Cleanup in Aisle Lunatic (h/t romad1)

[chasfh]

2 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

They voted for this . . .

 

And even this is probably on the lesser side of the spectrum of objectionable for this crew.

[romad1]

1 minute ago, chasfh said:

She is a legit snack.

Also, can I just tell you how pretty girls in baseball caps just rev me up? Yeah, I know it's a Yankees cap, but she's from there, so of course I'll allow it ...

Yeah, it would be a complicated relationship to be sure.   I'm sure we'd argue over all the WWII books in the built-ins and I'd have a problem with all the latin music but it would be fun to watch her pad around the loft apartment in her slippers dancing to it.  

[chasfh]

25 minutes ago, romad1 said:

Yeah, it would be a complicated relationship to be sure.   I'm sure we'd argue over all the WWII books in the built-ins and I'd have a problem with all the latin music but it would be fun to watch her pad around the loft apartment in her slippers dancing to it.  

 

[romad1]

 

[GalagaGuy]

 

[oblong]

25 minutes ago, GalagaGuy said:

 

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

I'd be so embarsassed to be a Trump voter.

[Tigerbomb13]

Just complete amateur hour and embarrassing. 

[oblong]

1 hour ago, romad1 said:

 

 

[chasfh]

5 hours ago, oblong said:

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

I'd be so embarsassed to be a Trump voter.

So much for the Hire the Most ****able-Looking Candidate strategy.

[ewsieg]

On 11/24/2025 at 12:49 PM, GalagaGuy said:

 

I'm surprised I missed this news.  Based on what I had read I believed the judge was going to throw it out based on how Halligan failed to get the indictment on all 3 and then got the foreman to sign and pursue with just 1.   I'm interested in hearing legal experts talk about this.  I have to believe even if this is overturned, Comey will still have the indictment issue in his back pocket.   

[gehringer_2]

3 hours ago, ewsieg said:

I'm surprised I missed this news.  Based on what I had read I believed the judge was going to throw it out based on how Halligan failed to get the indictment on all 3 and then got the foreman to sign and pursue with just 1.   I'm interested in hearing legal experts talk about this.  I have to believe even if this is overturned, Comey will still have the indictment issue in his back pocket.   

Since it was a procedural error, the dismissal was without prejudice, meaning the DOJ is free to refile, but one of the reasons Trump used a cardboard cutout like Halligan what that she'd do his bidding no matter how dumb it was. Now he's going to have that much more trouble finding a credible, competent prosecutor to run this vendetta.

[romad1]

9 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Since it was a procedural error, the dismissal was without prejudice, meaning the DOJ is free to refile, but one of the reasons Trump used a cardboard cutout like Halligan what that she'd do his bidding no matter how dumb it was. Now he's going to have that much more trouble finding a credible, competent prosecutor to run this vendetta.

DOJ was down to the last second on Comey because of the SOL.  They have 30 days to try again.  I have doubts on their ability to procedurally get their act together

[ewsieg]

5 hours ago, romad1 said:

They have 30 days to try again.

Sounds like even this is in dispute, time may be up already. 

[CMRivdogs]

Much bigger loser than the 1962 Mets

 

[GalagaGuy]

[oblong]

[romad1]

This is less interesting than Lindsay Halligan in cartoon form but... its something to consider. 

https://robertreich.substack.com/p/how-to-get-rid-of-citizens-united

TLDR:  States have the right to regulate corporate activity in their borders.  Get states to ban dark money and regulate spending on political campaigns.  You avoid having to amend the Constitution or somehow replacing 3 SCOTUSI

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, romad1 said:

This is less interesting than Lindsay Halligan in cartoon form but... its something to consider. 

https://robertreich.substack.com/p/how-to-get-rid-of-citizens-united

TLDR:  States have the right to regulate corporate activity in their borders.  Get states to ban dark money and regulate spending on political campaigns.  You avoid having to amend the Constitution or somehow replacing 3 SCOTUSI

I like it. Question: could the federal courts invalidate those laws and force all states to allow all dark money?

[oblong]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

I like it. Question: could the federal courts invalidate those laws and force all states to allow all dark money?

This Supreme Court will find a way. 
 

would the states have the courage to forgo the pressure from media companies unwilling to give up lucrative campaign spending?

[chasfh]

6 minutes ago, oblong said:

This Supreme Court will find a way. 
 

would the states have the courage to forgo the pressure from media companies unwilling to give up lucrative campaign spending?

At the very least make everyone disclose the source of their donations. In the age of crypto, I mean ... come on ...

[romad1]

14 minutes ago, oblong said:

This Supreme Court will find a way. 
 

would the states have the courage to forgo the pressure from media companies unwilling to give up lucrative campaign spending?

There is an element of mutually assured destruction preventing politicians from acting.  Its going to take some event/zeitgeist shift in the public to demand this.  The rampant corruption of the current administration is being watered down because of their dark money preventing any oversight.  Perhaps that gets to the point where even all the dark money can't hide it from the average prole.  But, Orwell was right about the proles, they lack consciousness.  

[gehringer_2]

57 minutes ago, chasfh said:

At the very least make everyone disclose the source of their donations. In the age of crypto, I mean ... come on ...

you know, I was thinking about a similar thing the other day. I don't think disclosure would even matter anymore. This is why: Go back a couple of generations - say to Watergate. The tapes just killed Nixon dead. We were in an era where it has hard to get evidence, but when you got it, it mattered. We dreamed of the day when Pols woudn't be able to get away with saying one thing in private an another in public.  Fast forward:  Today, there is camera or microphone almost everywhere. Every lie Trump or anyone else has ever uttered is totally documented - nobody cares. The facts only matter if there is a standard. There isn't.

Edited Thursday at 05:51 PM by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

19 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

you know, I was thinking about a similar thing the other day. I don't think disclosure would even matter anymore. This is why: Go back a couple of generations - say to Watergate. The tapes just killed Nixon dead. We were in an era where it has hard to get evidence, but when you got it, it mattered. We dreamed of the day when Pols woudn't be able to get away with saying one thing in private an another in public.  Fast forward:  Today, there is camera or microphone almost everywhere. Every lie Trump or anyone else has ever uttered is totally documented - nobody cares. The facts only matter if there is a standard. There isn't.

I think it is facile to conclude that simply nobody cares. A lot of people care. I care and you care. We're not nobody.

I think the bigger problem is that we have a factionalized mutually exclusive difference in media environments, and consumers of one don't believe environment don't believe the other. One side (RWM) actively and constantly disparaged the journalistic integrity of the other (MSM), which has allowed that side to engage in the exact kind of news fakery they accused the other of, and to get away with it, because they've developed their own version of reality.

So rather than the idea that nobody cares, I think the real problem is that the factions don't trust the same sources, they don't come to an agreement on what's true, then they just retreat to their corners frustrated with the other side for their recalcitrance.

How that relates to the issue of disclosure is that when it does occurs, only one faction cares about it, and the other faction whistles past it as though it didn't even happen, because they can't agree on the source of even that information.

[gehringer_2]

4 hours ago, chasfh said:

I think it is facile to conclude that simply nobody cares. A lot of people care. I care and you care. We're not nobody.

I think the bigger problem is that we have a factionalized mutually exclusive difference in media environments, and consumers of one don't believe environment don't believe the other. One side (RWM) actively and constantly disparaged the journalistic integrity of the other (MSM), which has allowed that side to engage in the exact kind of news fakery they accused the other of, and to get away with it, because they've developed their own version of reality.

So rather than the idea that nobody cares, I think the real problem is that the factions don't trust the same sources, they don't come to an agreement on what's true, then they just retreat to their corners frustrated with the other side for their recalcitrance.

How that relates to the issue of disclosure is that when it does occurs, only one faction cares about it, and the other faction whistles past it as though it didn't even happen, because they can't agree on the source of even that information.

IDK Chas - I won't argue that there are a lot of people who are shallow consumers and have just fallen in with what they happen to hear in the sources they habituate to, but I'd argue there are still waaay too many folks who know full well their media source is fully slanted but that is its exact attraction to them because they simply don't want to hear the facts that are uncomfortable to their chosen believe system. IOW, on your side are the people you identified as conditioned by media, I'll argue on the other side there are the people who choose the media they consume because they have already made the decision that they want their side, right or wrong and they are not going to hold their side to any standard. Or another way to put is that the RWM machine is as much an affirmation service to folks as it is an information news source. And I suppose to that part you can draw the parallel to media on the left. 

Edited 9 hours ago by gehringer_2