Here we go, Snowy has a goofy idea ....................

I can already imagine the reactions to the follow suggestion, but here goes anyways:

Joe Biden might be old, but somehow he got a lot of bills passed. He did a decent job. In my opinion. Even on the border he has vowed to secure it if a bipartisan bill lands on his desk that includes funding for Ukraine. Well, Trump said no, because he didn't want Biden to have a "victory."

That aside, the perceptions against Biden are two-fold. He is too old and no one seems to want the idea of a Kamala Harris becoming President if something happens to Joe.

Not saying I have anything against her, but there is enough negative press and negative enthusiasm about her being VP, that it might be prudent for Biden to jettison her. However, if he does, he will be accused of dumping a woman of color. Well, I might have a solution.

Name Nikki Haley as his running mate. Yes yes, I know she might bulk. But would she? She wants to be President. She might have a better chance of getting there than sticking with the Republicans if Joe Biden can't complete his next term.

Many reasons I thought this might work. A woman of color. Someone not totally MAGA. She would bring a lot of independent votes into the Biden camp. Now don't be throwing any fits at my suggestion, because quite frankly - She definitely could. Maybe not a majority, but enough to turn the election. Also, consider the optics. A liberal President with a conservative VP. I mean even that Republican Abraham Lincoln picked a Democrat as his running mate - Andrew Johnson.

Now everyone on here, left OR right can tell me my idea is totally goofy. 

News bits: Choo-choo train company sleaze; Etc.

From the Corrupt Capitalism & Politics Files: A year after East Palestine derailment, rail industry blocks new safety rules -- The nation’s largest rail operators — including Norfolk Southern, the freight railroad behind the 2023 accident — have sought to weaken proposed regulations that might prevent chemical spills and other incidents .... Rail industry lobbyists also fought the Biden administration on even the most basic upgrades, from efforts to ensure that engineers have special breathing equipment onboard to new rules that would require miles-long trains to be staffed with more than one person. The staunch opposition has bogged down some federal action while leaving Congress unable to hold a single vote on rail safety legislation in the House or Senate.

From the Failing Rule of Law Files: Slowpoke federal appeals court puts 2024 election in jeopardy -- It is approaching four weeks since a federal appeals court considered Donald Trump’s audacious claim that he should enjoy absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for his actions as president. Under ordinary circumstances, it can take months for appellate judges to produce a ruling. In the current case, this delay borders on unconscionable. It plays right into Trump’s hands.

From the Well, Duh!, They Watch Faux News (or don't watch anything) Files:  Most Republicans aren’t aware of Trump’s various legal issues -- Polling released by CNN on Thursday shows that only a quarter of voters seek out news about the campaign; a third pay little to no attention at all. As it turns out, even major developments often fly under the average American’s radar. New polling conducted by YouGov shows that only a bit over half of the country on average is aware of the various legal challenges Trump faces. And among those Republicans on whose political support he depends? Consistently, only a minority say they are aware of his lawsuits and charges.

From the Why Republicans Hate Giving the IRS a Budget For Collecting Taxes Files: The IRS has collected more than $500 million in back taxes from delinquent millionaires -- On Friday, the IRS unveiled new numbers on the amount of back taxes paid by millionaire households ever since a 2022 upgrade brought tougher IRS enforcement on businesses and superwealthy tax delinquents and dodgers. IRS officials said they’ve pulled in a further $360 million from millionaire households with at least $250,000 in tax debts. That follows an October IRS announcement that $160 million in delinquent taxes had been raked back from wealthy households.

Hm, . . . .  $360 million from millionaire households with at least $250,000 in tax debts. . . . . YIKES!! Give the IRS a bigger budget to collect taxes. It is no wonder at all that the kleptocratic Repub Party hates the IRS collecting taxes.

Help me understand...

In yesterday’s DisPol OP (please review this link) regarding the Georgia RICO case against Trump, Germaine wrote:

Roman is a radical right authoritarian activist and professional political dirt digger. Maybe the Georgia case will fall apart, but it is still too early to know. At this point, there is still too much the public has not been made aware of. I just get a real bad vibe from what has happened and is happening now. Radical right authoritarian state legislators are just itching to quash the lawsuit and this gives them an excuse.

Yeah, I’m still trying to figure out how I feel about all that (Willis being caught up in (let’s call it) a “sex scandal” with Wade).  I had heard several things about it:

• That Wade was not qualified to take on a lead prosecutor role due to little experience, yet he was catapulted into that position by Fani Willis, who personally hired him;
• Large amounts of money were paid to him and his firm;
• Wade and Willis vacationing with each other using public funds;
• Their relationship didn’t happen until AFTER he was put in the prosecutor’s position; … 

Now I know that schtuff happens when people are in the middle of a messy divorce.  I met my own husband when he was in the middle of a messy divorce.  So, who am I, right?

My problem/conundrum is that we are blaming Trump for his affair with Stormy Danials but we shouldn’t blame Willis, a government official, for pretty much the same kind of activities?  I’m no prude but Willis hiding her affair is not a lot different than Trump trying to hide his affair(s) with a porn star, is it?  Yes, he was running for president at the time and wanted to cover it up because it might cost him votes. 

Anyway, these are some of the questions running through my mind:

1. Can we/Should we expect more from Willis than from Trump?  How is one better/worse than the other?
2. Is any political office(r) obligated to be forthright with their personal life, however “steamy”, including Willis?
3. Can we be upset with Trump but NOT upset with Willis?  Isn’t that a double standard?

Help me understand why one is different than the other.  I.e., why I shouldn’t forgive Trump, but I should forgive Willis??

How do I reconcile the two?  I need (logical) help.

Debating freedom of thought

I got a criticism of my thinking regarding freedom of thought in a post yesterday. I raised the idea of society or the law somehow disapproving of DFS (dark free speech) in politics. The criticisms and my responses shed light in one reasonable mental frame about how to think about these complicated things.

Criticisms 

You said:

Is it unconstitutional for government to tax Faux News more heavily than NPR because Faux relies heavily on DFS? I don't see why.

Well, there's this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Taxing a private company because of its speech - dark or otherwise - is definitely an abridgment of freedom, and unconstitutional.

Style over substance? I don't get it. Lies are lies, not truths. Logic flaws are logic flaws, not sound logic. Deceit is deceit, not honesty. Those things look clear to me, even if the lines are not always sharp...

So what "lies" are you referring to? That the moon landing was a side project by Kubrick filmed in Hollywood, or that global warming reversed when we elected Obama, or that there were no WMD in Iraq? Here you focus on the most straightforward of the criteria you listed earlier, and yet here too you'll find the utility of limiting speech marginal at best.

And whatever utility you think there is, none of these rebuttals eliminates the role of agreement in determining the "correct" standard. Ultimately your demand for limiting "dark" speech is inherently a demand for others to take your view of things. They must agree with you, do things your way, or be punished in some way.

My responses

I am unsure if taxing a private company because of its DFS (not honest speech) is definitely unconstitutional. That is a legal hypothesis I would very much like to see tested. Consider defamation law, which is constitutional:

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

Different states vary in their anti-defamation statutes. As such, courts in different states will interpret defamation laws differently, and defamation statutes will vary somewhat from state to state. In Davis v. Boeheim, 110 A.D.3d 1431 (N.Y. 2014), which is a New York state court case, the court held that in determining whether a defamation claim is sufficient, a court must look at whether the "contested statements are reasonably susceptible of a defamatory connotation.

Truth is widely accepted as a complete defense to all defamation claims. An absolute privilege is also a complete defense to a defamation claim. Among other examples, this includes statements made by witnesses during judicial proceedings.

In commerce, lying can amount to a criminal offense:

Businesspersons Beware: Lying is a Crime

The rules regarding lying in business in the U.S. are currently being vigorously enforced

In case after case, scandal after scandal, American federal law enforcement officials have clearly shown by their indictments and prosecutions that there is no confusion in their minds—lying is a crime. Businesspersons need to clearly understand those rules and what prosecutors define as lying.

In recent corporate scandals, some executives have learned the hard way that lying is still a crime in corporate America. Martha Stewart was accused of selling her ImClone stock allegedly after receiving insider information. However, she was not convicted of securities fraud. She was instead convicted for lying. In addition, Computer Associates executives were indicted and some have already pleaded guilty for lying to their own company’s attorney during an internal investigation when their lies were passed on by their attorney to the government.

To me the evidence is rock solid: It is sometimes or often possible to determine that a person has lied and that can trigger criminal guilt for the liar. That is a key point here.

So what "lies" are you referring to?

Excellent question. My main focus is on politics, which now clearly includes both commerce and religion. Therefore lies in politics are what I refer to, especially lies by people in government, commerce or religion who hold positions of power or public trust. Lies such as (i) the 2020 election was stolen, (ii) Joe Biden is an illegitimate president, (iii) Trump's 1/6 coup attempt was merely legitimate political discourse and/or something Trump bears no responsibility for, (iv) the over 30 thousand false or misleading statements DJT made while he was in office, (v) the lies that Faux News routinely asserts as truth in some or most of its broadcasts, and (vi) decades of corporate lies about climate change.

From what I (and some others) can tell, the entire GOP leadership now relies heavily on DFS because actual facts and truths are not on the side of kleptocratic authoritarianism.

No, fact checking is not a perfect science. Humans make mistakes, so honest mistakes will be made. But where does the greater danger lie? In my opinion, the greater danger is in letting people and interests who significantly rely on DFS to get away free and clear shifts the costs and harms from those responsible to the whole society. Screw that noise, I'm tired of people and the environment getting constantly shafted by the rich and powerful hiding behind a thick shield of constitutionally protected DFS.

Ultimately your demand for limiting "dark" speech is inherently a demand for others to take your view of things. They must agree with you, do things your way, or be punished in some way.

I vaguely recall this criticism from you before. Regardless, let's do it again.

My demand for limiting DFS is the opposite of a demand for others to take my view of things. Pragmatic rationalism is a demand for respect for facts, true truths and sound reasoning in a political context of democracy, civil liberties, the rule of law and service to the public interest. There is vast room for disagreements within those broad constraints, especially democracy, civil liberties, the rule of law and service to the public interest, all four of which I believe are essentially contested concepts. But notice, there is a lot less room for disagreements over facts and intermediate room for disagreements over true truths and sound reasoning.

So, on the one hand, my pragmatic rationalism is intended to at least partly (noticeably) purge some lies and irrationality from politics in defense of democracy and the public interest. Pragmatic rationalism frees minds, allowing freedom of thought and freedom of choice.

On the other hand, consider the mental framework and reality that purveyors of DFS use to win their arguments. They are usually corrupt authoritarians who deceive, distract, confuse, enrage, terrify, derationalize, polarize and bamboozle people to get what they want in defense of the elite's interests. DFS politics traps minds, infringing on freedom of thought and limiting choices.

What political framework do you prefer, pro-democracy pragmatic rationalism, anti-democracy DFS irrationalism, or something else? If something else, exactly what?

What DFS politics looks like

What pragmatic rationalism politics looks like