                      As stated above your rigidity, not your libertarian beliefs make understanding you quite difficult. You seem reasonable and you are libertarian so for the most part I think I understand you and for the mosts part we are in agreement.

                      To summarize my responses to anything left out, I disagree with your rigidity and you lack of acceptance to fuzziness and gray though sometimes you accept those two characteristics.

                    13. “That is why “God” invented dictionaries and young people are taught how to use them.”

                      God did not invent dictionaries, and I learned to speak and write long before I learned how to use a dictionary.
                      Dictionaries have value – they stone tablets writ by god carried down from the mount.

                      They have a place. But if you are defining the rules for using force on others – i.e. you are writing laws, you are governing, you can not expect the person on the street to consult a dictionary to determine if their conduct is legal or moral.
                      You can not even expect them to consult the law.

                      You constantly get this backwards.

                      You think that the rules have a life of their own. That the rules define reality.

                      That is error. Reality defines itself the rules must conform with reality.

                      The purpose of law is to constrain by threat of punishment the behavior of a small portion of those who will not behave morally without threat of force.

                      “Orwell and I are well acquainted.”
                      You have heard, but have not listened.

                      “You keep accusing me of distorting words, but it is your fear that pushes you to do that. ”
                      Now you think you can read my emotions ?

                      “When words are confusing I believe in clarification and dictionaries which in most cases would lead to agreement.”
                      Again we are dealing with law and government – not everything else.

                      If the words are truly confusing – then you have already failed.

                      Burglars do not read the law and look up the words in a dictionary before robbing a home.

                      Their lawyers might – AFTER THE FACT.

                      Ultimately all law comes AFTER THE FACT – also one of my points.

                      You keep trying to make the rules define reality.
                      Reality comes first.

                      Ideas come before the law, Their nature comes before the law.
                      It is the law that is required to conform to the nature of ideas – not the other way arround.

                      You constantly have the cart before the horse.

                      This is also your problem in this debate over words.

                      Dictionaries are also AFTER THE FACT.

                      The purpose of words – is to accurately state something.

                      That thing exists independently of the words.
                      The nature of that thing – is independent of the words.

                      The purpose of words is to communicate about that thing.
                      The purpose of dictionaries is to aide us in accurately comminicating about that thing.

                      Changing the words does not change the thing.

                      This is again the error of word manglers.

                      Speech – good or bad is not violence. Conflating the two is an effort to distort reality.
                      Changing the meaning of words to aid in that destroys our ability to communicate about reality.

                      In the end the goal is supposed to be the accurate representation of reality.

                      Ideas are not property. They do not have the atttributes of property.
                      As one example they are not tangible.
                      As another they are not divisible,
                      They are not diminished when shared.

                      “I find some things fuzzy. You do not, but then at times you do and those times I believe have been pointed out when they occurred.”
                      Still arguing about how to argue.

                      “all government is force.”

                      “What does that mean?”
                      Really ? Assume you have just been berated for mirroring leftists.

                      “If government is asleep, deaf and blind”
                      Then it is not government.

                      Your having alot of problems understanding that reality comes before words and the law.
                      Force is the nature of government. If there is no force – there is no government.
                      A government that is asleep deaf and blind is anarchy – not government.

                      “I may have been clear but then later when you admitted to gray and fuzziness”
                      I have never allowed gray or fuzziness in the use of force.
                      Read what I wrote – not what you think I said.

                      ““Did you think when I said Government is force – that I meant it is a marine brigade ?”

                      As stated above your rigidity, not your libertarian beliefs make understanding you quite difficult. You seem reasonable and you are libertarian so for the most part I think I understand you and for the mosts part we are in agreement.”

                      I suspect we are far from agreement – this is the major issue between libertarians and conservatives.

                      We share some common ground, but not the same principles.
                      Oddly libertarians share the same principles as liberals. but are completely at odds over means.
                      In the end libertarians tend to be more comfortable arround conservatives – they are USUALLY less dangerous.

                      Further, though I have some serious issues with Trumpism, for the most part it is a shift in core conservatism toward libertarianism.
                      A shift that is not without flaws. But still a shift.

                      “I disagree with your rigidity and you lack of acceptance to fuzziness and gray though sometimes you accept those two characteristics.”

                      Your confusion stems from a refusal to understand that government is force and that has implications.

                      The constraints on force must be rigid and cannot be fuzzy or grey.

                      In most everything else in life there is room for flexibility and myriads of shades of grey.

                      Again the natures of things – reality, comes before words and the law.

                      The nature of force requires rigidity and bright lines – black and white.

                      But everything is not force. Most things do not demand rigidity and bright lines.

                      But this is a legal blog and the topics will be law and government.
                      i.e, things that must be rigid and have bright lines – no grey areas.

                    14. I would further note that we really never want government trying to figure out questions like – what benefits americans most.

                      The rest of us are capable of doing that ourselves.

                      If we are concerned about chinese goods, or Jobs – do not buy chinese goods – you are free to chose that on your own.

                      If you are right – you benefit. If not you harm no one but yourself.

                      When government acts – almost always we are all harmed.

                    15. ” we really never want government trying to figure out questions like – what benefits americans most.”

                      I think that coordinates well with what I said as follows.

                      “I base my views predominantly on America’s well being weighting the balance to most benefit working families with young children.”

                    16. The problem with your remarks is that you said them in a way that assumes government is to bring about your outcome (by force)

                    17. “The problem with your remarks is that you said them in a way that assumes government is to bring about your outcome (by force)”

                      I didn’t say that though I will admit that to prevent anarchy governments need the ability to apply force in a few distinct areas.

                    18. Lincoln manage the civil war with total government spending – state local and federal under 8% of GDP.

                      How ever much too little is – it is less than that.

                    19. “Lincoln manage the civil war with total government spending….”

                      Lincoln lived in a different time and under different circumstances. That being said, our government spends way too much money.

                    20. “Lincoln lived in a different time and under different circumstances. ”

                      And how does that change government ?

                      What legitimate function of government is much more expensive today than 150 years ago ?

                      If anything government should cost much less as a percent of GDP.
                      The cost of government should be approximately linear with the number of people
                      Not linear with GDP.

                    21. Bug, You take political fantasy to a new level. Nothing new, nothing right, nothing to bother with.

                      Keep writing. It will keep you busy so you won’t accept the offer to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. We both agree the federal government spends too much.

                    22. With specific respect to intellectual property – there is no such thing.

                      Back in the 90’s IBM studied Intellectual property – IBM had some of the largest patent portfolios in the world.
                      It made millions for licensing. Yet even IBM concluded they would be better off if there were no patents.

                      Ideas have a great deal of value – but most have little value on their own. It is the skils and knowledge or PEOPLE that matter.

                      I would suggest reading Julian Simon’s “the ultimate Resource II” – it is available for free on line. It is not much of a spoiler to note that the ultimate resource – the only one whose scarcity actually impacts standard of living is the human mind.

                      The rise of China (and India, and Africa, and Asia) is ultimately good for us – the richer they become the more they product the more that is available to us.

                      The US and the world improves as we produce more with less effort.

                      Even if we sell very little to china or india. as they become more wealthy their demands increase.
                      China is on the verge of becoming the largest market for drugs in the entire world. But even if no company outside of China is able to sell drugs in China – we will still see great advances in medicine – because 1.6B people need far more medicine that 330M, and far more kinds of medicine, and at 1/4 the US standard of living all those medicines have to be developed and produced far cheaper than here.
                      And ultimately americans will have access to more medicines cheaper that ever before – because 1.6B people need more than 330M

                      When you buy a hamburger are you worse off because you give McD’s $1 for the burger ? Is McD’s worse off for giving you a burger ?

                      Absolutely not. Free trade only happens because BOTH parties are better off.

                      Even with all the stupid things that China does in trade WE are Both better off that without that Trade.

                      Regardless, Ideas require the people who can turn them into value. You can not benefit from stealing an idea unless you can understand it.

                      The greatest benefit that “patent theives” get – is knowing that a problem can be solved. And they need not even read the patent they are stealing to gain that knowledge. They merely need to know it exists.

                    23. “With specific respect to intellectual property – there is no such thing.”

                      Let’s not delve into philosophy. IP exists because we accept the rules created to protect it. If the rules disappear then IP as we know it ceases to exist. That is not a difficult concept.

                      The need for patents is a debatable issue. Like IP it depends on people and nations accepting the concept. If people don’t accept it then the idea of patents disappears

                      When people buy a business sometimes they look to see if a patent exists to help protect the business. Other people might not worry about a patent and believe they can grow a business successfully and fast enough that they can keep ahead of their competition.

                      There is no right or wrong way. As little fish we do our work within the rules of the game.

                    24. It is not a question of philosophy.

                      It is a question of fact and the meaning of words.

                      Just as the Left misuses the word violence – equating language they do not like with actual acts of violence and distorting communication.

                      The use of the word property when what we are talking about is Ideas is equally distorting.

                      Ideas have none of the attributes of property.

                      Because they are not.

                      Property and property rights are extremely important – for one thing because property is a limited resource,. ideas are not.

                      If the “rules” as you say for IP cease to exist – ideas do NOT disappear.

                      You conflate Intellectual property laws with the rewards and incentives to create ideas. If you were correct – IP laws might have merit.
                      But you are correct – even the big players like IBM found that IP is net zero for them. That the value of their patent portfolio is not licensing fees, but as a defensive measure against the patents of others. We have a few stories that have entered patent lore about the little gut who made out because of a patent – but those are incredibly rare. More often the little gut with a patent STILL loses to behomoths.

                      One of the best examples I know of the futility of IP fights is the SEA/Phil Katz fight over PkArc.

                      Most of the software community knew that SEA’s claim to ownership of anything meaningful in the ARC format was nonsense.
                      And that Katz had just developed a better ARC tool. The expectation was that SEA would lose as there was lots of prior art.
                      But in the midst of the lawsuit Katz capitulated. He gave SEA everything. He locked himself up for a month and released PkZip – and the rest is history. No one Uses ARC files anymore. Today there is competition for Zip files, but for decades there was little.

                      The people capable of great ideas are capable of many great ideas. Further the value is not fundimentally in the idea itself it is in the ability to make it work.

                      During the cold war the USSR had all the patents plus much more aquired through corporate espionage related to the 8086. And yet have you ever heard of a Russian Microprocesor ?

                      Even today there are very few places in the world that can produce CPU’s and fewer still that can design them.

                      Those who conceive of something First have the disadvantage of not knowing the problem is solveable.
                      In return for solving it they get a brief window of advantage.
                      But once a problem has been solved – Everyone knows it is solveable. For every person that can solve a problem never solved before there are 100 that can solve it – merely knowing that it has already been solve.

                      Though I would note – even those are few.

                      Regardless, Patents buy next to nothing.

                    25. “It is a question of fact and the meaning of words.”

                      It’s a question of a lot of things that eventually lead to philosophical arguments. but I am not going to debate philosophy or why you think it is solely a question of fact and definition which in part it is.

                      Property is a word humans have created. What makes it one’s property? Is it someone’s property if they do nothing to the land except grab it and call it their own? But, we are getting into philosophy so I will leave that open ended question open ended.

                      If the rules disappear the idea of property disappears whether it be physical or cerebral. The only question would be immediate ownership of the place one is standing on or defending.

                      I think you are approaching this whole idea from the wrong direction. To get along man creates rules. The rules are determined by desire and power.

                      “Regardless, Patents buy next to nothing.”

                      That sentence standing alone is ridiculous. People buy and sell patents all the time. The patents are inanimate so they don’t buy anything directly, but the value of patents can produce wealth that can buy a lot of things.

                    26. If you can not get the facts and the meaning of words correct – you can not possibly get the philosophy right.

                      Conversely if you get the facts and the words correct – the philosophical questions will resolve themselves.

                      Just because those on the left mangle the meaning of words and ignore the facts does not mean that the rest of us should.

                      If you wish to play games with the meaning of words – write poetry or fiction.

                      If you are discussing government – the use of force, you are obligated to communicate clearly.

                    27. “If you can not get the facts and the meaning of words correct – you can not possibly get the philosophy right.”

                      Of course not, but at least now you realize that philosophy is involved.

                      “Conversely if you get the facts and the words correct – the philosophical questions will resolve themselves. “

                      You must have a very narrow view of philosophy.

                      “If you are discussing government – the use of force, you are obligated to communicate clearly.”

                      What wasn’t clear to you?

                    28. “Of course not, but at least now you realize that philosophy is involved.”

                      That is not what I said. You can make whatever arguments you wish. Please do not misrepresent mine.

                      If you get the facts and the meaning of words right in most instance the problem goes away.
                      If there are philosophical issues at all – those are small and obvious.

                      I would further note than just because an issue is philosophical does not mean that there are many acceptable viewpoints.

                      This is another leftist game that you should not be playing.

                      Capitalism, free markets, free exchange, limited government, the non agression principle, the rule of law, libertarianism, the catagorical impertative – these are all closely related philosophical positions.

                      While Socialism is an unrelated one.

                      There is no parity between the first group and the 2nd.

                      No ideology or philosophy has come close to inflicting as much carnage on the world as socialism.

                      Just because a question is philosophical does not mean that anythign goes, that all viewpoints are equal.

                      We have mostly rejected socialism for good cause. It fails as a philosophy, it fails in theory, and it fails in practice.

                      Any adovating for it are either badly educated, stupid or actually evil.

                      Just because a question is philosophical does not mean we have no answer or that all answers are equal – they are not.

                    29. >>“Of course not, but at least now you realize that philosophy is involved.”

                      >”That is not what I said. You can make whatever arguments you wish. Please do not misrepresent mine.”

                      I do not intentionally misrepresent your words. What I say is mostly based on the words you use. Do not expect everyone to fall in line with your rigid definitions and concepts. Some of us are more flexible.

                      “This is another leftist game that you should not be playing.”

                      This is not a leftist game. This is a difference of opinion between two people that share a similar political spectrum. You keep bolstering your position by bringing up phrases that have been used over and over again. Those phrases have nothing to do with defining the discussion. They are an impediment to discussion.

                    30. When we are dealing with government – rigidity and inflexibility in defitions etc is a necescity.

                      Government is about the use of force. It is about sending men with guns to compel us to conform

                      That is not something we want any ambiguity about.

                    31. “When we are dealing with government – rigidity and inflexibility in defitions etc is a necescity.”

                      Better said would be: When dealing with law and rules from government rigidity and inflexibility of definitions is a necessity. That is why the Supreme Court spends so much time determining the meaning of the words in the Constitution.

                    32. “Government is law and its enforcement.”

                      Does that mean that if at a specific time government is not enforcing the law it is not government? This is said seriously because there is so much rigidity in your criticisms of others. “is” means equal and a lot of other things. Is government = law. Is no enforcement = no government. One can be on either side of these statements but your rigidity prevents that just like it prevents the terms fuzziness and gray except when you think they exist.

                    33. “Does that mean that if at a specific time government is not enforcing the law it is not government?”
                      Yes,
                      or more accurately to the extent government fails to enforce the law government fails and we are increasingly lawless.

                      “”This is said seriously because there is so much rigidity in your criticisms of others. “is” means equal and a lot of other things. Is government = law. Is no enforcement = no government.”
                      Yes.

                      No law enforcement = no government

                      Are you really saying that you think there is a difference between anarchy – there are not laws, and anarchy – there is no enforcement of laws ?

                      “One can be on either side of these statements ”
                      nope.

                      You have presented this as binary – it is not actually. Regardless in your framing – Zero enforcment of the laws = anarchy.

                      In the non binary context 50% enforcement of the law is BAD government headed towards anarchy.

                      Government is not required to and can not enforce the law against 100% of all violations.
                      It can not know all violations.
                      It can not successfuly enforce all violations it knows about.
                      But it must enforce all violations that it can prove.

                      To the extent it does not it erodes the rule of law.

                      When I drive on the turnpike and the speed limit is 70, most people drive 75. You will get run over if you don’t.
                      But the lack of enforcement undermines the rule of law.
                      It reinforces the view that the laws is arbitrary and capricious – which it is.

                    34. Your wordplay has gone beyond my desires. You have created your own dictionary where you are at liberty choose which definition you desire but no one else has a right to the equally valid alternate definitions.

                      You have gone Rand. (Ayn Rand)

                    35. “Your wordplay has gone beyond my desires.”
                      Your are your business, and have absolutely no place in a discussion about government.

                      Beyond the rule of law, everything we desire we are responsible to acheive on our own. No one else is obligated to deliver it.

                      Most of what you call word play, is exactly like the above, pointing out assertions that have no place in a discussion about government aka force.

                      “You have created your own dictionary where you are at liberty choose which definition you desire but no one else has a right to the equally valid alternate definitions.”

                      Nope. I deliberately constrain my use of words – partically the critical words, the operative words – as an example my constant use of the word FORCE where there are myriads of nuanced synonyms or near synonyms. Because we very nearly all agree on what force is.
                      Or even if some of us use to broad a definition of force. We all agree on the elements of the narrowest definition.

                      War is force, a court order – will result in force if disobeyed. Our laws will result in force if disobeyed.

                      With respect to government I use common and clear words narrowly. Words that we either all near universally agree on their definition or atleast near universally agree on that my narrow definition is part of a larger one.

                      I expect the same out of others – why ? Because we are discussing government – FORCE, we are talking abouit something that if we get even slightly wrong is immoral.

                      “You have gone Rand. (Ayn Rand)”

                      Not an objectivist. Though much of Rand is worth reading.

                    36. >>”Your responses are what you wish to say and not truly responses to the other person.”

                      >”Nope. I deliberately constrain my use of words “

                      That is your choice and that you choose your own Randian dictionary is your choice as well. As someone who is a classical liberal or one with significant libertarian principles I have a choice to use a standard dictionary rather than yours.

                      You are trying to force your dictionary on another. That is not libertarian enough for my persuasion or many others that are “libertarian” as well with dictionaries of their own.

                    37. “That is your choice and that you choose your own Randian dictionary is your choice as well.”

                      Did Ayn Rand rape your cat ? You have a giant Randian bug up your ass.

                      Let go.

                      My arguments are classical liberal, not specifically Randian.

                      “As someone who is a classical liberal or one with significant libertarian principles ”
                      Same thing.

                      “I have a choice to use a standard dictionary rather than yours.”

                      This is not about dictionaries – which you keep jumping to.

                      It is about the justifiable use of force. We often do not have a priori opportunities to consult the law or dictionaries when determining whether a specific use of force is justified.

                      If someone tries to murder you or break into your home – you do not google justified uses of force. You do not google the law on self defense.

                      What constitutes justifiable use of force MUST be simple, intuitive, and nearly universally accepted – without referencing law or dictionaries.

                      Absolutely sometimes we are fortunate and have the opportunities to consult dictionaries and the law.
                      But that is a luxury and regardless can not operate differently. The conclusions we reach on what constitutes justifiable use of force can not be different after a weeks contemplation than in an instant decision.

                      What constitutes FORCE can not be the subject of intellectual debate – because much of the time we have no time for such debate.

                      Morality – right and wrong, what is justifiable use of force and what is not are not divisible – between when we have time to contemplate and when we do not.

                      “You are trying to force your dictionary on another.”
                      False, you seem to beleive that dictionaries are a given – throughout history, and throughout your life.

                      Moses did not have a dictionary to consult. When someone breaks into your house – you do not have the oportuntiy to consult a dictionary before chosing to defend yourself.

                      “That is not libertarian enough for my persuasion or many others that are “libertarian” as well with dictionaries of their own.”

                      Actually this would be you trying to force YOUR dictionary onto circumstances where a dictionary is not a viable option.

                      This is my point – it is trivial to turn things arround using language.

                      The left – just as you are doing now – can always reframe any question – as an illegitimate use of force.

                      If I say – “you are trying to FORCE” people to buy insurance” – they can say – “you are trying to force people to go without, and die”.

                      Neither you nor they grasp that ultimately meaning does not come from dictionaries.

                      Reality and the need to communicate accurately – drive words and their definitions – not the otherway arround.

                      If I take a know and stab you – does it matter if we call that FORCE or Grabblefarky ?

                      Some uses of force are justified – most are not. Whether they are justified or not depends on the actual acts and circumstances.
                      Not the words we use to describe them. Not the dictionaries we use to define those words.

                      The direction is primarily one way – from acts, to words, to defintions. There is some feedback – but that is for the purposes of improving communications. When you are playing with definitions – and the consequence is disruption of communications or the atleration of our perception of reality. yu are not winning an argument – you are destroying human communications.

                      No one is as an example “forcing” you to use their prefered dictionary.

                      But an act is what it is – regardless of the dictionary you use, or the words chosen.

                      The determination or the morality of my stabbing you in the chest – does not rest on dicitonaries, or laws. It rests on the justification for the act.

                      You can use whatever words you wish. Whatever dictionary you want – the act is still the same. Whether it is justified is still the same.

                      If that is not true – then we are engaged in words games.

                      It is not ever FORCE to refuse to give you what is not yours.

                    38. “This is not a leftist game.”
                      Then do not use leftist tactics.

                      ” You keep bolstering your position by bringing up phrases that have been used over and over again. Those phrases have nothing to do with defining the discussion. They are an impediment to discussion.”

                      Talk about ambiguity – there is nothing in your comment or this paragraph that gives me a clue what you are refering to.

                      I do tend to use the same words and phrases in my arguments about government.

                      For much the same reason laws are constructed using specific phrases and a relatively limited vocabulary.

                      For clarity.

                    39. “Talk about ambiguity – there is nothing in your comment or this paragraph that gives me a clue what you are refering to.”

                      Based on the paragraph and what has been repeated numerous times I think the paragraph should be totally clear.

                      “This is not a leftist game. This is a difference of opinion between two people that share a similar political spectrum. You keep bolstering your position by bringing up phrases that have been used over and over again. Those phrases have nothing to do with defining the discussion. They are an impediment to discussion.”

                      An issue is raised and in your reply are statements of ideology that do not pertain the the issue at hand or are mixed in with the response. They cause confusion and are an impediment to discussion. I have no problem with the comments since in general I agree with most of them. However, they often dominate and obscure your response if one is provided.

                    40. Again leftist tactics.

                      There are 4 fundimental philosophical starting points.

                      One of these is free will – the others end in pretty awful places.

                      If you accept free will axiomatically – alot of what you call ideology becomes fact – atleast so long as you accept free will.

                      This is much like mathematics – if you start with certain axioms, then many many other things MUST be true.

                      I am prepared to examine the possibility that much of what you call ideological might not be fact – with someone who does not accept free will.

                      I would further note that much of what you call ideological can also be argued as an immutable logical conclusion – given starting axioms which are close to universally agreed on. Or alternatively as facts that can be established empirically. \

                      As an example – you an I might afree as a matter of ideology on limited government – but it is also demonstrable with real world data that the rate of improvement of standard of living declines as the scale of government increases.
                      That statement is so empiracally correct that we have a curve and a slope and can define a formula if we want.
                      The rate of increase in standard of living declines by 1% for every 10% of GDP that government consumes – down to about 20%.

                      That is a linear curve – in reality the curve is not linear – but it is inside the region we have data for.

                      The fact is that my ideology not only works – but it works imperfectly applied.

                      We get into this constantly with socialists.
                      We are constantly told that the failures of communism or socialism are just because – they did not get the right leaders, or some other factor in a long list. Basically that communism/socialism will work if we can get things perfect.

                      All that means is that it will never work.

                      Conversely my “ideology” works even if only partly applied.

                      China rose from being an agrivultural country so poor it ws importing food, to the bottom of the first world – in just a few decades by BADLY following some aspects of free markets. My “ideology” works. It works better the more fully it is applied, but it works well in far from perfect situations.

                    41. “One of these is free will – the “
                      others end in pretty awful places.”

                      Absolute free will leads to anarchy. That is a pretty awful place.

                      “Conversely my “ideology” works even if only partly applied.”

                      That means that fuzziness and gray areas exist.

                    42. “Absolute free will leads to anarchy.”
                      Nope. Free will is the ability to make choices on your own.
                      It does not divorce you from the consequences.

                      In many many instance – these are enforced without government.

                      You are free to jump off a cliff.
                      That does not stop you from falling and being crushed when you land.

                      “That means that fuzziness and gray areas exist.”

                      I have never said they do not exist.

                      You constantly conflate reality with words with law.

                      We CHOOSE fuzziness and grey areas in government.

                      The more fuzziness and grey areas we tolerate in the use of force, the more lawless we are.

                    43. Free will may require a definition from you.

                      He shat in your house because of free will.

                      He shat on the street because of free will.

                      He shat on his front lawn because of free will.

                      Change shat to other words in the dictionary and see how it turns out.

                    44. I have no idea what argument you think you made.

                      But you have a major error in your post.

                      Free will is not a cause.

                      Free will means that your reasons – are up to you.

                      If Free will is a cause there is no free will.
                      And that has myriads of other consequences.

                      As one example that would mean – there is no right or wrong – because being morally right or wrong requires the freedom to make a choice.

                      It means that racism, and bigotry can not exist.

                    45. All words are words humans have created.

                      The all refer to actual things or concepts.

                      Property is quite specifically a thing.

                      “Intellectual property” is ideas – legally even that is incorrect, which is actually part of the problem. As intellectual property does not refer to actual property and it does not refer to ideas – it refers to nothing.

                    46. ““Intellectual property” is ideas – legally even that is incorrect,”

                      I think all of that was dealt with in my previous comments.

                    47. Your philosophical question about property is neither about property nor philosophical.
                      It is about ownership.

                      The property in question remains property no matter what.

                    48. “Your philosophical question about property is neither about property nor philosophical.
                      It is about ownership.”

                      It’s about how the rules of the game are defined.

                    49. The existence of property does not disappear because rules disappear.

                      The land, the car, the cup – all exist – rules or no rules.

                      All that changes without rules is ownership becomes insecure.

                      Even that is not a philosophical question.

                    50. “The existence of property does not disappear because rules disappear.

                      The land, the car, the cup – all exist – rules or no rules.”

                      Don’t confuse yourself with the concept of “property” and “My property”. For the most part the word property infers ownership.

                    51. Yes ownership is an attribute of property.

                      Just as light is an attribute of stars.

                      That does not change my argument.

                      Property exists whether it is owned or not, whether there are rules or not.

                      The concept of property rights exists outside of humans.

                    52. “Yes ownership is an attribute of property. Just as light is an attribute of stars. That does not change my argument.”

                      Your argument got lost in the verbiage.

                      The rules of the game determine the nature of property.

                    53. “The rules of the game determine the nature of property.”

                      Nope.

                      If you legislate a time for the sun to rise – it will not listen.

                    54. John, the rules of the game determine the nature of property (even though the physical nature of the property may not change). You are playing word games.

                      A person who has ownership cares about the rules because that changes the nature of property to him. If a city decides to zone his property that changes its nature even though the soil is exactly the same.

                    55. Nope,

                      The law does not change reality.

                      Reality must conform to the law.

                      Ideas have a nature and properties of their own.

                      When the law trues to remake those – it is the law that is wrong.

                      You are making a serious error. Much the same one communist make when they beleive they can dictate the rules of real property or of exchange.

                      There are many ideologies in the world – there is only one that not only is in sync with reality but is defined by it – libertarian.

                      When you say that the rules government makes have the power and authority to control something independent of its actual nature, you are repeating the mistakes of socialists.

                      When the rules are at odds with reality – nations fail. Often bloodily

                    56. “The law does not change reality.”

                      In my earlier comment where my name might be missing I briefly explained how rules can change the nature of property. Zoning can change agricultural land to housing. The nature of the soil has not changed but the nature of what you can build has. This is not that difficult.

                    57. Rules DO NOT change the nature of property – as I have said repeatedly – reality can not be changed by law.

                      They change the value of property – and that is one of many reasons such rules/laws should be avoided unless absolutely necescary.

                    58. “Rules DO NOT change the nature of property – as I have said repeatedly – reality can not be changed by law.”

                      Zoning can change agricultural land to housing. The nature of the soil has not changed but the nature of what you can build has. This is not that difficult.

                    59. No Zoning does not change the land.

                      The land exists – regardless of zoning.

                      It has the same potential uses – regardless of zoning.

                      Zoning laws are artificial restrictions, imposed OBVIOUSLY without justification by government.

                      They are no different from corporations buying government rules that favor themselves or harm competitors.

                      They are precisely the laws that most of us rail about – when WE are not the ones seeking to benefit.

                      You are not morally (or constitutionally) free to restrict what others may do outside of those things they do by force that cause direct harm to others.

                      This is basic morality that most of us teach our 4 year olds.

                      If two toddlers have a ball in the yard – can one tell the other that he can only bounces his on the grass ?

                      Then why are you through government free to tell your neighbor what they can do with their property ?

                      I noted – and you can check it out if you wish, but the history of land use laws is repulsive.

                      It has been used to confine the chinese to tiny parts of the country – to keep blacks out of neighborhoods.

                    60. “It is not difficult. It is immoral.”

                      Laws might be immoral but more than one definition for a word or phrase is not.

                    61. In all scopes but the use of force – that is correct.

                      But we are discussing government – which is the use of force.

                      BTW this is not about how many defintions a word has – FORCE has many definitions.

                      But only one applies in the context of government. We know that without a dictionary – absent leftist word mangling.

                      And that is the point we MUST know intuitively the justified uses of force – without the use of a dictionary.

                      We must ALL know them, We must nearly all share them.

                      You are not expected to consult a dictionary when determining how you can respond to a mugger.

                    62. Did someone say I supported zoning ?

                      The history of local laws controling real property is abysmally bad. They have pretty much universally been used for exclusively evil purposes Even Caroline Kennedy – not your typical conservative. Found the history of real property laws absolutely heinous in her book on the constitution – which is actually pretty good.

                    63. “Did someone say I supported zoning ?”

                      No one said that at all. It was used as an example of a law or rule that could change the “nature of property (even though the physical nature of the property may not change).”

                    64. And we are arguing for bad laws WHY ?

                      I do not want to get into a long digression – but there is a mass of research on land use laws – and it is all horrible.

                      Whether it is those that deliberately discriminated against minorities in the past, or more recently did so accidentally.

                      Or it is just laws that favored large corporations over small business.

                    65. “And we are arguing for bad laws WHY ?”

                      You might be, not I. I am debating the nature of property that you didn’t touch on in your response.

                      Zoning (right or wrong) changes the nature of the property even though it doesn’t change the soil.

                    66. The nature of property is.

                      That is reality.

                      You and I can discuss it for hours.

                      But our discussions do not change property itself or its nature.

                      Nor do laws.

                      Zoning laws do not change the nature of property.

                      They preclude us from making full use of our property.

                      They do so without proper moral justification.

                      Few of us would disagree that our neighbors have no right to determine what color we paint our porch.

                      Yet we accept there is a right to do so – when 51 out of 100 of our neighbors choose to do so.

                      Government is NOT a shortcut arround the requirement to justify the use of force.

                      What I may not do as an individual – what uses of force are unjustified for individuals are unjustified for government.

                      Morality does not change because unjustified or immoral acts are taking by a group.

                      “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind…”

                      Right and wrong are not determined by majority oppinion

                    67. “I think you are approaching this whole idea from the wrong direction. ”

                      Facts, logic, reason do not care what direction you approach them.

                      If you get a different result because you have approached from a different direction, you have made an error.

                      “To get along man creates rules.”
                      I will assume that for the moment.

                      “The rules are determined by desire and power.”
                      Nope. We have spent 150,000 years working on the rules – power and desire often get in the way.
                      But the rules are determined by what actually works. And we actually have an excellent understanding of that.

                      Despite the fact that the left – and aparently you, wish to throw that all out.

                      I would note that you can start from the assumption of free will and logically get to “the rule of law” and pretty much what that law must be (and not be).

                      If you wish to reject free will – that comes with a whole lot of other consequences you will not like.

                      You do not get to rewrite the universe to your wishes. We must deal with the one we have.

                      The left makes that mistake all the time – why should I let you get away with it ?

                    68. “Facts, logic, reason do not care what direction you approach them”

                      Individually, facts, logic and reason don’t care where they are but when you put them together in the wrong fashion it matters a lot.

                      “But the rules are determined by what actually works.”

                      Over time leaders use the rules society created that are perceived to be to their advantage, but they also create new rules, many of them fleeting, and those rules are put in place either by acceptance or power.

                      “The left makes that mistake all the time – why should I let you get away with it ?”

                      That is your mistake. You make too many assumptions and some of those assumptions are wrong.

                    69. “Individually, facts, logic and reason don’t care where they are but when you put them together in the wrong fashion it matters a lot.”

                      Incorrect. Most arguments are not complete or valid. In fact most arguments are fallacious. A fallacious argument can be true – but it is not valid – correct, whether it is true may be little more than accident.

                      But a logically correct argument has an immutable truth value. There are not two different ways to put together two different logically correct arguments that result in different answers.

                    70. I said ““Individually, facts, logic and reason don’t care where they are but when you put them together in the wrong fashion it matters a lot.”

                      Your reply can cause one to think that when arguments are poorly placed together they make sense. I don’t think that is your intention but the way you word your replies similarly distort what the other person said.

                      “There are not two different ways to put together two different logically correct arguments that result in different answers.”

                      It depends on the nature of the argument. Conclusions frequently are based on perceptions that might be correct. One has to explore the argument to get to the truth, not use cut and paste remarks that are for the most part are generalizations.

                    71. “Your reply can cause one to think that when arguments are poorly placed together they make sense. I don’t think that is your intention but the way you word your replies similarly distort what the other person said.”

                      I did not distort what you said. It is just logical error. I have no control over what you think.
                      If my reply causes you to think of purple cows – I can not challenge that.
                      Regardless the conclusion you are trying to derive from my reply does not follow logicially.

                      “It depends on the nature of the argument.”
                      The rules of logic do not care about the nature of the argument.

                      “Conclusions frequently are based on perceptions that might be correct.”
                      Then they are not logically correct.

                      “One has to explore the argument to get to the truth,”
                      Not if the argument is not valid.

                      “not use cut and paste remarks”
                      No cutting and pasting.

                      “that are for the most part are generalizations.”
                      Incorrect, and irrelevant.

                      There is nothing wrong with gneralizations – if they are correct.
                      Further valid generalizations are extremely important.
                      They are closer to the actual “rules of the game”

                    72. “It is just logical error.”

                      Can cause two different people to derive two different thoughts while both might be correct.

                      That is one of the problems I have when reading your replies. I am not sure of your definitions (which you think to be unnecessary) and I am not sure of what verbiage pertains to your response and what is pertaining to your advocacy of libertarianism.

                      “The rules of logic do not care about the nature of the argument. “

                      True but your words determine the nature of the argument and are not always clear.

                      “Then they are not logically correct.”

                      Once again despite logic existing what you say alters the direction of the logic. That is the fault of the one that is providing the explanation especially when one doesn’t deal in explanations and adds too much tangential information.

                    73. “Can cause two different people to derive two different thoughts while both might be correct.”
                      Can two people have different thoughts and both be correct ? Yes, but only if they do not conflict.

                      “I am not sure of your definitions”
                      Any consequential word I use has the same meaning it has for centuries, and the ordinary meaning used by most people.
                      That is the POINT.

                      We are talking about government, force and law.

                      The words are absolutely critical. And the meaning of the words must be such that everyone – 100% of us – understand them without a dictionary – unless they are being deliberately obtuse.

                      I have recomended Orwell to you – he has written – both in the form of non-fiction and fiction on this.

                      Successful efforts to redefine important words destroy our ability to think to communicate. Doing so undermines the rule of law, it vitiates even the possibility of the rule of law.

                      Those on the left like to equate speech they do not like with violence – this is a perfect example.

                      Speach may be bad. But it is not violent. It will not cut you and make you bleed.

                      When you equate speech and violence you completely mangle our ability to communicate and to make laws and govern ourselves.

                      “I am not sure of what verbiage pertains to your response and what is pertaining to your advocacy of libertarianism.”

                      Why does it matter what you are sure of ? You seem fixated on my intent – that is my business, not yours.
                      You seem to think you can separate advocacy from reality when the advocacy is a demand to conform to reality.

                      You can not. I am STRONGLY advocating that you stick with reality and do NOT try to impose rules on it where rules are not required and where they run contrary to reality. I am asking you to not pretend you can make pigs fly.

                      Yes, that is libertarian advocacy, it is also an expectation that you take care not to run afoul of reality.

                      “True but your words determine the nature of the argument and are not always clear.”
                      Again irrelevant – you continue to fixate on trying to understand my motives or separate out ideology from my arguments.
                      That is a futile and meaningless task.

                      The nature of the argument does not matter, my motives do not matter., my underlying ideology does not matter.

                      The argument is valid or it is not. it is true or it is not.

                      “Once again despite logic existing what you say alters the direction of the logic.”
                      Logic has only two directions – true or false.

                      “That is the fault of the one that is providing the explanation especially when one doesn’t deal in explanations and adds too much tangential information.”

                      I beleive there was a mathematical proof recently that 1 + 1 = 2, that would be very important to math if correct, it would reduce the number of axioms.

                      The proof was hundreds of pages long. It may take a very long time to verify.

                      Regardless the proof is either true or false – regardless of its length.

                      You are not arguing the issue – you are arguing over the style of the argument – that is falacy

                    74. “Can two people have different thoughts and both be correct ? Yes, but only if they do not conflict.”

                      First, you have to establish what the other person is thinking. Do not expect him to be a clone of yourself where everything you say is clear?

                      “Any consequential word I use has the same meaning it has for centuries, and the ordinary meaning used by most people.
                      That is the POINT.”

                      I didn’t think this type of problem would occur with you. I have noted that Randians run into this problem quite frequently. When they get stuck in an argument they want everyone else to use their dictionary and its meanings based on the writings of Ayn Rand. . When you get stuck you want everyone to use your dictionary based on what is in your head. Are you a closet Randian?

                    75. “First, you have to establish what the other person is thinking.”
                      Nope.

                      We are having a discussion or debate. I trust that you say what you mean. I can know what you say.
                      I can not know what you think, and you can not know what I think.

                      “Do not expect him to be a clone of yourself where everything you say is clear?:”

                      I do not expect everyone to be clones.

                      I do expect of myself and others clear arguments – and when we are debating government – aka force, I expect extra care regarding clarity.

                      We should not go to war uncertainly or ambiguously. There is nothing that government should do without both clarity and a strong basis to expect success.

                      Very little of what people here – right or left argue for with respect to government action – especially actions that infringe on our liberty, meet those criteria.

                      While I will not get this, I DO EXPECT that others will use exactly the same criteria regarding government.

                      The use of force – government or otherwise, is immoral absent justification. It is immoral no matter how well intentioned you are or how good your hoped for outcome is.

                    76. Since definitions seem to be the problem I will repeat what I previously wrote.

                      I didn’t think this type of problem would occur with you. I have noted that Randians run into this problem quite frequently. When they get stuck in an argument they want everyone else to use their dictionary and its meanings based on the writings of Ayn Rand. . When you get stuck you want everyone to use your dictionary based on what is in your head. Are you a closet Randian?

                    77. “Since definitions seem to be the problem I will repeat what I previously wrote.”

                      No. the only area they are a problem is government and the use of force.

                      We do not consult a dictionary before defending ourselves.

                      We do not consult statutes much less dictionaries before going about our lives.

                      The law MUST be reflection of our internal concepts of right and wrong.

                      “I didn’t think this type of problem would occur with you.”
                      Your problem is NOT with me – it is with reality. If you presume that government can make whatever laws it pleases and that we must precisely obey them at the very best you have a horribly inefficient system where you will not 50% or more of people to be in government and law enforcement. At worst and more likely you have a system that does not and can not work.

                      Government limited to the common understanding of right and wrong by ordinary people is not merely an “ideology” – it is the only efficient means of managing society.

                      “I have noted that Randians run into this problem quite frequently.”
                      Not a Randian – I do not care about your problems with randians.

                      “When they get stuck in an argument they want everyone else to use their dictionary and its meanings based on the writings of Ayn Rand.”
                      Isnt this much like what you are doing ?

                      Regardless, this is simple, and it has nothing to do with randians or competing dictionaries – in fact my point is that YOU and THEY are both wrong for the same reason.

                      To the extent law and government go beyond what the overwhelming majority of people understand as right and wrong – it rapidly becomes unwieldy and self contradictory. And worse still – you can not expect people to obey laws that they have never read, and certainly are unclear about the defintions.

                      To core words – not the prepositions and adjectives, that I use what stating the values and even more importantly the principles of government are necescarily limited vocabilary common words with well understood meaning.

                      Even the act of trying to distort the meaning of words like violence and force – as the left constantly does is inherently a drive to either totalitarianism or anarchy.

                      We do not consult the law or dictionaries in our ordinary lives to determine what we may and may not do. We can not and still be expected to produce food, shelter, clothes – much less the other benefits of a high standard of living.

                      In fact the more complex life becomes the LESS complex government MUST become as government is inherently at the expense of efficiency – production elsewhere.

                      My argument is specific to government – whose domain in our lives – though critical MUST be small.
                      Everywhere else you are free to treat language as you please. But not regarding the use of force.

                      “When you get stuck you want everyone to use your dictionary based on what is in your head.”

                      I am not stuck.

                      And we MUST use the common meaning of words with respect to government and force ALWAYS. Anything else is either anarchy or totalitariansim.

                      To be clear – though I “beleive” this ideologically – it is as a matter of fact a practical requirement.

                      It is quite trivial – Governance – in any form is a COST in human life – it comes at the expense of what we can produce – the standard of living we can have. But SOME government is also a Benefit – we are able to produce more to have a batter life for all when we are not in fear that a neighor will come by and take what we produced.

                      The US declaration – echoing Locke is pretty clear on this – the purpose of government is to SECURE OUR RIGHTS – that is all. Anything more, anything less comes at the expense – not just of our rights, but also of our standard of living.

                      I have read some Rand – I think that she is an important thinker. She is interesting because while she fits in fairly well with a vast classical liberal tradition, she arrived there pretty much entirely on here own. Though she frequently ties herself back to aristotle. For the most Part Rand concocted a form of Classical liberalism entirely without any connection to the centuries of classical liberal tradition that preceded her. Rand initially had no familiarity with locke or Smith or the scottish enlightenment, or with later thinkers like Mill or Bentham or Thoreaux.

                      Rand is an impressive thinker – but she did not carve biblical truth onto stone tablets.

                      Rand is one of many many people who have thought greatly about these issues and whose wisdom has mostly held up of ctiticism and time.

                      She is not my preferred source.

                    78. “That is your mistake. You make too many assumptions and some of those assumptions are wrong.”

                      Then identify those assumptions – particularly the wrong ones.

                    79. “Then identify those assumptions – particularly the wrong ones.”

                      They are frequently identified but you respond with generalizations and very rigid rules. Perhaps you could be more direct in your answers and if needed quote exactly what you think is wrong.

                    80. “They are frequently identified”
                      Not that i can tell.

                      “but you respond with generalizations”
                      There is nothing wrong with a valid generalization.
                      You act as if generalizing is a logic error. It is not.
                      In correct generalizations are a factual error.

                      “and very rigid rules.”
                      Logic is rigid.

                      “Perhaps you could be more direct in your answers and if needed quote exactly what you think is wrong.”

                      This particular digression started with you.
                      You asserted that I was making false assumptions.
                      I asked you to identify them.

                      State clearly what assumption you think I have made and why you think it is false.

                      You are not obligated to do so, but I would rather engage in a subject of merit than tear apart the numerous false assumptions that you are stating.

                      I would prefer a more meaningful on part dialog. We have some common ground and where we do not there is reason for discussion – particularly if you can avoid the word mangling and fallacy ridden arguments typical of those on the left.

                      What is a bad idea for those on the left, does not magically become exceptable by those not on the left.

                    81. “and very rigid rules.”
                      Logic is rigid.”

                      Your words though rigid are frequently only loosely responsive to the questions at hand.

                      “You asserted that I was making false assumptions.”

                      If you wish an explanation show me where. If not then I don’t know why the comment was made.

                      “particularly if you can avoid the word mangling and fallacy ridden arguments typical of those on the left.”

                      Your rigidity makes you believe that any disagreement with what you believe is leftist thinking. Some of our great old style liberal economists or classical liberals by your definition must have been leftists.

                    82. “Your words though rigid are frequently only loosely responsive to the questions at hand.”
                      Sometimes true – because you refuse to stay on point.

                      Rather than debate the actual issue – whether ideas have the attributes of real property.

                      You want to argue about my style of argument.

                      I am too rigid or black and white or ….

                      “If you wish an explanation show me where. If not then I don’t know why the comment was made.”
                      Pot meet kettle.

                      “Your rigidity makes you believe that any disagreement with what you believe is leftist thinking. Some of our great old style liberal economists or classical liberals by your definition must have been leftists.”

                      Nope.

                      I spend alot of time attacking the tactics of leftists.

                      Sometimes I use those tactics against them.
                      Trump does that ALOT.

                      That is somehow fair game.

                      But if you do not wish to be compared to a leftist – do not make the same errors, do not use the same tactics.

                    83. John, you are making accusations that aren’t dignified and that pains me because I like you and what you have to say.

                      “But if you do not wish to be compared to a leftist – do not make the same errors, do not use the same tactics.”

                      I am using usual debate tactics that seem to offend you. Leftists change the definitions of words to confuse people. I am not changing any definitions. I am asking for definitions to be set in place so that things are clear.

                    84. I am not angry with you
                      i am making a point.

                      We agree on alot of issues.
                      We disagree on a few.

                      We are having a reasonable debate.

                      That said you periodically employ the same arguments and tactics that those on the left do.

                      That is unwise.

                      doing so makes those tactics acceptable.

                      Further – specifically with respect to arguments – such as conflating the choices we are free to make as individuals with those imposed on us by government, legitimize immorality.

                      I am libertarian. My principles and values are at odds with those of both the left and right.

                      But I am USUALLY more comfortable with those on the right, because USUALLY they do not beleive the ends justify the means, or that a narrow majority can impose its will on the rest of us by force.

                      When you argue that same top down or ends justifies the means approach as the left – you will find that I vigorously oppose.

                      I am not completely opposed to using the tactics of the left against them – but not when the consequence is less freedom.

                    85. “I am not angry with you”

                      Don’t worry, I’m not looking to get married.

                      “That said you periodically employ the same arguments and tactics that those on the left do.”

                      Most on both the left and the right agree that definitions are needed and that some things are fuzzy. Randians and perhaps some libertarians believe dictionaries are proprietary and that those are the only permissible definitions.

                      Maybe Merriam Webster were communists.

                    86. Over generalization – both you and S. Meyer are making the same error.

                      We are discussing Government – force.

                      Not art appreciation.

                      Absolutely myriads of fields and topics benefit from defintions.

                      But core to stable government is that its domain must be limited to what supermajorities of people a priori agree on.

                      If you must define

                    87. The sentence is not ridiculous – it is an actual observation of the real world.

                      The point is that the world works with or without patents.
                      That is not true of many other things that we consider incentives.
                      Or put more simply – patents are not really much of an incentive.

                      Patents are not inanimate, they are legal fictions. Rocks are inanimate.
                      Insert digression on using words by there meaning.

                      We can buy and sell philigiston. It has every attribute that patents have – it also does not exist.

                      Money itself is a useful legal fiction, as are corporations.

                      But patents are not a useful one.

                      That does not mean that no one benefits from them.
                      What it means is that they do not make things work better.
                      Money makes things work better.
                      Corporate fictions make things work better.

                      Patents just move arround the winners and losers.

                      It has always been understood that the benefits of legal protections for ideas was of dubious value – our founders were skeptical that the value was high – that is why the periods for patents and copyrights were initially short and why only limited things could be protected.

                      Oddly the modern world has exposed the flaws in the 18th century understanding of intellectual property – in the 18th century they were absolutely clear that ideas themselves could not be protected. By the 21st century it is obvious that there is nothing besides an idea to protect. And yet instead of reducing the duration as is appropriate the close we came to protecting ideas. We have stupidly lengthened it.

                    88. “The point is that the world works with or without patents.”

                      So what? How does that change anything said.

                      “Patents are not inanimate,”

                      You want to waste band space on this? OK. Patents are not animate. Does that change anything in this discussion?

                    89. The fact that government has created a fake asset that has value based on a government created right to exclude does not make that a good thing. It is a barrier not a benefit.

                      Of course there are right ways and wrong ways.

                      There are many right ways of varying value – and many orders of magnitude more wrong ways.

                    90. “There are many right ways of varying value”

                      I guess, John, that is your way of agreeing with what I said which follows.

                      “The need for patents is a debatable issue. “… “There is no right or wrong way. As little fish we do our work within the rules of the game.”

                    91. I have no problem with living with the rules as they are while working to change them.
                      I have advocated for exactly that repeatedly.

                      I have a major problem with advocating for things that are wrong – rathen accepting them while working to change them.

                    92. “I have a major problem with advocating for things that are wrong ”

                      Right or wrong patents exist so we must deal with them. They have value and can be sold person to person much like stocks and bonds though the market is very limited.

                    93. I made an Error – Obama’s last year was 2016, and 2016 GDP was 18.7 not 19.5.

                      You can verify this on Trading Economics.

                      Next – you do not appear to know what a quarter is

                      Regardless,. Obama’s Gains were 4.2T or .0525/year or .126T/Q

                      Trump went from 18.7 to 21.5 or 2.8T in 3 years or 0.933T/year or 0.233T/Q
                      Even if you divide Trump’s gains over 4 years – assuming that 2020 ends up being Zero gain which is likely.
                      That is still .7T/year or 0,175T/Q

                      I would further note that though Trump exagerates the strength of his economy, it is still indisputable not only from the numbers byt from actual observation that the economy did substantially better under Trump.

                      You should always check your claims against observed reality.

                      We sometimes mispercieve things. But not all that often.

                      The Obama/Biden economy was weak. The Bush/Cheney Economy was weak. The Trump/Pence economy was substantially better than both – but not good.

                      Good would have been average 3.5% growth

                    94. this long winded conversation is pointless

                      will you talkers join in the idea whose time has come,

                      #taxprotest2020 ?

                      a “peaceful protest” that will hit the corrupt politicians and their paymasters, the billionaires, in the gut]

                      70 million of us can shock the system and cause Treasuries to plummet

                      nobody needs to fire a single shot or even get off the couch

                      show your anger– refuse to file!

                      if we all do it we can get away with it too

                      it takes them years to catch up to people under good circumstances…. and you can always “amend” if your teat gets in the wringer

                      do it in April to show them we still have fight in us yet
                      this is the chink in their armor. i’ve shown you the way

                      Saloth Sar

                    95. My old friend. Show us how by example and in a year or so maybe some of us will follow suit.

                    96. There are many ways to actively protest that can really directly impact government.

                      I am not quite ready for a tax protest – yet.

                  2. With respect to John Say, this liberterian thinking is precisely what Republicans and conservatives need to disentangle from their own thinking.

                    Globalism is a false ideology that aims at destroying nation states so as to allow for the free movement of people (labor) goods (trade) capital (money) and information (propaganda) across national boundaries.

                    It’s good for billionaires but not for us. It is an error and a dangerous one. It should be wholly condemned

                    Saloth Sar

                    1. I have no problem with the free movement of people accross borders.

                      The problem is not open borders it is entitlements for any warm body that crosses them.

                      “Give me your tired, your poor,
                      Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
                      The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
                      Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
                      I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

                      That has worked for the US for hundreds of years.

                      This country offers FREEDOM – LIBERTY – OPORTUNITY.

                      Not handouts, entitlements.

                      We should still offer all of those to ANYONE who wishes to come here.

                      We promise FREEDOM – NOTHING MORE.

                      We owe nothing more to those crossing our borders.
                      We owe nothing more to those born here.

                      Nearly all out forefathers came from elsewhere.
                      Nearly all risked life and limb to come here.
                      Many died doing so.
                      When they arrived – no one fed them, gave them shelter, ….
                      They had to do everything for themselves.
                      Some survived and prospered.

                      At Jamestown.
                      At Plymouth Rock.

                      Later the Irish, the poles, the italians, – even hispanics and chinese.

                      Millions have come here in the past and continue to do so today – with no promise except freedom.

                      Some still die or do poorly. But some prosper – benefiting themselves and the rest of us.

            2. The concern is not with how rich a person is rather how the money is used. Closing down small businesses without political power yet leaving certain large businesses open is where the concern should be. That is what your Democrat friends did.

              Taxes are a method of revenue for necessary government operations not to equalize income.

              $75 Billion in profit in additional wealth was very much based on shutting down smaller industries and keeping people homebound. Taxes didn’t enter into it. I see that others find that you are unable to read or comprehend. I have to agree with that opinion.

              1. Democrats leadership is all bought and paid for by a small number of billionaires such as Tom Steyer and Geo Soros and Mikey Bloomberg. They’re no friends of mine. The average Democrat voter is just a small person with little understanding, they are not the enemy, the billionaires are.

                How rich a person is definitely matters at the far end of the spectrum, billionaires. We are not rich at one or five or ten million. A billion is a thousand millions. Do the math. There is a qualitative difference at the scale of a billionaire the size of Jeff Bezos. There is no justification for the power he commands and make no mistake he is more powerful than many nations. We either neutralize the power of these behemoths or they will grind us into dust. Just like they’ve been doing.

                The populist Steve Bannon knows this, he just waters it down because people shy away from communist sounding talk. And yet, understanding Asian communism, and what it has accomplished politically, is precisely the key for the workers and middle class of the West to wake up and realize “what must be done” ah lol of course that is a question of Lenin

                here is the real equation that most people in the West do not understand. the communism of the CCP is nationalism. same is true of both Vietnamese and Korean communisms.

                The state must have the power to neutralize its enemies. When the enemies are billionaires, it must cut them down to size.

                There is no way around this. Republicans and conservatives will continue to fail until they wake up and realize, you can’t outspend Jeff Bezos. He can buy corrupt politicians, cities, states, and nations. And he has.

                Only organized political power, ie, the force of organized violence shaped into laws, can get it done. Name the enemy: billionaires, and you will make progress like never before

                Trump was just the beginning of it. He did not go far enough but he made a good stab. Then the billionaires neutralized HIM.
                Here’s jack dorsey, shutting Trump up while he lets the CCP officials say their peace. Amazing! Why? Because he fears THEM he does not fear Trump.
                Any POTUS is considered a CEO working for the American billionaire board of directors, get it?
                And it will stay that way until a POTUS starts punching their tickets!
                Trust me, if he cut Soros off, and cut Bezos down to size, their pawns like BLM would not be a problem! Just one small example.

                Take the logic and put it to work, and results will grow like wildfire

                Saloth Sar

                1. “There is no justification for the power he commands ”

                  Do not mix up money and power even though they frequently go hand in hand. Bezos uses money to buy the Washington Post to alter opinions and benefit his wealth.

                  I don’t care if a man has $10 Billion invested in companies that produce wealth and jobs. He will of course have a somewhat bigger say in the political world but doesn’t necessarily exert an inordinate amount of power. The social media tycoons do. Jeff Bezos does. Those billionaires that buy off the political elite do, but I think you get worked up to a point where you miss the boat.

                  1. ok well you go look at all those corporations that gave money to BLM like walmart and ask yourself. who controls them? the public investor?

                    no, cliques of billionaires like Sam Walton’s billionaire kids do. Why do they like BLM?

                    Just to keep us off balance, off their backs. So they throw money at them, to cause them to riot and intimidate us

                    BLM are just mercenaries. Look to who pays them

                    Who is the biggest contributer to virus research worldwide? Oh Bill gates, pretty much. He’s behind all the “plans”

                    Look to the FEC data on billionaire contributions. Who owns the Democrats? Oh Soros is in there, along with so many other billionaires.

                    They are scum. You need to educate yourself. I think you have potential. Populism has potential. but it has to have this insight or it will never reach the level of power necessary to free the people from the covert sinister grasp the billionaires have on us. It must be a political power that can break the back of billionaires or hold them at bay. Study Hungary and Orban. they know the score. The EU, there’s another billionaire racket, cooked up by old Wild Bill donovan, the OSS CIA honcho and investment banker. More schemes to reduce the western political systems to nothing before the throne of billionaires.

                    Saloth Sar

                    1. “You need to educate yourself. I think you have potential. ”

                      The education is there. You just don’t haven’t put enough things together to understand how things work in reality. You have overdosed on philosophy.

            3. Why do you beleive government is entitled to decide how much of their money people can keep ?

              I have no problem with Bezo’s wealth or even that he contributes to democrats – it is his money, his business what he does with it.

              What I have a problem with is idiots like you who think that what belongs to others – you get to take – whether it is from the working class or from billionaires.

              Cut government spending down to the 5% of GDP that Lincoln won the Civil War with.

              1. Say, these billionaires own as much as nations. This makes no sense. It is only nations that can preserve laws which create markets and property rights in the first place. I tell you, the socalled property rights of any one person, like Soros or Bezos or Bloomberg, are not more important than the nation itself

                The “right” by which I would claim to correct them, is the right of law, the right of organized political power, which is presently the “right” by which they rule us., And steal our elections, silence us on the internet, and take countless subsidies and goods and benefits from government at our expense.

                I don’t submit to their rule and I want to rectify it for the benefit of the nation. This is nationalism and it is good for us.

                Saloth Sar

                1. Even Adam Smith noted that there is only so much that one can spend on themselves.

                  Those Billionaires you rant about – are slaves to the rest of us.

                  Who Benefits from Bezo’s Billions ?

                  How many mansions, jets and fancy cars can Bezo’s own ?

                  Ultimately 99% of Bezo’s money is invested – creating jobs and wealth for the rest of us.

                  And unlike our government Bezo’s actually knows how to create jobs and greater wealth.

                  Of course property rights are important – even Marx ultimately discovered you can not make an economy work without property rights.

                  If we can not own anything we have no incentive to produce anything.

                2. What billionare rules you ?

                  You can work for Bezo’s or Sorros or …

                  Or not. You are free.

                  You are free to work for whoever you wish – including yourself.

                  Bezo’s can do nothing except persuade you – persuade you to work for him or to buy his products.

                  He can not force you. You are free to choose.

    2. There are several things that Trump should ORDER, right now.

      1). A Special Counsel to investigate election fraud. I would suggest Sydney Powell.

      2). A special Counsel to investigate the Biden related influence pedalling in Ukraine and China.

      3). A special Counsel to replace the Durham investigation.

      Each of these is matter that a President Biden would sweep under the rug.
      Each are matters that need thoroughly investigated.

      1. Here is some more from:

        https://populist.press

        Democrats face accusations of fraud in House race after 28,000-vote lead on election night erased by judge and mail-in ballots

        A New York congressional race came down to a judge personally reviewing individual spoiled ballots, resulting in the Democratic incumbent erasing his nearly 30,000-vote deficit to take a 13-vote lead and declaring victory.

        Populist press takes one to:

        https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/democrats-face-accusations-of-fraud-in-house-race-after-28k-vote-election-night-lead-erased-by-judge-and-mail-in-ballots

        Populist press is a consolidator of articles and is a replacement for Drudge.

        1. All executive powers are vested in the President PERIOD.

          Congress can not appoint an SC. Even under the old IC law – that was a panel of judges.

  3. Another ‘Immigration’ Case:

    TRUMP’S DEMANDS ON CENSUS BUREAU BEFORE THE COURT TODAY

    Donald Trump seeks to exclude undocumented immigrants from the 2020 Census count. Said demand is legally dubious since the Constitution states the census should include, “All residents” within a jurisdiction. If the court were to agree with Trump’s demand, California, Texas and Florida, our 3 most populous states, could each lose a seat in Congress.

    According to this late coverage by the Washington Post, even conservative members of the court are skeptical of Trump’s demand. Chief Justice John Roberts ventured that the census should be released first to give us an idea what the numbers look like; which makes perfect sense. Logically even opponents of immigration might want to know what the numbers are.

    But if we wait for the 2020 Census to be released, Donald Trump will be on his way out the door, of course. Ha, ha, ha..! Though Justice Sotomayor believes the number to be excluded would be in the ballpark of 5 million.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-undocumented-immigrants-census-congressional-reapportionment/2020/11/30/90188f4a-3330-11eb-8d38-6aea1adb3839_story.html

    1. Below is the actual text of the constitution regarding the census.

      While it does not say what Trump claims – it most certainly does not say what you claim.

      “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”

    2. Obviously we should follow the actual constitution – rather than what you claim it says.

      That said – why do you care ?

      Is there some objective reason that non-citizens should be counted ?
      One of the major purposes of the census is allocating congressional districts.
      And the language of the constitution is pretty clear that not everyone can vote and that representative are allocated according to those who can vote – i.e. citizens.

      Regardless, what does it matter to you whether Texas and California have more or less represenatives ?

      Obviously it matters to texas and California, but with respect to those not in those states – why does it matter to them ?

      1. The Constitution says to count all persons except Indians not taxed. “All persons” includes undocumented aliens.

        1. “All persons” includes undocumented aliens.

          Is that your opinion, or do you have a source to support that claim? Let’s pretend for the moment the framer’s intended to include undocumented aliens to be eligible to vote. SMH! Are you asserting that there have been no laws enacted since the constitution was ratified that further defined who is eligible to vote? If so, do any of these laws provide or exclude undocumented aliens the right to vote in our general elections?

          1. Anonymous can not read. If he could he would find that the constitution confers citizenship on all persons in the United states at the time the constitution is adopted. Therefore the terms all persons and all citizens were synonymous at that time.

            The exclusion of indians is a huge clue. As is the means of determining representatives.

            1. No, the Constitution didn’t confer citizenship on everyone in the US when the Constitution was adopted. Whites were eligible but still had to apply to be naturalized. It wasn’t until the 1900s that Asians could be naturalized. You’re quite the Dunning Kruger example.

              1. At the time of the ratification of the constitution every free white person regardless of country of origin was automatically a citizen.
                As of 1790 anyone who arrived after ratification who wished to be a citizen went to any court, swore an oath of allegiance and was a citizen.

                Again quit making up the law and constitution.

                1. Notice how you’ve shifted your claim from “the constitution confers citizenship on all persons in the United states at the time the constitution is adopted” to “At the time of the ratification of the constitution every free white person. regardless of country of origin was automatically a citizen.”

                  Not all people are white, wanker, and not all people were free. US citizenship was not established until the Naturalization Act of 1790, and not everyone who applied for citizenship was granted citizenship.
                  https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/1/STATUTE-1-Pg103.pdf

                  You quit making up history.

                  1. I have not shifted anything at all.

                    While there is lots of “white people” language in the constitution – if you were free and black, or free and asian – and there were such people, at the time the constitition was ratified – then you were a citizen. Free Black Citizens in the north in 1787 were not uncomon. Free asians were rarer, But the anti-Asian bias and laws was NOT common at the time of the ratification of the constitution. These came later when large numbers of chinese came to the US with the gold rush and transcontinental railroad constuction.

                    I would note that mass irish immigration occured at the same time – and it too faced a severe backlash. Just not so severe as asians.

                    Regardless, what has been self evident in this discussion – as in myriads of others is that you are not only clueless about US history – it is forgiveable that you are unaware that there have been Asian US citizens from 1787 forward, But that you make up past US history based on your modern perceptions and do not even bother to check before reporting it as fact.

                    To be clear – I have not argued our founders were RIGHT – in numerous issues they were not.
                    I have not argued the counstitution SHOULD say something – quite often it is wrong and should be changed.

                    What i argue – with you and others constantly – whether it is immigration or Elections or the census or …..

                    Is that we follow the law and constitution AS WRITTEN – if we do not like them as they are – We change them through the same process they were created in the first place.

                    That is what is required to have “the rule of law, not men” That is what is required to avoid lawlessness.

                    I might agree with you some of the time that the law or constitution SHOULD be changed – though I would do so far more carefully than you.

                    But in the meantime we follow the law as wriiten, the constitution as written

                    Otherwise we are lawless.

                    Otherwise we can not trust our government.

                    1. This is why it’s a waste of time to try to discuss things with you.

                      I pointed out that YOU moved the goalposts in YOUR statements, and I quoted what YOU wrote to show the difference, and you simply ignored it and started talking about language in the Constitution.

                      If you cannot admit the change in YOUR claims from “all persons” to “every free WHITE person” that’s about YOU, not about the Constitution.

                    2. “it’s a waste of time to try to discuss things with you.”

                      It is – you have no interest or knowlege of facts, logic, or reason.

                      You attempt to conform reality to your ideology. You attempt to conform the past to your ideology.

                      Those things do not work.

                      “I pointed out that YOU moved the goalposts in YOUR statements, and I quoted what YOU wrote to show the difference, and you simply ignored it and started talking about language in the Constitution.”

                      The language of the constitution – as well as the immediate writings of our founders – particularly their laws are not only all that matters here, they are also all that the Supreme Court may rely on to make this decision.

                      There is no moving of goal posts. My argument has been the same from start to finish – follow the constitution.

                      “If you cannot admit the change in YOUR claims from “all persons” to “every free WHITE person” that’s about YOU, not about the Constitution.”

                      I did not change anything – the constitution says what it says.

                      That said – the constitution has been changed over time – not by interpretation – but by amendment.

                      The 14th amendment expands on the the Census, as well as who constitutes an eligable voter. The 19th amendment also changed who is eligable to vote.

                      We MUST read the census text in the constitution – as including all amendments that apply to the census as well as all amendments that change the meaning of terms – such as eligable voter.

                      This is not me “moving the goal posts” – this is the country changing the constitution.

                      Everyone of these are factors that SCOTUS must weigh. But these are the ONLY factors SCOTUS may weigh.

                      The constitution is what it says in the plain language of those who wrote it. It is changed by amendment – also understood in the plain language of those who wrote it.

                      Should WE not like that WE are free to amend the constitution – and future SCOTUS will be obligated to read the constitution as WE amended it – with the plain meaning that WE used. And should future generations dislike that – they too can change it.

                      From the start of this debate through this post I have never argued otherwise.

                      I have however repeatedly pointed out that YOUR arguments are FALSE. That you are incredibly ignorant of history while constantly making false claims about it. Refuting a false claim of yours – is not “moving the goal posts”.

                  2. There was a US presidential election in 1788-1789.

                    A requirement for voting was citizenship. A requirement for election to public office was citizenship.

                    Prior to the 1790 Act the constitution established Citizenship.

                    If you were free and resided in the US at the time the constitution was ratified you were a citizen, eligable to vote, and eleigable for office.

                    The 1790 Act extablished how people who immigrated AFTER 1787 became Citizens.

                    1. “There was a US presidential election in 1788-1789. A requirement for voting was citizenship.”

                      Prove it by quoting the state laws that determined voter eligibility.

                    2. ““There was a US presidential election in 1788-1789. A requirement for voting was citizenship.”

                      Prove it by quoting the state laws that determined voter eligibility.”

                      Are you serious ?

                    3. Yes, I’m serious.

                      He claimed it and he should prove it. If you want to prove it on his behalf, feel free.

                    4. I do not need to prove the sun rises.

                      I certainly do not need to prove the obvious to someone such as yourself – who does not prove anything and does not accept the obvious.

                      What non-citizens voted in the first US election ?

                      You have been the one ranting about discrimination against blacks and asians – which is real but your alleged facts are not.

                    5. No one asked you to prove the sun rises.

                      “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
                      – Christopher Hitchens

                    6. So prove the sun will rise tomorow – “Chrostopher” ?

                      Sorry – not a Hitchens fan.

                      I would further note that as a matter of logic (and math and science) he is wrong.

                      Some things are axiomatic.

                      While this one is not. Hitchen’s statement is still a logical error.
                      If you doubt that – prove commutivity ? Or Modus Ponens ?

                  3. I have no idea what you think in your PDF is in contradiction with what I said, or supports what you said.

                    I would further note that contra your claim – the 1790 Act places very few constraints on becoming a citizen.

              2. The chinese exclusion act was passed in 1882 – not 1787.

                Absolutely this country has had significant racism directed at the Chinese and still does.
                My daughter was born in Guang Dong province. My Son was born in Busan SK.

                I suspect I have forgotten more about asian americans than you ever knew,

                Regardless, the constitution itself grants citizenship to anyone born here – even Chinese.
                And that has been true since 1787.

                We have had long periods in US history where the Chinese – even citizens were unconstitutionally restricted in their rights.
                We have had native born Chinese – US citizens leave – when their parents left.

                But to my knowledge there has never been a time when any person in the US born of a free person was not a citizen.

          2. The source is all of the existing census counts starting with the first one.

            How bizarre that you introduce who is eligible to vote, when that has never been a requirement to be counted in the census. Do you think that children aren’t counted because they aren’t eligible to vote. Do you think women weren’t counted in the first census because they weren’t eligible to vote. If you think any of this garbage, educate yourself.

            1. Please read the constitution.

              Early you claimed a purpose to the census – the only purpose the constitution asigns to the census is the allocation of congressional districts and it make clear that is to be done based on those eligable to vote.

              I did not introduce eligable voters – the constitution did.

              “If you think any of this garbage, educate yourself.”

              Only uneducated idiots who do not know what they are talking about are arrogant enough to tell others to “educate themselves”

              Try some actual history.

              In the first census in 1790 the following was asked/counted of each houshold

              “The six inquiries in 1790 called for the name of the head of the family and the number of persons in each household of the following descriptions:

              Free White males of 16 years and upward
              Free White males under 16 years
              Free White females
              All other free persons
              Slaves”

              I find it really odd that left wing nuts simultaneously accuse the country of being born into irredeemable racism (and sexism),
              and when in an argument about the constitution and our founders presume blindly that they acted with modern progressive ideology.

              1. I’ve read the Constitution.

                It did not ever allocate congressional districts based on those eligible to vote.

                “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”

                There is nothing there about voting. The whole point of the 3/5s Compromise was to take slaves into account when apportioning.

                If you’ve read the Constitution, you clearly don’t understand it.

        2. “The Constitution says to count all persons except Indians not taxed. “All persons” includes undocumented aliens.”

          Do not tell me what the constitution (or anything else) says – I can read – though you do not seem to be able to you can quote it and you are not trustworthy enough to relyh on your paraphrase.

          When you quote it quote it completely. It does not mean what you say.

          Regardless, I expect SCOTUS to follow the words in the constitution by their meaning at the time.

          Not your mangling.

            1. As I said before those who say “educate yourself” b=pretty much always are clueless.

              Presuming that you are the same anonymous of prior anonymous postings – which is unknowable.

              You have already repeatedly botched the constitution and early US history.

              Why should anyone spend almost 2 hours listening to one side of Oral arguments offered by YOU with zero credibility.

              I have no idea what Mr. Ho will say. I do know what the constitution clearly says. I have cited the entire section to you.

              I also know what was done in the 1790 census which is possibly the best historical evidence of what our founders intended.

              The primary purpose of the census as indicated by the constitution was the allocation of congressional districts.
              The allocation of congressional districts was to be done based on citizenship – not body counts.

              I would further question WHY is this a question of great import to you and the left ?

              So a few congressional seats will move around. Voters still elect congressmen, and congressmen still represent voters.
              Not non-citizens, not illegal aliens.

              Unless you live in TX or CA why do you care it they each lose a seat ? It is not even as if the impact of this is partisan.

              You are barking at the moon over an issue that only matters in the context that we should do it right.

              Even ignoring the constitutional context – Congressmen represent CITIZENS – the people eligable to vote for them.

              They do not represent people in foreign countries. They do not represent people who are citizens of foreign countries.

              You stupidly fought over the citizenship question on the Census – which not only has been on nearly every census for 250 years.

              SCOTUS bough the idiotic argument that the Census Bureau can “model citizenship” – despite the fact that the constitution requires actually counting real people – not “modeling” them.

            2. Then we should take Mr. Ho seriously and the constitution literally.

              People should be COUNTED – only those people actually counted by a census worker should be included in the census.

              Further I would suggest you actually read the 14th amendment. It pretty clearly says that if you are not eligiable to vote, that you are not to be counted for the purpose of allocating congressional districts.

              Actually READ IT, The WHOLE THING.

              Unless illegal aliens can vote, they do not count for the purpose of allocating congressional districts.

      2. John, we’ll say what the court rules. But the concept of a census is to learn ‘how many people’ reside in states, counties and cities. If a city has 200,000 illegals, they’re still there regardless of immigration status. We can’t play Trump-like charades and pretend people aren’t where they are.

        1. It’s simple. Get rid of the illegals and let them apply for citizenship. You don’t like the American worker.

          1. Sure, Anonymous, but first we need what’s known as a ‘Political Army’ and a series of concentration camps to move all those people out.

            That’s why the Nazis developed the S.S. for the purpose of rounding up Jews. Hitler understood that regular army soldiers couldn’t be completely trusted to carry out such a mission.

            So anyone who thinks that ‘getting rid of’ millions of people is ‘simple’ is really a ‘simpleton’.

            1. Your mindset thinks in terms of killing or hurting people. You are a great supporter of the CCP. I didn’t advocate such a thing. I advocated making them apply for citizenship. They are not citizens. They are not legal. They should not be counted.

              1. Anonymous, you’re a simpleton and that’s exactly ‘why’ you’re anonymous. You can’t stand behind your statements (because they’re too simple).

                I would love to use a name. And I tried against all odds. But the Trump dead-enders were determined to smear any name I used. Because they can’t win any arguments!

                1. Everyone already knows who you are and not only are you using an anonymous name you are using more than one icon. I don’t respond to anonymous posters in the fashion I would like to because for the most part they are untrustworthy. You have abused your anonymity along with abusing the blog by posting without consideration of fair use. You have insulted large groups of people on a continuous basis.

                  You know next to zero and have no affinity with most working Americans. If you are doing fine that is good enough for you. You support concentration camps, and illegals that have raped and murdered American citizens You are selfish. You are also a crybaby that blames everyone else for your inadequacies.

                2. If you want credibility – use a name.

                  If you do not want to be insulted – start by not insulting others.
                  After that try not insulting our intelligence.

                    1. I do not insult people who do not insult me first.

                      I insult arguments – stupid arguments – such as trying to claim that the 14th amendment does not require allocating congressional districts based on those eligible to vote – are STUPID.

                      Sometimes smart people make stupid arguments.

                    2. I would further ask you to cite where in my posts I have engaged in the childish nonsense of insulting people rather than making arguments.

                      There are a few here on the right who engage in this pure insult fest nonsense. But the primary purveyors of insults rather than argument are those on the left.

                      This should not surprise – as it is right out of alinsky. Alinsky’s rules for radicals are quite brilliant and effective. But the left should note two things about them.

                      First – they are not partisan. Trump has used them with great effect against the left and his enemies.

                      Second – they are about gaining political power at the expense of dividing people. We should not be surprised that the country becomes ever more divided as the left continues to follow Alinsky and other power politics approaches.

                      You can pretty much guarantee that Whatever tactics Democrats use – Republicans will use soon enough.

                      We have been debating the conduct of the past election over the past month.

                      You can claim to disagree with me that the conduct of this election was ofal and reprehensible.

                      But you are stupid if you think that absent a serious rebuke to the misconduct that has occured we will see even more in the future and that republicans will work out the same tactics.

                      If Democrats are not going to subject Mailin ballots to sufficient scrutiny – you can expect that atleast a few republicans will jut flood democratic districts with bogus ballots.

        2. “John, we’ll say what the court rules.”
          I ceed some ambiguity here – but you seem unable to grasp that there was no distinction between people and citizens at the time the Census was written into the constitution.

          “But the concept of a census is to learn ‘how many people’ reside in states, counties and cities.”
          Because you say so ? The constitution sets no purpose beyond allocating congressional districts.

          “If a city has 200,000 illegals, they’re still there regardless of immigration status.”
          They are – but they are not citizens.

          “We can’t play Trump-like charades and pretend people aren’t where they are.”

          This is not about Trump. First contra the modern idiot left through much of our history the census explicitly asked about citizens because the intent was to count citizens. The constitution allocates congressional districts based on the number of those eligible to vote.

          Regardless, your ideological nonsensical presumption that you know what you are talking about and that it is obvious that those who disagree with you are obviously wrong and playing games is tiresome and stupid.

          You do not know much of what you think you do. Though you are sure you know what others think – including our long dead founders – despite a self evident total lack of knowledge of them.

    3. And why hasn’t the census been released ?

      The constitution authorizes counting actual people. Not computer modeling. and not bazilions of questions.

      Counting people is not hard.

      We just counted most of 150M votes in one day.

      Release the count of people from the Census NOW.

      If you want to spend months mucking with other things – that is a differnet issue.

    4. What Justice Sotomayor believes and what you beleive are irrelevant.

      What matters is the text of the constitution. Which does not say what you claim.

      With respect to whatever number of people might not be counted – if they are not voters it does not matter.
      Congressional districts are about voting, not ham sandwiches.
      Congressional representatives are voted for by citizens – not non-citizens.

  4. The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history.

    The co-conspirators are:

    Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,

    James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic,

    SALLY YATES, James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell,

    Sir Richard Dearlove, Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud,

    Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary,

    Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,

    Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,

    Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg et al.

  5. “Her consideration is surprising for a president-elect who has pledged to unify the country and move beyond the destructive politics of the last four years.” Pfffft! Yeah…because THAT’S sure what Biden plans to do. OK.

    1. Will the concentration camps Biden sets up for Americans who did not vote for him be on the East Coast or the West Coast? Maybe just in nursing homes ala NY State with Cuomo presiding? or perhaps Portland, Seattle, Chicago, NYC, ….gosh…so many BLM ANTIFA cities that have evidenced arson….hard to choose which will be the brightest, warmest, most cozy place for administration of Zyklon B.

      Thoughts?

      https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/background-and-overview-of-gassing-victims

      Zyklon B was used in Germany before and during the Second World War for disinfection and pest extermination in ships, buildings and machinery. In the Auschwitz concentration camp as well, it was used exclusively for sanitation and pest control until the summer of 1941. After the end of August 1941, Zyklon was used in the camp, first experimentally and then routinely, as an agent of mass annihilation. Zyklon B consisted of diatomite, in the form of granules the size of fine peas, saturated with prussic acid. In view of its volatility and the associated risk of accidental poisoning, it was supplied to the camp in sealed metal canisters.

      The Zyklon used at Auschwitz concentration camp was produced by a firm called Degesch (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Schädlingsbekämpfung mbH), with headquarters in Frankfurt am Main and forming a part of IG Farbenidustrie AG.

      The following is a scientific breakdown of Zyklon-B:

      Hydrogen cyanide HCN, prussic acid, is a chemical compound in the form of a powerfully poisonous, volatile colorless liquid with the odor of bitter almonds. Prussic acid is considered a battlefield poison agent. Its action depends on the restraint of cellular respiration as a result of neutralizing the respiratory enzymes. Prussic acid passes through the mucous membranes and the skin, but principally through the lungs, into the blood. It blocks the process by which oxygen is released from red blood corpuscles and the result is a sort of internal asphyxiation. This is accompanied by symptoms of injury to the respiratory system, combined with a feeling of fear, dizziness and vomiting.

      1. Rigged Election tell us: ‘What Federal guidelines did the Trump administration set regarding Senior Living Facilities?’

        In other words, ‘What leadership did Trump provide that Governor Cuomo could have followed to avoid the chaos that befell New York in those early days of the pandemic?’

        SPOILER ALERT: Trump hadn’t bothered to prepare ‘any’ national strategy for the states to follow! Though Trump had at least all of January and February to form a national plan. But as Trump famously said, “I’m not responsible”. ..Isn’t that a laugh..!

        1. ‘What leadership did Trump provide that Governor Cuomo could have followed to avoid the chaos that befell New York in those early days of the pandemic?’

          In other words, you’re admitting the incompetence is so significant with the governors that unilaterally determined to order Covid-infected patients be admitted into eldercare facilities, that they needed federal intervention directing their statewide governance strategies. Of course it hasn’t occurred to you that the majority of governors didn’t need federal guidance away from such stupidity.

          Try again.

          1. Olly, the ‘majority’ of governors don’t have cities with 8 million people and up to 70,000 per square mile. ..Try again..!

            1. the ‘majority’ of governors don’t have cities with 8 million people and up to 70,000 per square mile. ..Try again..!

              Oh boy! So your argument is governors entrusted to provide safety and security to the largest number of people, aren’t capable of making commonsense, life or death decisions without guidance from the federal government? Good to know. Because we certainly don’t want any of these nincompoops anywhere near a position in the federal government. They’d end up seeking guidance from the global community, you know, like China.

              Try again.

              1. Right, Olly, let’s pretend one of the densest cities in the world is no more vulnerable to pandemics than Home Town USA. And we don’t need a Federal Plan to deal with the pandemic. Governors in small farm states can manage just fine.

                But wait a minute, small farm states now have some of the highest infection rates in the country. Like South Dakota, for instance, one of nation’s least populous states. Something like 1 in 5 South Dakotans have tested positive. In fact, at this point, several Governors have tested positive!

                So this idea that Governor Cuomo completely mismanaged the crisis (when it first hit) only plays in the rightwing bubble. In mainstream America, Trump dickered like a fool for two entire months when he should have been formulating a national plan.

                And then we discover Trump admitted to Bob Woodward that he knew the virus would kill people. Yet Trump did nothing during the run-up! But dead-enders like Olly want to blame Governor Cuomo. ..Go figure..!

                1. 😂 It doesn’t matter how many left-wing talking points you recycle; you will never convince rational people that ordering Covid-19-positive patients to be placed in nursing homes was not a criminally-incompetent executive policy.

                  1. Democrat “thinkers” want to euthanize old people. Think Im making it up? Study this guy, Rahm Emmanuel’s brother who’s going to be on Biden’s team. he’s a real peach

                    1. Didn’t Zeke Emanuel recently say the Covid vaccine shouldn’t be given to those over 75?

                      The eventual Democrat / billionaire supporters of China eventual solution to Medicare will be to decrease healthcare to the elderly that are not billionaires. Think of Obama and the pacemaker he said that old woman didn’t need.

                  2. Sure, Olly, those geezers should have been placed in the finest hotels under the care of Bellhops and Room Service. ..Not..!!

                    1. Sure, Olly, those geezers should have been placed in the finest hotels under the care of Bellhops and Room Service. ..Not..!!

                      Damn Paint Chips, you’re light years away from qualifying as even a useful idiot.

                      Although more reasonable options were available, your snarky example would have not subjected innocent, isolated and high-risk residents to Covid-19 infected patients. Geez.

                2. Absolutely the densest city in the world is more vulnerable.

                  Some of us have been trying to get that through to you for a long time.

                  No one is ragging on New York – except when you play this idiot game of pretending that the US is somehow doing worse than the world.

                  You can not blame Trump for the US without blaming Cuomo for New York – unless you are a clueless left wing nut.

                  And No Small Farm states are not being nailed especially hard – the C19 death rate has been declining since the start.
                  Only left wing nuts care about testing. How many people died ? Too many, but still far less per capita than NYC.

                  But the reasons are not the shallow thinking red/blue nonsense of idiots like you – if they were Blue states would be hell holes.
                  They are geography and demographics.

                  Please do not claim to know crap about science if you are amped up trying to make political hay out of C19.

                  Or we can go back to noting that 5 blue states if they were countries have the highest per capita death rate in the world.

                  Cuomo did mismanage the crisis – by sending infected people into old folks homes.
                  No one tries to blame him for much of anything else – except when people like you try to get into these red/blue delusions.

                  Many of us will be happy to ram down your throat the much lower per capita death rates of red states – despite the fact that we know that is mostly due to reduced population density, lower latitude, more sunlight and higher temperatures.

                  But since you want to play clueless partisan games all the time – the rest of us can play along.
                  No red state will ever reach half of New Yorks mortality per capita.

                  Intelligent people grasp that has to do with geography and demographics.
                  But we will be happy to ignore that when you stupidly try to make partisan hay where there is none.

                  Oh My Trump told Bob Woodward that C19 would kill people – news at 11!!!

                  Duh!.

                  Lets try something simple.

                  Aside from NOT doing stupid things like sending infected people into old folks homes – there was nothing Cuomo could have done.
                  Nothing Trump could have done
                  Nothing any world leader could have done.

                  Real world studies have found that geography and demographics completely predict Covid outcomes.
                  Government polices has ZERO impact.

                  That has been self evident to many of us from near the start. It is one of many predictions/observations I have gotten right.

                  Yet, you are still enthrall to faux experts who have mislead you and are still selling you magic beans.

                  Trump has done one thing that actually matters.
                  He has made it possible to develop multiple C19 vaccines in record time.
                  It is likely that thousands of people in the US and millions arround the world will owe their lives to him.

                  And we have listened to idiots like you telling us all this was impossible.

                  There are not 3 vaccines that have proven effective. CVS will begining one of those to the elderly in 2 weeks.

                  People like you have said that is impossible.

                  No vaccine has ever been developed in twice this amount of time.

                  And the 3 C19 vaccines we have now – are not likely the end of it. Probably we will have a dozen different ones before we are done.

                  Two things are responsible for this:

                  Trump and free markets.

                  Both things you hate.

                  You are clueless.

                  You should thank god for Trump – otherwise you are likely a winner of a darwin award.

                    1. Then you should Easily be able to cite something I have said about C19 that is inccorrect.

                      If you can not – what you are demonstrating is that YOU are likely the most clueless person on this blog regarding C19.

                      You should also get a clue. I do not say things that I do not have evidence of.

                      I do not say things like – we should lock down the country, or social distance or wear masks, and I especially do not ORDER others to do so – without evidence that those measures WORK.

                      Numerous real world studies both now and months ago, have demonstrated through statistics that little that “experts” have told us, has worked. Further most of it is not even vaguely supported by science.

                      The purpose of lockdowns was to protect the healthcare system.

                      The effect has been HARM to peoples health by delaying treatment of non-covid health problems.

                      Nowhere in the US have we ever reached over 70% of hospital capacity – without setting up emergency hospitals.

                      We are hearing this nonsense from people like you about south dakota – yet Hospitals in SD are only at 60% of capacity.

                      You have been wrong pretty much by the numbers regarding C19.

                      You have been wrong because you have failed to require those you placed your trust in – “experts” to provide EVIDENCE.

                      You have also been wrong – for much the same reason that Malthus – an incredibly intelligent economist was wrong, and the same reason that every prediction of global disaster ever has been wrong.

                      Because if nature was that fragile, this planet would be lifeless like Mars.

                      Bad things do happen – rarely

                      Very bad things – very rarely.

                      Events on the scale that the left thinks are common place – happen at most every 500M years. They are incredibly rare.
                      If they were not – life would not exist on this planet.

                      Life is not all that fragile.

        2. Trump didn’t tell Cuomo to put Covid + patients back into the nursing homes. Emmy award winner Cuomo did that all by himself even though Trump provided alternate accommodations.

          Lets congratulate Cuomo and a few other Democrat governors for killing nursing home patients.

          This turkey above supports killers and under other names rapists and looters.

        3. “Rigged Election tell us: ‘What Federal guidelines did the Trump administration set regarding Senior Living Facilities?’”

          Your mind must be a very bizzare place if you think those are related.

          Regardless, nowhere in the constitution is the federal govenrment empowered with regard to senior living facilities.

          Frankly they are not even the business of the state – so long as contracts are followed and crimes are not committed.

          The US President – whether Trump or anyone else has no power to guide the states regarding seniour living facilities.

          Nor frankly does Cuomo.

          The choice to take C19 infected people belonged to the fascilities – not Cuomo, not Trump.

          I would further note that Covid studies accross the world find that no public policy no matter how stringently enforced correlated in any beneficial way to better Covid outcomes.

          Put simply there was nothing government has done that worked – ANY government.

          But Cuomo unilaterally failed.

        4. So What Cuomo is some toddler that Trump was required to order – do not send Covid patients to nursing homes ?

          Are left wing nuts never responsible for the consequences of their own actions ?

          This post tells so much about you.

          In your world left wing nuts are never responsible for the consequences of their own actions.

          Grow up – take personal responsibility for your life and actions.

        5. What an absolute fool Anonymous is…

          “Federal guidelines did the Trump administration set regarding Senior Living Facilities?”

          Ask any physician or ask your grandmother or mother if still alive. Is it good practice to put people with respiratory viral infections next to elderly people? The answer is NO.

          Only people who are mentally deficient place sick patients with old people. That is what Cuomo did and you along with your ilk think he is a hero. He was even given an Emmy for killing old people.

          1. To the small extent public health is a government responsibility – and one of the lessons of this pandemic is that it should not be a government responsibility at all, it is a local or state responsibility.

            Further neither Cuomo not anyone else whould need a federal guidline to avoid doing something stupid and killing people.

  6. Prof. Turley – I am deeply tired of this drafting errors nonsense.

    It is BS. It is a typical left wing nut demand that OTHERS must be perfect, while they do not have to play by the rules.

    DACA was uncounstitutional – yet somehow Trump had to dot eye’s and cross T’s to undo an unconstitutional EO ?

    If the Left wants DACA – they need to pass it as law.

    If there were minor flaws in Trump’s original Travel Ban – those were addressable.

    Though I would note that most if not all of those flaws are POLICY DISAGREEMENTS, not actual errors.

    Green Card grant very limited US rights, and while it might be “fair” to permit green card holders to travel freely, it is NOT a constitutional right by any clear read of the constitution.

    I am greatly sympathetic to immigrants – both my children are immigrants. But those outside the US who are not citizens have no RIGHTS to be inside the US.

    If you want EOs with serious constitutional problems – Try Koramatsu – not the travel ban. Korematsu not merely deprived actual citizens of their rights but it deprived due process to citizens and immigrants inside the US.

    Further contra SCOTUS valid EO’s do not fall under the administrative procedures act. Congress may not constraint the exclusive executive powers granted by the constitution any more than the executive can make laws on its own.

    If we do not like that – we amend the constitution.

  7. You’d think the partisan Democrats who comment here would out of simple prudence not want someone as tainted as Yates to occupy that position. Of course, they’d have to admit she’s tainted, and their contacts at Correct-the-Record told them not to do that.

    1. No, Tabby, Yates set an example that should have been followed by every high official. They should have all said, “Trump is nuts and his orders should be ignored”.

      By the way, Tabby, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp revealed today that Trump wants him to ‘illegally’ meddle in Georgia’s election count. This came after Trump attacked Kemp in tweets. Trump actually wants Kemp to review every mail-in vote to compare ballot signatures with signatures on the envelope. Kemp has no legal obligation to do anything of the sort.

  8. News Alert! Joe Biden, the self-proclaimed ‘healer’ of the country has fractured his foot, allegedly while playing with his dog.

    Let the “starting off on the wrong foot” jokes begin!

    Nominating Sally Yates? Starting off on the wrong foot, Joe.
    Nominating Neera Tanden? Starting off on the wrong foot, Joe.
    Nominating John Kerry? Starting off on the wrong foot, yet again, Joe.

    Hey Joe, has the ‘unifying’ and ‘healing’ begun yet??

    1. “Joe Biden, the self-proclaimed ‘healer’ of the country has fractured his foot . . .”

      Perhaps he can recuperate in a New York nursing home.

        1. At least Biden and his campaign didn’t lie about why he saw a doctor, unlike the emergency Saturday trip to Walter Reed and the deceitful annual physicals that deny Trump is obese and otherwise misrepresent what a walking physical disaster he is. There is no way someone that age, that gender, that fat and that out of shape doesn’t have cholesterol issues, and probably A1C issues, too.

          1. What nonsense!

            Trump has been quite active for a man his age as president. During the election he campaigned aggressively.

            Joe spent the campaign in the basement.

            The left has been lying about Biden’s cognative condition for atleast the past year.

            We all know that you wished Trump was in similar decline or even dying – but he is not.

            Regardless, if he was in the bad shape you think he is – he would be dead.

  9. Look at the claim and look at what the judges ruled on.

    Perhaps you don’t have that ability as so many have pointed out already.

  10. From what we’ve seen, it takes an incredibly strong, ethical, non-partisan figure like Bill Barr to manage DOJ/FBI. Both organizations are always flirting with too much “discretionary” law enforcement — a tough disciplinarian at the top is needed to weed out agendas, keep priorities up-to-date with changing conditions, and upset bureaucratic complacency and groupthink.

    1. pbinca, Barr is so ‘nonpartisan’ that he appointed John Durham to whitewash the Mueller Probe.

      Er, by the way, whatever happened to John Durham? Has anyone seen him lately?

      Perhaps Durham’s photo should be posted on milk cartons.

        1. Obama’s long form Birth Certificate he posted online? It’s already been found, and forensically evaluated, and determined to be a forged document. But that ‘news story’ also got disappeared by the powers that be.

          1. Obama’s long form Birth Certificate he posted online? It’s already been found, and forensically evaluated, and determined to be a forged document.

            It wasn’t. Sheriff Arpaio hired a trio of people, at least one of whom had no on point expertise, to manufacture a meme making a black box argument. The same sort of meme-pushers said the image put up by the Cruz campaign of Eleanor Darragh’s birth certificate was fake. People do this for sh*ts and giggles.

            Gov. Lingle’s commissioner of health went down into the archives with the registrar of vital statistics and found his long form in a looseleaf just where it was supposed to be.

            Why do you fancy he’d offer an electronically-generated fake long-form when there’s a real long form in the state archives? Is it really your contention that two impecunious college students undertook expensive and time-consuming international travel in 1961 so Ann Dunham could avail herself of the splendors of Kenyan obstetric care? (And meet Obama Sr.’s legal wife?)? That Stanley Dunham talked a clerk at Kapiolani Hospital into putting a fake birth notice in the local paper?

            1. Not interested in a gigantic fight over Obama;s birth certificate – as it is completely irrelevant.

              The supplied Birth Certificate was a bad forgery.
              That does not mean Obama was not born in the US – there is plenty of other evidence of that.

              But arguing that a peice of crap forgery isn;t is just stupid.

              Absolutely Arpio was out for Obama – as was Trump – but numerous analysis of the PDF provided by the white house by people skilled in computer forensics found numerous errors.

              It was not even a good forgery.

    2. “ethical, non-partisan figure like Bill Barr” While I understand facts do not matter to Trump supporters, that one alone is going down with “alternative facts” and “truth isn’t truth” hall of shame statements. But thank you for the belly laugh.

      1. What conduct of Barr’s was not ethical ?

        Frankly he did far too much to protect his friend Mueller who is a life long ethical violation.

        It is not Trump supporters that are selling “alternative facts” or “truth is not truth” or my favorite “my personal Truth”.

        That is the left.

        There is one reality. There is one set of actual facts.

        The “facts” are that Carter Page was a Us intelligence operative – probably of the CIA, working with CIA and FBI against Russia in the Uranium One Scandal that Mueller Buried (when he was at FBI)

        That YOU, the left, democrats, the FBI, DOJ, The Obama administration, the media, have REPEATEDLY for YEARS despite evidence LIED over and over and over about that.

        And you have lied about pretty much everything involving the whole Collusion Delusion.

        Whatever Trump might exagerate regarding crowds, etc. is inconsequential in comparison to the hell YOU put this country through.

        Please do not spray nonsense claims that you are some kind of patriot or that you actually care about this country.

        You are not honest, that is a requirement of patriotism.

        You are aspiring Tyrants. You are dangerous idiots who think that 1984 was an instruction manual.

      2. “We know they are lying,
        they know they are lying,
        they know we know they are lying,
        we know they know we know they are lying,
        but they are still lying.”

        ~Aleksandr Isayevitch Solzhenitsyn

        What we are witnessing today, coming straight from the Democrat party, big tech, Fake News media, etc. Lies, lies, lies.

  11. DISCLAIMER IN TURLEY’S COLUMN

    “I was an early critic of the travel ban, which had glaring errors like the absence of exceptions for legal residents or green-card holders. (Those errors were corrected in an amended order.) The ban was an issue upon which Trump campaigned and won the presidency and he wanted to move in that first week to carry out some of his core promises. But the order was poorly drafted, poorly executed and, ultimately, poorly defended”.
    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    Here the Professor seems to admit Sally Yates had justifiable concerns regarding Trump’s order. Yates was, in fact, one of the first, high level public officials to essentially tell the public what should have been clear to everyone: “Donald Trump is nuts!”. For this one reason alone Sally Yates holds the ‘legendary’ status Turley references.

    Sally Yates stood tall at a time when far too many in Washington were rolling over for Trump. Had more officials stood up and said, “Donald Trump is nuts”, America might have avoided 4 years of madness in which America’s prestige took a major hit in the global community. Yet Turley would have us think Ms. Yates is ‘too divisive’ of a figure for Attorney General.

    In other words, Turley is telling us that even though the country has rejected Donald Trump, we must still ‘respect’ Trump’s tantrums and hatred of bright women.

    Here’s an idea, let’s take Amy Coney Barrett off the court, replace her with Merrick Garland, then let Sally Yates serve as Attorney General.

    1. There is a difference between standing tall and grand-standing.
      Standing tall is publicly challenging the order and offering your resignation.
      Grand-standing is making public statements and playing to a compliant media.
      Turley is right. I would not want this woman for a colleague — I would have to constantly watch my back.

      1. No, Old Guy, ‘Standing Tall’ is calling it like it is (whether everyone wants to hear it or not). Yates was the first to say, “This emperor has no clothes”.

        1. ‘Standing Tall’ is calling it like it is (whether everyone wants to hear it or not). Yates was the first to say, “This emperor has no clothes”.

          Where was the AG when the ACA was passed as a penalty and not a tax? Oh that’s right, he was the standing small wingman.

          We should expect an AG to advise the President on how/why they believe an EO is illegal as written. The AG should be able to advise the President on policy as well. But it is not the duty of the AG to direct his/her agency to not enforce an EO because the AG opposes the policy. Yates failed her oath.

          1. Olly, a pandemic has swept this country claiming at 200,000 lives. Like this is any time to mope about Obamacare!

            But in the rightwing bubble the pandemic is just a deep state conspiracy that was supposed to disappear right after the election. Instead the opposite has occurred. But that’s just deep state keeping it up for good measure.

            1. a pandemic has swept this country claiming at 200,000 lives. Like this is any time to mope about Obamacare!

              Your inability to consider my question logically and respond with a reasoned response is noted. Perhaps it’s because you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time in this fictional right-wing bubble.

              Try again.

              1. Olly, try ‘what’ again????

                The Republicans have had more than 10 years to offer an alternative to Obamacare. But they can’t! Because there’s no way Republicans can get to the right of Obamacare and still have a health plan that actually helps people.

                1. Here, I’ll help you get back on the track you began this thread with.

                  You said: No, Old Guy, ‘Standing Tall’ is calling it like it is (whether everyone wants to hear it or not). Yates was the first to say, “This emperor has no clothes”.

                  I said: Where was the AG when the ACA was passed as a penalty and not a tax?

                  Now, try again. Good luck.

                2. There is no need to offer an alternative to ObamaCare.

                  Just get rid of it.

                  As bad as things were, they were less bad than now.

            2. The election isn’t over and Biden isn’t in power yet. Further, Covid is an excuse to reduce civil liberties which the left likes. That is a big danger. Governors and Mayors can do as they please. They can eat out, send their children to school, get a pay check, have security but the working person can be denied all these things and have crazy rules placed against them.

              Covid can even affect elections and permit criminality so that the results of an election are swayed to the criminal class.

                  1. I have no idea whether it was legal.

                    But as the left likes “experts”.

                    Every expert on election security would scream at you that voting systems should NEVER be connected to the internet – not during the election. Not before, not after.

              1. Recent large scale real world study from Denmark – Masks are ineffective against Covid.
                Add that to the 16 other studies in the CDC survey of real world mask studies with the same result.

                Another study – Covid deaths correlate to:
                UV
                Humidity
                Temperature.
                GDP
                Life expectancy

                With no correlation at all to government polices.

                1. Voting is over (hopefully), the election is over when the electors vote, and congress accepts the results.

                  Even the left accepted that as the case when in 2016 they tried to persuade electors to vote for Clinton.

            3. According to CDC data the total number of deaths todate in 2020 is very close to the average for the past 5 years.

              Essentially the “pandemic” mostly killed people who were going to die anyway.

              Put simply there is no change in overall mortality or life expectancy in the US in 2020 because of C19.

              There are likely long term impacts – increases in alcoholism, drug additiction heart disease, cancer – these are all consequences of the lockdowns or avoiding medical care during the “pandemic” and will not be felt immediately.

              As to PPACA there is no data that demonstrates that it has had any impact on mortality, or life expectance.

              All the claims of the left that it saved lives are garbage. As are the claims that getting rid of it would cause harm.

              But why would that surprise – those on the left beleive math is racist and 2 +2 = 5

            4. US Daily deaths did actually reach 1500 briefly in November – they are headed back down again.
              The deviation for the average for the past 6 months is small.

              I would further note that US total daily deaths from all causes have not significantly changed over the past year.
              Put simply people have died of Covid rather than of Pneumonia, or cancer or heart disease.
              But there are not 200,000 deaths in the US that would not have occured otherwise.

              I would note the “right wing” claim, was not that Covid would disappear – but that the media’s interest in it would disappear once Biden was president.

              We now have three vaccines – 4 counting the fact that the MMR vaccine appears to be about 77% effective in either preventing or significantly reducing the severity of Covid.

              MMR is available right now – and should have been used in Sept. when the first studies provided positive results.
              Instead Left wing news called MMR another right wing conspiracy.

              Anyway my wife and I got an MMR shot today – we are both old enough we were not vaccinated against Measles, Mumps and Rubella.
              I had Measles, and Mumps when I was a kid. It takes 4 weeks for the full effect to kick in. And MMR is covered by insurance. So there is no reason you should not get it too.

              I read all kinds of left wing nut nonsense that vaccines would take years not months. Yet, the fact that the Pfiser vaccine had proved wildly effective was hidden from us until after the election – and in less than a month we have 3 effective vaccines – with more coming.

              C19 will likely fade from the news before Biden is elected – because the first US vaccinations will start in a week or two – thanks to Trump.

              the C19 vaccine will prove to be the most rapidly developed vaccine in human history – by orders of magnitude.
              Something YOUR experts said was not possible.

              Something you were saying was not possible just a few weeks ago.

        2. No, she was one of the last.
          The ladies with the pussy hats had already demonstrated and the “Resistance” was already organized.
          Please try to keep up.
          Standing tall is taking a risk. She took none.
          Grand-standing is pretending to take a risk.

          1. Yates did not say “the emporer has no cloths” – she said I am not going to follow the law because of “feelings”.

            She was unable to articulate a constitutional problem with the EO.

            Finally she is entitled to her personal view on the EO – from Outside of government.
            As Acting AG she could enforce it or resign.
            There is no alternate choice.

  12. Turley: You of all people should know that the job of the Attorney General does not include carrying out the political agenda of a president, especially when an executive order is poorly written, full of errors, lacks appropriate exceptions for lawful US residents and is based on nothing more than racism and xenophobia. You know very well that the Muslim ban was not based on national security concerns, even though that was what was argued after all of the racist rhetoric in the campaign And, Trump cheated to get into our White House, so he didn’t “win” the presidency.

    Why do you use whatever credibility you have left to try to keep fighting Trump’s battles for him, anyway?

    1. Natacha, there can be only one answer on why Turley would bend over backwards for Trump. Turley is on the payroll.

  13. Yates had her chance and made it crystal clear she did not have the ability nor inclination to be fair and balanced serving the nation as a whole. Just another Piglosi in the making.

  14. Unassailable? He’s never been before the Senate before. Depends on January 5th. and how many new illegal voters show up. The kind that never registered but have a ballot run off on a copying machine? Garland got a raw deal though but the source was the President that nominated him and as with DACA refused to provide support.

  15. Judge Who Rejected Trump’s Pennsylvania Lawsuit ‘Misunderstood’ Argument: Kayleigh McEnany

    would be “disenfranchising a huge swath of the electorate” and “upsetting all down-ballot races.”

    The Trump campaign’s Pennsylvania lawsuit, according to McEnany, was grounded on the argument that different ballot-counting procedures for the state’s predominately Democratic and Republican counties have violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-who-rejected-trumps-pennsylvania-lawsuit-misunderstood-argument-kayleigh-mcenany_3597378.html

      1. That’s not the only name he’s posted under. He also posted as 1984 and probably as Kayla, and sometimes he posts anonymously.

Leave a Reply