ADDED: If I had to argue that Kamala Harris was not lying, I would say that Trump's statement that he will not sign an abortion ban is not security enough. We lost a treasured right after he appointed 3 Supreme Court Justices, and he has touted the overruling of Roe v. Wade as a reason why voters should support him. In that light, we should not trust him to refrain from signing legislation that limits the right to abortion. Kamala Harris can't know what lies in the future if Trump is elected, and she may be sincerely expressing her belief about what he will do.When will politicians, or at least the intern who runs their account, learn that lying on this platform doesn’t work anymore? pic.twitter.com/wP7H4AJFwG
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 1, 2024
By the way, the use of the word "ban" skews this discussion. Few would ban abortion to the point of criminalizing all abortion — including abortion in the earliest weeks of pregnancy and where it is necessary to save the life of the mother. The concern should be about federal law that limits abortion, and it makes sense to think that Trump might sign legislation like that.
Posts
151 comments:
And that is what this election is all about.
Democrat leaders and Democrat voters know that their entire platform is a lie.
There is only one way to maintain that power.
They use repression and force.
Planned Publicationhood
Publication that is not viable will spontaneoualy abort by affirmative choice.
So what if Trump claims he won't sign a nationwide abortion ban. He is a pathological liar who contradicts himself constantly.
'We've got to find a replacement for Joe.
Someone the country can rally around, someone who can win.
Kamala, who do you think?'
It’s not nice to fool with Daddy Elon.
How would an 'abortion ban' bill get through a Senate that will surely have at least 40 Democrat members? It's nonsensical on so many levels.
1. The House (assuming it stays R majority) would have to be incredibly stupid to pass such a bill. (Possible, but highly unlikely)
2. If it passed the House it would die in the Senate on a Dem fillibuster
3. If it got through the Senate (impossible) Trump says he wouldn't sign it. I assume he'd stick to that.
The GOP seems to have coalesced around the fairly sensible proposition that the states should sort this out for themselves. If they stick to that for the next few elections we may finally see the issue receded from national politics.
When will LLR-democratical and other lefties, or at least the morons who runs their accounts, learn that lying on this blogsite doesn’t work anymore?
I like how the Community Notes works. People make suggestions but the note doesn't show until it has enough votes saying it is useful. It also has to have votes (saying it's useful) from people with different points of view. I don't know the behind-the-scenes working of it, but it seems your note suggestion/vote for whether a note should be added has more weight if you are objective in all of your notes/votes.
A number of people want to add notes to tweets that are clearly an opinion or satire. Those get voted down and the note maker is told that it would be better to put that as a reply to the tweet.
I think it works better than "fact checking" on other platforms.
Kamala's lie works on liberal white women. Truth doesn't sway them. It's all pre-conceived emotion.
They are as immovable as Mount Everest.
“Donald Trump would ban abortion nationwide”
Maybe some of our resident Lefties can explain exactly how he would do that.
Drago said...
When will LLR-democratical and other lefties, or at least the morons who runs their accounts, learn that lying on this blogsite doesn’t work anymore?
It does work.
Tribalism is the most powerful force in politics. Fear of being removed from the tribe is the most powerful biological force that exists.
Democrat voters will endure any humiliation and be willing to look absolutely mindless and stupid so long as they are not removed from the tribe.
The only things liberal white women are willing to swallow are Democrat lies.
I’m totally fine with correcting Vice President Harris. Trump’s abortion position(s) merit a lot more discussion. Madame Vice President, drive that wedge more carefully. Right to Life ought to be going crazy over Trump’s weakness as a pro-life advocate. Floridians; your felon-fellow citizen will be voting on your new abortion-restrictions. Find out how he will vote. And then decide about Trump accordingly.
Note to Althouse; I think that Vice President Harris’ post, while perhaps in error, was less mendacious than Trump’s own bloviating about Democrats “killing babies after they are born.” But of course Elon Musk wouldn’t care about that. You don’t seem to either.
Presumably after Trump destroys Our Democracy™ he will decree abortion illegal and grab everybody by the pussy if they have one. Or even Women who don't have one.
LLR-democratical Chuck: "Note to Althouse; I think that Vice President Harris’ post, while perhaps in error, was less mendacious than Trump’s own bloviating about Democrats “killing babies after they are born.” But of course Elon Musk wouldn’t care about that. You don’t seem to either."
Most people don't care about your continued smearing and lies, regardless of platform or blogsite.
Everyone is well acquainted with your pro-post-birth abortion advocacy along with you complete support of the most radical grooming trans agenda for schools and completely wide open borders and.....all the rest of the far left democratical positions including vouching for the soundness of Biden's mind! And your performance screaming into the nighttime sky over the absolute destruction of your Charlottesville "fine people" hoax will live forever next to your other meltdowns.
What a week its been, eh?
Making Kamala look like a bigger ding bat than she already is important to not giving her the open convention nomination.
Scott Adams joked yesterday we are about to find out Kamala has a drinking problem.
How is this a lie? Show your work.
That there may be enough votes in the Senate to block Trump doesn’t make it a lie. That Trump has said something that you interpret as meaning he wouldn’t do it doesn’t make it a lie.
Chuck reminds me of the people who ring my doorbell and try to sell me replacement windows. No money down and no payments for life.
Lying must be working on somebody... otherwise "that which can’t continue, won’t"... and obviously, lying does continue.
In the case of Kamala Harris, the answer to Musk's question is never.
Harris ought to get banned for that malicious untruth. It was done to President Donald Trump for essentially nothing, therefore it is justified to ban the Vice President for substantially more than nothing.
On other platforms this sails through while they scour for "misinformation".
Pretty weak Left Bank.
How do you account for the Supreme Court decision that turns the issue back to the individual states?
That Trump has said something that you interpret as meaning he wouldn’t do it doesn’t make it a lie.
So lemme get this straight: you maintain that there's another way to interpret "I wouldn't support a nationwide ban on abortion" than that Trump wouldn't support a nationwide ban on abortion?
And because you interpret that statement in some crazy dog-whistle way as meaning that he would support a nationwide ban on abortion, presumably personally leading baseball-bat-armed marches on abortion clinics a la Carrie Nation, therefore your interpretation - however much of a stretch it is - is the correct one?
"The only things liberal white women are willing to swallow are Democrat lies."
I think you will find that this isn't quite true.
You can't just say anything you want at Elon's Restaurant.
Jersey Fled: "Pretty weak Left Bank."
You misunderstand. For any normal human, it was pretty weak. For Left Bank, that's as "strong" as it gets.
“Too Big to Rig!!!”
"I think that Vice President Harris’ post, while perhaps in error, was less mendacious than Trump’s own bloviating about Democrats killing babies after they are born."
Who calls out LLR Chuck? For one of many, there's me: Two bill banning later-term abortions blocked by Senate Democrats
And before you spit on me, you should thank me for deleting your mendacious use of quotation marks.
Democrats literally start every issues debate with a lie.
"Reproduce" means to create more of something that is similar to the original. In biology, it means to create offspring.
No one is interfering with your REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOMS. When China used to force an abortion of a woman's second child, that is taking away your reproductive freedoms. When China forcibly sterilized Uighur women, that is taking away your reproductive freedoms.
Every Leftist pro-abortion person I know spouts the lie about "reproductive freedoms".
Kamala Harris says: "President Joe Biden and I will do everything in our power to ... restore women's reproductive freedom."
Question: Where, in this country, are women not free to reproduce?
"Chuck said...
Note to Althouse; I think that Vice President Harris’ post, while perhaps in error, was less mendacious than Trump’s own bloviating about Democrats “killing babies after they are born.” But of course Elon Musk wouldn’t care about that."
Perhaps? And Musk's post was about people lying on X, which Harris did, and not in general, that you falsely accuse Trump of doing dumbfuck. Are you really a lawyer? People you seem to always struggle to put together sound arguments.
I bet Chuck's dog even hates him.
I think that Vice President Harris’ post, while perhaps in error, was less mendacious than Trump’s own bloviating about Democrats “killing babies after they are born.”
Chuck, meet the (former Democrat) governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam.
Democrats define all these babies as non-persons, as sub-human, as property. Abortion doctors kill unborn children all the time. For years, many of them killed babies in the middle of birth. Is it really that surprising that they will kill newborns with handicaps?
The word "crime" appears nowhere in the Constitution so it's hard to see how liberals can possibly think that Trump can be prosecuted for the crimes he committed while he was president. ~ Jonathan Turley
This seems to cut the other way though. Although federal crimes (except for treason blah blah blah) did not exist, "crime" was something known to the FF. It was the defense that (successfully) argued that the Constitution implicitly granted Trump immunity. But, the Constitution doesn't say anything about the president enjoying immunity. The courts made that up. Executive immunity is one of those hidden parts of the Constitution which (depending on whether you are a democrat or a republican) is either prudent or outrageous (depending on whether a republican or democrat is invoking the privilege).
Funny, I think Trump was President for 4 years. Did he push an Abortion ban?
No.
He delivered the one thing he did say he would do: putting specific types of Justices on the bench.
Chuck said:
Note to Althouse; I think that Vice President Harris’ post, while perhaps in error, was less mendacious than Trump’s own bloviating about Democrats “killing babies after they are born.” But of course Elon Musk wouldn’t care about that. You don’t seem to either.
Trump's statement seems mendacious only to the woefully uninformed.
Once you start the process of dilating the cervix for a late term D&E abortion, a small number of babies will in fact be delivered.
Please point me to a single piece of legislation sponsored by Democrats that mandates protection and care for a living, possibly viable human being that is now lying on the table inside a medical facility?
The mother and doctor both wanted the fetus terminated prior to it coming out into the world. Now that it is out in the world, and now undeniably a human baby, both of those actors still want it terminated (killed due to negligence). Witnesses have testified to that exact act occurring. Yet you term it mendacious.
That Trump has said something that you interpret as meaning he wouldn’t do it doesn’t make it a lie.
What makes something a lie is to assert a fact that is not supported by any evidence but rather has counterfactual evidence that undermines it.
It is a lie because nothing Trump has said indicates that he would do any such thing, but lots of statements that he would not and Kamal does not provide any evidence for her assertion counter to what is known.
Just because YOU believe, in your heart of hearts that Trump would so such a thing (or any other thing you ascribe to Trump, sans facts) does make that something true.
Trump is the monster under your bed. It exists in your mind and you cower, shaking under your blanket every night, but when the flashlight wielded by your daddy shows there is nothing there, you are not convinced, for as soon as he leaves the room, you are certain the monster has returned.
"Yet you term it mendacious."
You have to remember who you're talking to. The left calls abortions "reproductive care", I guess they're afraid "killing unborn babies" won't poll so well.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
How is this a lie? Show your work.
That there may be enough votes in the Senate to block Trump doesn’t make it a lie. That Trump has said something that you interpret as meaning he wouldn’t do it doesn’t make it a lie.
Again this just highlights how dishonest democrats are.
They also support censorship of people they disagree with based on their lies. They are just bad faith actors at this point.
They do not belong in a free society.
"That there may be enough votes in the Senate to block Trump doesn’t make it a lie. That Trump has said something that you interpret as meaning he wouldn’t do it doesn’t make it a lie. "
Good Lord. Kamala did not say she thought Trump would ban abortions. She did not say her OPINION is that Trump lied about not banning abortions. She said, completely without evidence, that Trump WOULD ban abortions.
There's your lie, Lefty.
And levels of mendacity? Great idea Chuck. How high up the scale 1-10 do you put the no troops killed during my time in office. Eleven doesn't come close.
How is this a lie? Show your work.
That's not how the system works.
The person making the accusation has the burden of proof.
Placing the burden on the listener is just more dishonesty.
Right to Life ought to be going crazy over Trump’s weakness as a pro-life advocate.
Really - the one person in the last 50 years to effect change in Right to Life's favor?
Blogger Old and slow said...
"The only things liberal white women are willing to swallow are Democrat lies."
I think you will find that this isn't quite true.
I'm gonna stick with my assumption that for man hating liberal women this is quite true.
Wow. They really are shameless.
"The only things liberal white women are willing to swallow are Democrat lies."
Perhaps not all liberal white women... women-women.
Liberalism is a philosophy of divergence.
White refers to People of Albino... the anti-Rainbow in human context.
Women is a transitory concept under the Pro-Choice religion that has adopted gender in order to be equivocal and inclusive of the transgender spectrum.
Kamala "take a knee" Harris... a true, blue, pethaps green Democratic. #HerToo
OK, lying on the platform may not work anymore, but what about off the platform, you know, in the real world, among pro-abortion LIVs?
Interesting tweet, though. Right after they've been exposed as rabid gaslighters lying about Biden's acuity, here they go again, on the assumption that their voters will eat it up and they will not be held accountable.
I thought Twitter was going to be abandoned by the techy types needed to run it?
Right to Life ought to be going crazy over Trump’s weakness as a pro-life advocate.
Demos-cracy is aborted in darkness... is a sad fact of reality. The goal is to encourage positive choices and functional behaviors in order to sustain a viable civilization.
Kamala has no kids.
Once upon a time, one had to be a member of the informed, underground proletariat to know this:
"“We know that they are lying, they know that they are lying, they even know that we know they are lying, we also know that they know we know they are lying too, they of course know that we certainly know they know we know they are lying too as well, but they are still lying. In our country, the lie has become not just moral category, but the pillar industry of this country.”
Now, were it not for Elon, one of our greatest patriots, we would still be in that underclass. But now, it's out in the open. Sunlight surely cures the festering social pustule, but it's a slow cure. The scabby pillar will just a surely crumble.
Doesn't Elon understand that it is illegal for a social media platform to factcheck a Democrat?
The word "crime" appears nowhere in the Constitution
What about "high crimes and misdemeanors"?
I will say again: with birth control and morning-after pills easily available, why is "reproductive freedom" such a concern?
Married, in a relationship, or promiscuous, birth control.
Occasional, or unexpected hook-up, morning after.
Seems Dr. assisted abortion should be extremely rare.
Scott Adams joked yesterday we are about to find out Kamala has a drinking problem.
Drinking / swallowing, potato / pototo..
(Yes that is a bit crude but this DEI hire has no place in politics let alone the WH. She is easily in the top 10 of the dumbest politicians of all time and THAT is saying something.)
"Restore women's reproductive freedom"
Women have never been more reproductively free than at any time in human history. These hags are literally trying to make an oppression argument out of whether or not they can kill their baby within 3 months of pregnancy or before it practically can breath outside air on its own.
At this point, I am fucking through with women and their "reproductive freedom". Civilization is wasted on these hysterics. We are throwing pearls before swine.
Posting to Twitter is already a sign of being disconnected from their base, who except for journalists and talking heads have moved to other platforms.
Kamala comes of as out of touch as Biden, which is a damn low bar.
Shorter Mark,
"Twitter is so crowded no one goes there any more."
How is this a lie? Show your work.
"Kamala said, without evidence." That's how the DNC-Media do it.
"That Trump has said something that you interpret as meaning he wouldn’t do it doesn’t make it a lie."
Suppose somebody says Left Bank intends to molest children and LB denies that he'd ever do that. Using your logic, that claim (Left Bank intends to molest children) is not necessarily a lie.
This is why they hate Twitter. I think that this is why the coup in Bolivia failed. Social media gets to the truth quickly, and America's reputation is now a fetid corpse in much of the world, so that people won't go along who once did, or simply acquiesced.
Let's see
Bolivia has the largest known lithium deposits in the world.
Two weeks prior, Bolivia's president was in St Petersburg at Putin's economic forum, and met with Putin.
Bolivia cut diplomatic relations with Israel over Gaza.
Easy peasy, we dial up a coup, the soldiers all go along, the people just assume that it's business as usual, and shrug their shoulders. The US has a new pliable leader, and we bring those lithium deposits back under Western control!
Except us people know stuff now that we didn't used to know. The US is squandering its "soft power" in a huge heaping pyre. It's not "traitorous" to think that the US can do better, and that the first step is to get Biden/Harris out of the White House. I think that our future depends on it.
Harris publishes a handmade tale on bended knee.
Anthropogenic Intelligence (AI)
Massively correlated automaton constructs are a first-order forcing of climate change.
I do hope we get to see a debate between Harris and whoever Trump’s VP choice is.
Blogger Mark said..."Posting to Twitter is already a sign of being disconnected from their base, who except for journalists and talking heads have moved to other platforms."
Don't the journalists and talking heads know there is nobody there anymore? Why are they still posting there?
Are over the top predictions lies?
Because, if these are lies, there’s a lot more lying going on than truth telling or anything else.
“And that is what this election is all about.
Democrat leaders and Democrat voters know that their entire platform is a lie.
There is only one way to maintain that power.
They use repression and force.”
They know it’s ALL lies and they don’t care. Willful blindness and masochism run rampant among their flea bitten hordes.
"You're taking what I said out of context!"
X adds context.
"Oh shit."
Here’s a compilation from Orfalea, page fronted by sweet Elon.
X video: The best fresh example of repeating a lie often enough
Chuck reminds me of the people who ring my doorbell and try to sell me replacement windows.
Interesting. He reminds me of the kid who would leave a bag of dogshit on the porch, light it on fire and run away.
lying on this platform doesn't work anymore
Don't we have Musk to thank for the context feature?
The left has been prattling about Russian disinformation and all the lies endangering our elections and how we need the government to save us from bad speech.
The left imagines a world where the government reads everything and censors what it wants to censor.
Musk adds a nice little feature where citizens can add speech to the disinformation. Bringing speech to respond to speech. Good speech educating us about the dishonest speech. Free speech!
Harris spreads lies in order to protect abortion "rights" -- it's the only freedom the left respects. It's the right to terminate an unwanted child. They'll fight for that one, tooth and nail. And they'll lie to protect it.
But free speech? They don't believe in it.
Needs a "Things that wouldn't happen on Old Twitter" tag.
Elon Musk always lies as he likes to do on Xitter, but the guy with a $46 Billion salary from Tesla (which BTW. does not count take-home funds from SpaceX, The Boring Company, Starlink, XAI, Neuralink, Tesla Energy, and X, previously known as Twitter).
Cat Lady gadfly: "Elon Musk always lies as he likes to do on Xitter..."
What a joke you are.
Kudos to Elon Musk to using his great wealth to protect the freedom of speech in his adapted land.
God bless you!
Original Mike said...
"...Don't the journalists and talking heads know there is nobody there anymore? Why are they still posting there?"
It's too crowded. Nobody goes there any more.
Oh gadfly shows up to baselessly call people liars and to obsess over other people's money.
I bet he's big sad that the Delaware Court of Common Pleas trashed its once sterling reputation to "get Musk" on behalf of the Bidens, who Hunter said in one of his emails on the laptop, personally knew all of the judges, and that they owed their careers to his dad, and then Musk moved Tesla out of Delaware to Texas, and lo and behold, the unprecedented, excuse me, the decision that "went where no court dared to go before this" according to the judge, is reversed, but the stain on the Delaware Chancery Court is forever.
"Chuck reminds me of the people who ring my doorbell and try to sell me replacement windows."
Jim at: "Interesting. He reminds me of the kid who would leave a bag of dogshit on the porch, light it on fire and run away."
He reminds me of the kid who would leave a bag of dogshit on the porch, light it on fire, run away, trip over the "Trump 2024" sign in the yard, stop in anger and try to pull it out only to discover that is secured into the ground and electrified (from previous "Chuck's" serial sign thefts), gets electrical burns on hands, runs away crying, goes home, applies the wrong salve, makes the burns worse, goes to the emergency room, tells the doctor that 2 MAGA guys attacked him and made him grab the sign while they screamed "This is MAGA Country", and then goes home and goes online to search for a real lawyer to sue the homeowner/owner of the "Trump 2024" sign, and then goes on Althouse blog to announce he really hates Trump World and then goes to his weekly therapist visit and punches his therapist in the mouth.
Jim,
Chuck reminds me of Eddie Haskell, minus the remaining teen innocence.
Sorry, it's the "Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas" that rules over election issues, and which the DoJ has said has many judges who got their position by ballot stuffing, but the DoJ won't tell us which ones, of course. Doesn't matter, the Delaware Court's reputation is now trash.
Fred Drinkwater: "Jim,
Chuck reminds me of Eddie Haskell, minus the remaining teen innocence."
LLR-democratical Chuck is always at his cringiest, creepiest and greasiest when he goes Full Eddie Haskell mode with Althouse. His patronizing and condescending personal directives to Althouse and Meade almost always immediately follow these Eddie Haskell moments, usually with a tinge of borderline verbal violence lurking in the dark shadows of his directives.
It seems like only yesterday gadfly the Cat Lady was pretending to understand spaceflight and proclaiming, and he literally did proclaim this, that SpaceX was not a "real" space company and Elon and SpaceX should leave the space stuff to "the real scientists".
FYI, this year SpaceX is expected to deliver 90% of ALL material launched to orbit. That includes all other private launch services AND all other government launches.
SpaceX has already driven the russki's out of the commercial launch business and is squeezing the living hell out of the ChiCom's.
Since both the russkis and ChiComs are amongst the pay masters of the Biden Crime Family, this naturally makes li'l gadfly very very upset, leading to moronic gadfly claims of Musk lying.
tsk tsk tsk
Nothing worse than a grown man Cat Lady hanging out in his basement complaining about real men doing real stuff in the real world and kicking astonishing arse while advancing human knowledge and capabilities by leaps and bounds in ways that were said to be impossible!
Poor gadfly. Envy is a kind of ugly thing to display.
Drago at 3:25pm, that was hilarious!
I do hope we get to see a debate between Harris and whoever Trump’s VP choice is.
I think Trump has options for his VP choice that bring more to the table than Vivek, but boy oh boy, wouldn't you like to see that guy debate Willie Brown's airheaded concubine?
BTW, looking ridiculous is not a deterrent.
See pride month parades.
"Interesting. He reminds me of the kid who would leave a bag of dogshit on the porch, light it on fire and run away."
Close, but Chuck is the kid who would leave a bag of dogshit on the porch, light it on fire, run away, and only then notice it was his house.
Ok, Drago knocked it out the park and I withdraw my feeble attempt at accurately describing Chuck.
@Mark: Posting to Twitter is already a sign of being disconnected from their base, who except for journalists and talking heads have moved to other platforms.
@Original Mike: Don't the journalists and talking heads know there is nobody there anymore? Why are they still posting there?
Have they though? I see the same old leftwing loudmouths there constantly. There is always a torrent of spittle-flecked leftist invective any time something goes well for Trump.
Musk says last month X/Twitter usage set an all-time record. We know they got rid of an army of bots too, so their success is even more authentic and impressive.
Facebook's "Threads" is said to be a ghost town, although I wouldn't know, having never been there. Mastodon is a left-wing echo chamber with a minuscule fraction of X's user base. Reddit's numbers are reportedly plummeting, as they become ever more paranoid and censorious against any deviations from urban left-wing groupthink. 4Chan was for a time a bastion of 190-proof free speech, amidst much garbage to be sure, but all their thoughtful and high-functioning commenters have gone back to Twitter since the defenestration of the Thought Police, and nothing but garbage remains.
What else is there? I don't use Instagram or TikTok, but they don't strike me as the kind of sites where you can carry on a meaningful conversation.
I think X is going to come through the Musk transition stronger than Twitter ever was, and certainly more prosperous, after sacking the 75% or so of their employees who either did nothing useful at all, or were part of the disinformation witch-hunters doing the most to ruin the place.
grab everybody by the pussy if they have one. Or even Women who don't have one.
=====================
world learned that lesson from Crocodile Dundee is worth following
You can see how the left has isolated themselves from any kind of critical thinking, sealing themselves off from the back and forth of real discussions, the way the adults do it, and then when they do venture out into the real world, they are completely blind to how ridiculous their arguments sound to people who don't hate the same people they do, and love the same people they do.
You could take this argument by Chuck, for example, and put in in the encyclopedia of a perfect example of attribution fallacy, when talking about the "suckers and losers" lie.
"It *sounds* like Trump!"
That argument makes no sense unless you hate Trump viscerally, but Chuck thinks that it carries some kind of weight. It's one of those arguments that is only convincing to people who already believed it, so why bother even saying it? That's Mastadon. People all agreeing with each other, afraid to defend their ideas in the public square, which is what Twitter is, the world-wide public square.
It's amazing too how Democrats now cut themselves off from the rest of the world by abandoning Twitter.
Yancey Ward: "Ok, Drago knocked it out the park and I withdraw my feeble attempt at accurately describing Chuck."
Nonsense.
You kicked it off!
"I think X is going to come through the Musk transition stronger than Twitter ever was, and certainly more prosperous, after sacking the 75% or so of their employees who either did nothing useful at all, or were part of the disinformation witch-hunters doing the most to ruin the place."
Now, if *someone* would just sack that same 75% of the federal bureaucracy (although I'm open to the idea that the percentage of employees who do nothing useful is higher than that.)
"Comments may need to pass through moderation. Comments should respond to material raised in the post. I encourage brevity and substance and discourage personal attacks and repetition. You must use a name or pseudonym. The non-name "unknown" is not accepted."
I'm wondering how many different iterations of the commenting instruction that Althouse has gone through. She's even gone through different names for the instruction itself. Rules; suggestions; pleas; whatever.
Whatever you call it; however you enforce it; what you've done is to cultivate a fever-swamp of TrumpWing extremists resistant to any normal debate or even conversational standards. You've done it without resorting to extremist language yourself, of course. You've done it with your curation of blog posts, and with years of selective comments moderation.
telegram is good on some things, like election issues and foreign policy, Rumble for long form presentations,
even the left wing publications like the nation, have become worse for wear in the last 15 years as they subscribed to administrative balderdash,
I would argue that General Zuniga, did try to reverse the monopoly, on lithium that Russia ha gained, but you need a plan, like Admiral Painter put it,
getting back to the lovely and gracious kamala, whose record in oakland was to put innocent people in jail, and fail to convict the guilty
Interesting. He reminds me of the kid who would leave a bag of dogshit on the porch, light it on fire and run away.
=========
does he has diaper run gig with WH for supplies?
Chuck, were the rules enforced strictly you would be the first commenter banned because of the non-subject comments and the endless repetition of your Trump obsessions. Just because you manage to post one on-topic comment out ten is irrelevant.
Now go step into dogshit like the moron you are.
LLR-democratical Chuck: "I'm wondering how many different iterations of the commenting instruction that Althouse has gone through. She's even gone through different names for the instruction itself. Rules; suggestions; pleas; whatever."
She has even banned several commenters. In particular, Chuck.
But Chuck refuses to honor the banning and returns time and again to vomit on every thread in an attempt to turn Althouse blog into a fever swamp of far left democratical/MSNBC-wing fanatacism filled with Rupar-level mendacity and democratical hoax narratives.
LLR-democratical Chuck has, since his banning, brought aboard several "helpers" in his attempt to burn down Althouse blog.
Fortunately, he and his pals have been fully exposed which has led to them being utterly ineffective in their primary task of advancing far left democratical policies and politicians while posing as fake conservatives and life long republicans.
Hence Chuck's frustration and constant whining and crying and childish complaints targeted at Althouse.
"but you need a plan, like Admiral Painter put it,"
I think the plan was that Bolivians would go along with Uncle Sugar in the end, because they always have. The coups that seem to stick lately are coming from the other side, like Niger. This is a reflection on the parlous state of American soft power, that these things are going the other way on us. We have abused our status as the hegemon. I think that the neocons go to the original meaning of "guide" for that word, and wear it proudly, and the rest of the world views it as "abuser." The two meanings are not incompatible with a single reality.
we discovered during covid, how ritualistically they enforced certain notions like the needs for lockdowns, which was not only not based on any science, but counter to human nature,
but thanks to Yascha Munk, a German idiot who was the johnny appleseed of social distancing, a
whole swath of society, was driven into anxiety depresssion and rage, of course he had no actual research behind him, subsequently he says oh sorry about that, here's another bit of trash psychology i'm passing on,
it didn't matter if you were on either end of the Atlantic, near the poles Down Under, with the exception of Sweden or maybe a few baltic states, they all bought this malarky
same for so called Antifa and BLM, properly the Weather underground and the Black Liberation, interspersed with Brigatte Rossi, Red Army Faction, maybe a little Action Directe, attack on law enforcement on behalf of criminals and terrorists,
Kamala Tweet reeks of desperation.
@Gadfly said @ 15:18: "Elon Musk always lies as he likes to do on Xitter, but the guy with a $46 Billion salary from Tesla (which BTW. does not count take-home funds from SpaceX, The Boring Company, Starlink, XAI, Neuralink, Tesla Energy, and X, previously known as Twitter)...."
Now, Elon said this: "When will politicians, or at least the intern who runs their account, learn that lying on this platform doesn’t work anymore?
1. Can you please help me by pointing out the lie, in which otherwise appears to be a self-evidently truthful comment, adequately supported by third parties?
2. Can you please tell us what you meant to say, in a comprehensible version?
3. Is there something inherently wrong with being famously wealthy, as a product of being productively innovative at a genius level? Perhaps you could compare what you've accomplished for mankind this week, alongside Elon. Let's make it easy: Let's compare what you've accomplished for mankind over your lifetime with Elon, this week.
I notice that Kamala's lie didn't result in the comment being taken down or get the liar banned.
Because that's what the left would have done.
The VP is a lying liar who lies?
gee - we are all so shocked. On top of complete moron - Kamala is a lying liar who lies.
" Let's compare what you've accomplished for mankind over your lifetime with Elon, this week."
Just a guess, but there's always the chance he's managed to get the Cheeto dust out of his nostrils at some point in time. If you allow for the possibility that he's part of mankind, that's got to count for something.
unlike zuckerberg or brin or who owns instagram, Musk is not in on the WEF agenda, thats the outlier,
it wasn't accidental, that when they came to writing iron man, they borrowed as much from musk, as with howard hughes who was the original inspiration, and musk had a cameo in the second film,
Elon is a blunt instrument, much like trump in his own way, maybe a little like Tesla (it's not a coincidence he named his flagship after the quixotic Serbian wunderkind,
don't forget elderberries,
Yes, Kamala smells of elderberries, too.
It has been hilarious reading the comments from the Left about how Biden is now free to be Dark Brandon, "So watch out, Trumpers!"
Good times.
Trump is also going to kill all the gays.
Liz Cheney said so.
Gadfly said
Elon Musk always lies as he likes to do on Xitter, but the guy with a $46 Billion salary from Tesla (which BTW. does not count take-home funds from SpaceX, The Boring Company, Starlink, XAI, Neuralink, Tesla Energy, and X, previously known as Twitter)...."
Calling the $46BN "salary" is pretty stupid even for you. It is a one time payment, agreed to 10 years or so ago, payable only if he met certain goals. He met them and a pretty large majority of his fellow Tesla Corp owners agreed to pay.
My understanding is that he does not draw any salary or other regular compensation from Tesla.
Ditto his other companies.
I don't think he has ever received dividends from the other companies because they don't pay any.
Bezos, while still employed at Amazon, famously drew $89,000 (yup, thousand) in annual salary and no other compensation. No dividends
Warren Buffett at Berkshire-Hathaway, was paid something like $150,000/yr and no other compensation. Ditto no dividends.
Musk, on his $46bn will probably pay more income taxes this year than Bezos, Buffett and others have paid total in their lives.
Not having income is a good way to avoid paying income taxes.
Need some walking around money? Peel off a $billion in stock, pay the tax on that, put $600mm in a checking account and you can live pretty well with zero income. $15mm/year for the next 40 years. Rinse, repeat in 2064.
"Adam Smith" (George Goodman) wrote an excellent book about this in the 70s called "Supermoney" still in print 50 years later. His book "The Money Game" is still in print after 60 years and is an excellent read.
John Henry
Cry more Chuck.
Sending out the virtue signal is its own reward. One gets pleasure from the sending, not having it received, rebutted, or rejected.
Sending out the virtue signal is its own reward. One gets pleasure from the sending, not having it received, rebutted, or rejected.
He keeps crashing into the side of the cliff like the Coyote, who imagine him with the sign with the exclamation point, then goes back to Acme products
The non-name "unknown" is not accepted.
Now I'm trying to recall the name in And Then There Were None. Ah, yes: U. N. Owen. Of course, that was really Justice Wargrave. (Which is an interesting last name as well)
Darkisland: "My understanding is that he does not draw any salary or other regular compensation from Tesla."
The billions Musk is to receive is due to his hitting what was literally described as "impossible financial and valuation targets" and Musk was laughed at during that time in 2018.
Musk hit the "impossible" targets early.
Early.
And the compensation is to be in the form of an additional stock issue to Musk and designed to raise his overall ownership share close to 25% of the overall company. A level Musk has always said that he needed to ensure continuing on the path of the strategic vision for the company he outlined long ago. Having a lesser % of the company makes that difficult.
Musk has previously said the biggest mistake he ever made with Tesla was going public. Thats why he wont ever go public with his other companies.
Ann, you're going to have to trust him when he says it was right to send it back to the states. That's where it belongs and where it will stay.
You need to trust him. Just like Americans did when Obama told them over and over again that they could keep their doctor and their health insurance company. Until he signed the bill and then they couldn't.
"...ADDED: If I had to argue that Kamala Harris was not lying, I would say that ..."
Accusing other people of lying is the standard Democrat response to an argument they can't win, or an issue that is indefensible. Trump pointed out, during the debate, that partial birth abortions are still be undertaken and Biden pounced, denouncing it as a 'lie'. But it's not a lie, it's demonstrably true.
At the very least, If Trump were to make a pronouncement similar to Harris', it would come with the NYT Malinformation General's warning:'Trump claims, Without Evidence, that.....' The Citizen Fact Checkers at X are just keeping the narrative spinners from presenting made-up bullsh*t as fact, and it's driving them crazy - 'the Idea! of holding us to the same dirty standard we use to beat others over the head ! The Idea!'
He is a pathological liar who contradicts himself constantly.
Says someone who clearly paid no rational attention to Trump's first term; that is, one of the remarkable features of his term in office was the fact (vividly contrasted with the flagrant lack of same by the large bulk of all “professional” politicians) that Trump did actually seriously attempt to live up to the promises he made prior to the (2016) election as well as while President-elect and President.
I think Trump understands the third rail nature of a national abortion ban. He’s indicated in the past that it’s critical to win elections in order to implement popular policies. A national abortion ban would suck all the oxygen out of the rest of any agenda. The issue needs to percolate in the states, and it will take longer than four years for any consensus to form that could remotely be deemed ready for national deployment, if that were ever the goal. Why undercut or bypass the work of the states after all the effort to have them own it?
In Stork she Trusts.
'Third rail' is right. What handling it at the state level does, I think, is to make the powerful minority interests that have been inflaming politics for the past 50 years, to own and operate their positions on a local, more accessible basis. Want abortions for everyone, a fetus in every pot at every corner? Own it, state representative, state senator, and be prepared to explain yourself. Want to ban even thinking about abortions? Own it, state representative, state senator. It brings it home and forces each to think about what it means.
The Supreme Courts ruling overturning Roe vs Wade also effectively rules out any Federal Ban on abortion because it states that the Federal Government has no power to make laws in respect of it. Anyone saying that the Federal Government could pass a law doing so doesn't understand the decision, and sadly based on her update that includes our host.
Everyone has a faith, religion, and ideology to realize them. However, unlike slavery, Diversity, etc, demos-cracy can be aborted in darkness, which would make aborting human rites a sincerely counterproductive choice.
Abortion is not legitimately a Federal issue.
Trump quite properly celebrated that he appointed people to SCOTUS who eliminated the Constitutional abomination of Roe v Wade.
That also causes him, like me, to oppose a national abortion ban
Because abortion isn't a Federal issue
"We lost a treasured right..." WTF? The right to do away with inconvenient future offspring? Treasured? Whenever the barbarians arrive at the gates we will deserve the outcome.
"We lost a treasured right…"
No, the decision on the right was returned to the individual states. In Michigan we passed a Constitutional Amendment (2022's Proposal 3) which included a provision that "...in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual."
Of course, all health care professionals have the ethics of Marcus Welby — but think about the size of that loophole if they don't. "Doctor, I'm depressed about this baby" or "Doctor, I'm distraught because my boyfriend says he's not ready for a baby" — well, depression and distraughtion (?) are aspects of mental health, aren't they? Same thing goes for physical health — the normal pregnancy side effects like backaches, tiredness, etc can all be related to physical health. And the Proposal also made any criminal penalties related to abortions unconstitutional - so the Dr. Not-Welby folks have a free pass if they decide to write that recommendation.
The language that I quoted DID NOT appear in the ballot summary on election day… funny how that worked.
Because abortion isn't a Federal issue
No, homicide is a state and local jurisdiction issue.
Michigan of Whitmer conspiracy and her Choice in Planned Parent/hood that will forever live in infamy.
Democrats banned abortion... past a walking viability date. That should be a sincere phobia for Harris.
A reasonable place to start is with the statutory criteria for human life deemed worthy of life in all 50 states, and perhaps DC that operates in its own peculiar jurisdiction.
So, six weeks and self... not selfiesh defense. #NoJudgment #NoLabels #NoDiscretionaryCruelAndUnusualPunishments
Abortion is not legitimately a Federal issue.
Classifying human beings as "non-persons"
and putting them outside the law
so that you can kill them
is definitely a federal issue
re-read the 14th Amendment
State discrimination against innocent people is definitely a thing
And it's unconstitutional
The Supreme Court's ruling overturning Roe vs Wade also effectively rules out any Federal Ban on abortion
You're mistaken. The Supreme Court did not mention the 10th Amendment, nor did it say anything like what you are saying. Certainly federalism is implicit from its opinion. But Alito's opinion was tight. All he did was wipe Roe v. Wade from the books. (That means, for instance, that Blackmun's finding that an unborn baby is a "non-person" is also gone).
it states that the Federal Government has no power to make laws in respect of it.
I don't think the opinion says that at all. That would be kind of insane. It is language like in our Bill of Rights. "Congress has no power to regulate abortions." You are saying that abortion is a right and that the federal government can't abridge it. Bullshit! And you're also saying that Dobbs explicitly says that? Bullshit again. Re-read the opinion and quote the language that says what you think it does.
I repeat, Alito's opinion was tight.
If Kamala is the nominee, the fight over abortion will definitely come up.
I suspect that's all she wants to talk about. She definitely doesn't want to talk about the job she did stopping illegal immigration.
If I had to argue that Kamala Harris was not lying, I would say that Trump's statement that he will not sign an abortion ban is not security enough. We lost a treasured right after he appointed 3 Supreme Court Justices, and he has touted the overruling of Roe v. Wade as a reason why voters should support him. In that light, we should not trust him to refrain from signing legislation that limits the right to abortion.
I think Trump should say that Dobbs was a great opinion, and the Supreme Court was very brave to overturn Roe v. Wade, in the face of a liberal assassin who wanted to kill them. He should say that Republicans are pro-life, and we want to protect everybody, including unborn children. We know what a woman is, and we know what a person is.
Pro-Life Talking Points
The Biden administration has bypassed the legistive route by issuing so many executive orders that the VP may need to be forgiven for assuming Trump would just issue an executive order banning abortions.
1. I think that Trump wanted it to go back to the States. That's what he said.
2. If there was a Congressional law, lowering the age at which the unborn baby can be aborted to that of most of continental Europe - 13-16 weeks (the UK is an outlier at 24 weeks) then probably Trump would sign it. But I can't see how such a law gets through the House and Senate, and anyway, it's not a ban.
If you had to argue Trump did not take away a precious right from Kamala or Ann: Neither of you have standing.
It wasn’t a “treasured” right Mrs. constitutional scholar. The democrats had over 50 years to make it a right, but they preferred the issue as a fund raiser and get out the vote issue. I mean what the fuck.
https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/28/here-are-the-20-biggest-whoppers-biden-told-during-his-debate-with-trump/
None of you leftist cocksuckers are naming any lies. Here are Biden’s. Now get us a list.
No less than RBG herself warned that something like Dobbs was inevitable. Perhaps the dominant theme of recent SCOTUS actions has been “Congress should do their job” with “lower courts should do their jobs” in second place. If we had honest evenhanded reporting more intelligent public discussion of these things could take place.
Drago said...
You forgot to add creepy. The guys a stalker. I bet he smells of wee and old milk.
“I don't think he has ever received dividends from the other companies because they don't pay any.”
Uhmmm … growth companies typically don’t pay dividends. They reinvest earnings in the company itself to gain a higher return for their investors.
BTW how many dividends did Twitter (pre-musk) pay?
I’ll give you a hint. None.
"You can lie at Elon's place, but you'll look ridiculous."
'You can tell any lie you want,
at Elon's X Restaurant.'
I read the Roe decision in ConLaw class, and it was terrible. There was a lot of convoluted reasoning in an attempt to find a right to privacy in the Constitution, and they couldn't do it.
And that's not even taking into account the irony of saying a woman has a right to kill a healthy fetus, but not the right to refuse a vaccine.
Roe was a terrible decision and one of many from an activist court that wanted the power to change America.
Quite right, Jersey Fled.
But some non-growth companies like Berkshire-Hathaway do not pay dividends either. Buffett has said that the reason for this is:
1) B-H has more and better investment opportunities than the individual investor
2) If they paid dividends the recipient would be taxed twice. Once at the corporate level and again at the individual.
When I read "The Money Game" I was impressed by a chapter on Warren-Buffett. At that time, 77-78 or so, B-H was trading at about $300. I thought it too expensive and did not buy any. I had some extra money in the late 80s but it was a couple thousand a share and I didn't buy any then because it was too expensive.
Current price $610,190.22
I guess we could argue that B-H is a growth company in a sense. All companies are or try to be. But not in the sense that I think you were using it above.
John Henry
" Saint Croix said...
The Supreme Court's ruling overturning Roe vs Wade also effectively rules out any Federal Ban on abortion
You're mistaken. The Supreme Court did not mention the 10th Amendment, nor did it say anything like what you are saying. Certainly federalism is implicit from its opinion. But Alito's opinion was tight. All he did was wipe Roe v. Wade from the books. (That means, for instance, that Blackmun's finding that an unborn baby is a "non-person" is also gone)."
Lets skip right past the part of the Constitution where the Federal Government has all rights expressly specified and all other rights are reserved to the states.
Please point me to the section of the constitution that grants the Federal Government the power to regulate abortion. There's a reason the logic in Roe vs Wade was so tortured.
If you can't then - then that power is vested in the states, not the Federal Government.
St Croiix - your reliance on the 14th Amendment for Congress to pass a law is dependent on a feoetus meeting the definition of a person - something that it does not in US law. So please point elsewhere for the basis for a Federal Abortion law. Many people assume Federal Congress can pass any law it wants - and you seem to be of that school of thought given you believe it "unthinkable" that they can't.
US Federalism divides power between the state and the federal governments. If the Feds aren't explicitly given a right to legislate - that rests with the states. Which was what overturning RvW did.
Dobbs did not address the issue of whether a foetus was a person. However implicit in its reasoning is that it did not overturn that component of Roe v Wade because in RvW it was stated that if a foetus was a person then NO FURTHER ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A BREACH OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT. By proceeding with the analysis and overturning Roe on other grounds, the prior interpretation of a person for 14th amendment purposes is still judicial precedent. If your interpretation was correct - no further discussion would have been required by the Supreme Court.
St Croix - your reliance on the 14th Amendment for Congress to pass a law is dependent on a feoetus meeting the definition of a person - something that it does not in US law.
A person is a live human being. Look it up if you don't know what a word means. I know what a person is like I know what a woman is.
As I said earlier, claiming unborn children are not people went out when Roe v. Wade was overruled. That's the opinion that defined unborn babies as non-people, as sub-human, as property.
Your position, that federal authorities can define unborn babies -- or women -- as "non-persons" is a lie.
I say to you the word "person" is not a legal term of art. It's a simple, ordinary word. You don't have to go to law school to know what a person is. A person is a live human being.
When you play semantic games with words in order to classify human beings as non-people, you're doing a dangerous thing.
Who are you citing for your claim that an unborn baby is not a person? That opinion that was wiped off the books?
Dobbs did not address the issue of whether a foetus was a person. However implicit in its reasoning is that it did not overturn that component of Roe v Wade
Holy shit, Cameron.
You have to know that the Supreme Court, citing stare decisis, already upheld part of Roe v. Wade and overturned part of Roe v. Wade. That shit-show, one of the longest opinions in the U.S. Reports, was Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
In Dobbs the Supreme Court, explicitly and without mercy, overruled Roe and Casey.
And now you're telling us that they actually kept the "babies aren't people" section of Roe? The part of the opinion that cites slavery law for its analysis? That's the part that's still good?
if a foetus was a person then NO FURTHER ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A BREACH OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT.
Why are you all-capping me?
Why do you think recognizing the humanity of unborn children silences all arguments?
States have rules in place in regard to when human beings die. Applying equal protection means that unborn children should have the protections of those rules.
Pro-Life Talking Points.
Post a Comment