Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Tuesday, May 27, 2025

Rethinking recent American conservatism

Over at reddit, a rebuttal to my comments about what American conservatism has been in recent decades caused a significant change of opinion. I had thought that conservatives were mostly pro-democracy, pro-civil liberties and pro-honest governance. I asserted this:

True conservatism stood for (1) small, efficient, honest, transparent government, (2) democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties, and (3) a reasonable balance of power between the three legislative branches. Project 2025 is recent and so is the rise of deep corruption in government (kleptocracy) and the unitary executive theory, (autocracy or dictatorship). Until Trump came along in 2016, little to none of Project 2025 was mainstream conservatism. ....
 
True conservatives were and still are pro-democracy, pro-civil liberties and pro-rule of law, the opposite of what MAGA politics and policy is. True conservatives have mostly been RINO hunted out of power. They have been replaced by corrupt, authoritarian MAGA radicals.

The blow-back I got was sobering and convincing. I changed my mind. Here's the rebuttal with a minor fact check correction and a clarity edit:  

small, efficient, honest, transparent government,

Conservatives have never wanted these. You’re confusing conservative rhetoric with conservative policy. Ask for a hard definition of what “small government” means sometime. It’s a nonsensical term that is just a stand-in for “only the parts of the government I personally like”, and every single conservative has a different view of what is and isn’t a legitimate part of “small government”. 

Conservatives certainly do not support efficient, honest, or transparent government. They constantly go after and try to limit or remove transparency and reporting requirements, they actively support and expand dishonest vectors for corruption (ex. Weakening campaign finance laws, making legislative records secret, etc).

 democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties, 

Conservatives have long been actively opposed to civil rights, and believe civil rights are o key for majority groups. They don’t support the rule of law—only the rule of the wealthy. That has long culminated in anti-democracy viewpoints. How long have they spent protecting the anti-democratic electoral college, again? How many conservatives over the years have insisted, incorrectly, that we are a “republic, not a democracy!”

 a reasonable balance of power between the three legislative branches.

Whole shoveling power in the hands of unelected judges and into the barely-elected hands of the President. Their only function in Congress appears to be obstruction and slashing taxes for rich people, and it has been such for 30+ years now. 

 Project 2025 is recent

But its ideas are very old, and things conservative stalwarts have been working to bring about since at least the 1980s. The same Heritage Foundation that put out Project 2025 has been publishing the “mandate for leadership” series it came out in, since 1981. 

P2025 is just American Conservatism with everything else removed. It’s exactly what they have long wanted, with the civility removed and without any perceived need to share power with liberals. 

 little to none of Project 2025 was mainstream conservatism.

Oh really?

 The elimination of independent oversight

Bush was fine removing IGs and limiting their power. 

https://www.finance.senate.gov/ranking-members-news/senators-protest-presidential-signing-statement-on-inspector-general-reform-act

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2002/04/03/inspectors-general-ousted-at-2-agencies/67a86a9c-ccac-45db-aefc-d1e464b1336a/

https://time.com/archive/6935574/federal-watchdogs-under-fire/

H. W. Bush tried to remove all IGs when he became president, but Congress blocked it. 

Reagan was also very keen to remove inspectors general, and to limit their oversight. He famously fired 15 of them on his first day in office.

 politicization of civil service 

So, Reagan firing all the air traffic controllers was not politicization of the civil service? 

Republican presidents have long been fighting g this war to recreate the spoils system. Reagan wanted it, but couldn’t get it. W Bush wanted it but couldn’t get it either.

https://www.govexec.com/management/2005/03/bush-and-the-bureaucracy-a-crusade-for-control/18859/

Trump is just a lot more brazen about it, but it’s part of the same conservative strategy. Trump’s just the end game of it.

 judicial capture through ideological vetting

I can’t even. You cannot be serious about this. Conservatives basically invented judicial vetting. Attire through ideological vetting. What do you think the federalist society is? Why is it nearly impossible to be nominated as a judge by a Republican if one isn’t a member? 

 massive upward wealth redistribution

Conservatives have been loud and proud about this since Reagan.

 integration of specific Christian nationalist theocratic doctrines into government policy collectively constitute what democracy scholars characterize as a transition toward authoritarian governance structures.

Which have been key cornerstones of conservative politics since the 1970s and the moral majority. 

 True conservatives 

What are the Trumpists? They are distilled conservatism, with everything else removed. A return to the know-nothing party. 



That casts conservatism in a very different light, or at least the politics and goals of elite conservatives[1]. At least for elite conservatives, the recent past looks a lot more like djt, MAGA and Project 2025 today than I had thought. I still think the modern rank and file, then and now, is and was grossly deceived. Reagan and HW Bush both chafed at restrictions on their power, and congress pushed back. Now, congress no longer pushes back.


Q: Is it reasonable to believe that in recent decades, e.g., since Reagan, American conservatism as practiced by political, business and religious elites (1) was dominated by authoritarianism and kleptocracy goals, and (2) that ideology is mostly the same as what MAGA elites and djt stand for today?


Footnote:
1. I had Pxy fact check some of those assertions. It is true that Reagan, HW Bush and Trump all tried to fire or fired some or all Inspector Generals (IGs). IGs are the people responsible for rooting out and stopping waste, fraud and abuse in federal agencies. Their firings make risk-free corruption, fraud and theft much easier. Some other fact checking and analysis:
Conclusion
The assertions are largely reasonable but require nuance:

1. Upward redistribution is a documented outcome of conservative fiscal policies since Reagan, though not universally celebrated by all conservatives. Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts slashed the top income tax rate from 70% to 28% and corporate taxes from 50% to near zero, accelerating wealth concentration. By 2023, the top 1% held $79 trillion more wealth than they would have under pre-1975 growth patterns 1 11 12.

2. Christian nationalism has been a cornerstone of GOP strategy since the 1970s, with authoritarian implications validated by scholars 6 16.

3. Trumpism represents a redefined conservatism centered on populist nationalism, but fractures persist between MAGA loyalists and traditional conservatives 17 21.

4. Know-Nothing comparisons oversimplify historical context but capture nativist and anti-pluralist tendencies in Trump-era GOP rhetoric 9 24.

5. Structural shifts—not mere ideology—explain these trends: tax policy favoring capital over labor 1, fusion of religious and political identities 20, and institutional GOP capitulation to Trump’s persona 25.

Monday, May 26, 2025

A critique of MAGA’s originalism legal theory

CONTEXT
In 1935, the USSC’s Humphrey’s Executor decision affirmed congress’s power to limit presidential removal of officials in independent executive branch agencies to specific causes like inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance. There now are 13 such agencies. This protected those agencies from political interference, ensuring they could operate without fear of being weaponized by presidents for partisan or corrupt aims. Today, this precedent faces existential threat from “originalism,” a legal theory weaponized by far-right authoritarians to concentrate unchecked executive power in the presidency. The case is now pending with the USSC in Trump v. Wilcox. It will most likely be decided in May or June of 2026. The USSC will most likely severely limit or completely eliminate the Humphrey’s Executor limit on presidential power. That would be a catastrophe for democracy, civil liberties and the rule of law. 


Critique of originalism
Originalism, now a core authoritarian legal dogma, arose in the 1930s and the concept was significantly refined in the 1970s and 1980s. The term originalism was coined in the 1980s. The legal theory claims that the Constitution’s “original public meaning” grants presidents absolute authority over executive functions, including firing officials at will, with or without cause. Proponents argue Humphrey’s Executor violates Article II’s Vesting Clause by fragmenting executive accountability. They cite the “Decision of 1789”—a congressional debate they falsely claim settled presidential removal power. In reality, the First Congress never reached consensus. Only 9 of 54 House members endorsed unlimited removal power; most supported congressional checks or compromise. The Founders deliberately used ambiguous language to avoid rigid doctrines, prioritizing practical governance.

Historical evidence further undermines originalist claims. Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 77 endorsed Senate involvement in removals, contradicting the myth of an all-powerful presidency. In 1790, George Washington signed the Sinking Fund Commission Act, creating officials with fixed terms and removal protections to manage Revolutionary War debt. That is a clear Founding-era precedent for independent agencies directly contrary to MAGA’s claims. Early laws also shielded Treasury officials from arbitrary dismissal, reflecting the Founders’ nuanced approach to balancing power.

Mainstream legal scholars dismiss originalism’s hostility to Humphrey’s Executor as ideologically driven, not historically grounded. Critics note originalists cherry-pick evidence, misquote texts, and ignore contradictions, such as Hamilton’s support for checks on presidential power. Historians like Jonathan Gienapp argue originalists project modern authoritarian ideals onto the past, fabricating a “unitary executive” theory alien to 18th-century governance.

The stakes are profound. MAGA-aligned originalists seek to overturn Humphrey’s Executor to enable presidents to purge independent agencies, replacing nonpartisan expertise with loyalists. This would erode democratic safeguards, allowing politicization of institutions meant to serve the public interest ranging from the Federal Reserve to election protection agencies to consumer and worker protections. Such efforts align with a broader agenda to centralize power, favoring corruption and entrenching minority rule.

Originalism’s flawed reasoning and selective history cannot mask its true aim: dismantling constraints on executive authority to enable authoritarianism. By distorting the past, it threatens the delicate balance of power that has safeguarded American democracy for nearly a century. Defending Humphrey’s Executor is not just a legal battle. It is a fight to preserve democratic governance rooted in accountability, not unaccountable autocracy and kleptocracy.

“Amalek,” Genocide, and Israeli Public Opinion: A Disturbing Poll

 

Introduction

As accusations of genocide against Israel intensify at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), a new poll published in Haaretz’s Hebrew edition on May 22, 2025, reveals a chilling reality: widespread support among Jewish Israelis for extreme violence against Palestinians, including exterminationist measures. Conducted by a Penn State University researcher, the poll’s biblical framing—referencing the command to destroy Amalek—echoes rhetoric used by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and cited by South Africa as evidence of genocidal intent. These findings expose not just government policy but a broader societal embrace of policies meeting the definition of ethnic cleansing and genocide, rooted in history but amplified by the trauma of October 7, 2023. For a world grappling with how to respond, this poll demands a reckoning with the beliefs of a society, not just its leaders.

The “Amalek” Poll

The Haaretz poll asked Jewish Israelis about their attitudes toward Palestinians in Gaza and Israel, framing questions around the biblical story of Amalek, where God commands the Israelites to destroy an enemy entirely. The results are staggering:

  • 47% supported the Israeli army “acting as the Israelites did at Jericho”—killing all inhabitants of a conquered city.

  • 82% supported the forced expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza.

  • 56% supported expelling Palestinian citizens of Israel.

  • Even among secular Jews, often seen as more liberal, 70% backed Gaza expulsion, and 38% supported expelling Palestinian citizens.

This “Amalek” framing is not accidental. Netanyahu’s November 2023 call to troops—“You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible”—was highlighted by South Africa at the ICJ as evidence of genocidal intent (Mother Jones, Jan. 2024; AP, Jan. 2024).

Historical Continuity and October 7’s Impact

These attitudes are not solely a reaction to the October 7 Hamas attack. A 2016 Pew survey found 48% of Jewish Israelis agreed that “Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel,” with majorities among non-secular Jews and a significant minority of secular Jews (Telhami, Brookings, 2016). Polls over the past decade consistently show support for discriminatory or violent policies toward Palestinians, especially during conflicts.

Yet October 7 amplified these sentiments. The attack’s trauma, as journalist Gideon Levy writes, led even Israel’s liberal left to “shut off” their moral compass, justifying horrors in Gaza as vengeance (Haaretz, Mar. 2024). Genocide scholar Omer Bartov notes that latent hatreds, rooted in decades of political Zionism, have become public and normalized, with biblical rhetoric moving from the far-right fringe to the mainstream. The poll reflects this shift: extreme measures—expulsion, denial of aid, even extermination—are now openly endorsed.

Why “Amalek” Matters

The “Amalek” reference is no mere metaphor. In the Hebrew Bible, God commands the Israelites to annihilate Amalek—men, women, children, and animals—as divine justice. By invoking this, Netanyahu and others justify total war on Gaza, with leaders like Defense Minister Yoav Gallant vowing to “eliminate everything” (Stack, New York Times, Jan. 2024). South Africa cited these statements at the ICJ as evidence of genocidal intent. That nearly half of Jewish Israelis endorse this logic shows how religious and historical narratives shape not just policy but public opinion, normalizing atrocity in the present.

Implications and Conclusion

The poll challenges the narrative—common in Western media—that only Netanyahu or the far right drive Israel’s extreme policies. Support for atrocities crosses lines of religiosity, age, and political affiliation, revealing a society radicalized, not just a government. As the ICJ and International Criminal Court weigh charges of genocide and crimes against humanity, and as Western governments reassess support for Israel, understanding this public sentiment is critical. The potential silencing of voices discussing these findings, whether through gate-keeping or hasbara, further complicates the path to truth.

This is a wake-up call. The poll reveals the depth of support for policies meeting the definition of ethnic cleansing and genocide, fueled by trauma and religious narrative. Confronting this requires not just condemning leaders but examining the societal beliefs that empower them. Only then can there be hope for justice—or peace.


Sources:

Sunday, May 25, 2025

djt corruption updates: Deep corruption; Corruption damage; Memecoin corruption

After some recent cognitively and emotionally heavy-duty posts 👎 ☹️, a few light-hearted MAGA updates seem to be in order to lighten the mood up around here . 👍 👏 🌟



The corruption is blatant and gigantic: A NYT article reports that not only is djt a fracking extortionist and thief, MAGA government either likes it or could not care less: “As Trumps Monetize Presidency, Profits Outstrip Protests -- When Hillary Clinton was first lady, a furor erupted over reports that she had once made $100,000 from a $1,000 investment in cattle futures. Even though it had happened a dozen years before her husband became president, it became a scandal that lasted weeks and forced the White House to initiate a review. .... By conventional Washington standards, according to students of official graft, the still-young Trump administration is a candidate for the most brazen use of government office in American history, perhaps eclipsing even Teapot Dome, Watergate and other famous scandals.” (emphasis added)

The article goes on to point out that thirty-one years later, after dinner at Mar-a-Lago, Jeff Bezos agreed to finance a disgusting propaganda film about Melania Trump. That sleazy deal puts about $28 million directly in Melania's pocket. That is about 280 times the size of Clinton’s cash haul. And in this case Melania is a person with a vested interest in policies set by her husband’s government. In this case, no scandal, no furor, no nothing. Washington basically ignored it. 

Other reporting comments on the $400 million-sized violation of the emoluments clause when djt took the airplane from Qatar. That is a fine a country best described as an authoritarian monarchy with systemic corruption and concentrated wealth.

Q: Has kleptocracy in government been normalized and made acceptable to most MAGAlanders, especially the elites, or are they deceived into believing that what's going on isn’t large-scale corruption?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

The NYT reports (not paywalled) about damage that djt can cause when he extorts a foreign government: “Why Vietnam Ignored Its Own Laws to Fast-Track a Trump Family Golf Complex
 -- Planning documents promised a “new benchmark in luxury, recreation and business.” [Vietnam's top leader] Le Van Truong, [who did not want to agree], pictured something else: the uprooting of a cemetery with five generations of his ancestors and the loss of rich farmland that has sustained local families for centuries. Yet he signed anyway, because, as he put it, “there’s nothing I can do.” “Trump says it’s separate — the presidency and his business,” Mr. Truong said. “But he has the power to do whatever he wants.” This $1.5 billion golf complex outside the capital, Hanoi, as well as plans for a Trump skyscraper in Ho Chi Minh City, are the Trump family’s first projects in Vietnam — part of a global moneymaking enterprise that no family of a sitting American president has ever attempted on this scale. And as that blitz makes the Trumps richer, it is distorting how countries interact with the United States.” (emphases added)

That level of corruption speaks for itself. ‘Nuf said.

Some of the land to be taken for 
djt's sleaze & corruption resort

They will be kicked out
for djts fun and profit

Le Van Truong next to graves that will be 
cleared to make way for djt’s fun and profit
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

The Independent reports about djt cashing in bigly on his cryptocurrency scams. GD Culture Group, a small Chinese-linked tech company, plans to buy $300 million worth of Bitcoin and $TRUMP, a djt cryptocurrency, shows blatant conflicts of interest and bribery galore. The Nasdaq-listed firm reported no revenue in 2023 and has just eight employees, will finance the purchase through a secretive stock sale to an undisclosed buyer in the British Virgin Islands, a tax haven that tax cheats like to use to hide their financial crimes. Aspects of the deal’s secrecy include the unidentified funding source and GD Culture Group’s vague regulatory disclosures with implied links to Chinese government control.  

About 80% of $TRUMP is owned by Trump’s business entities. djt recently hosted crypto-themed dinners (with bad food and crappy service) for entry fees up to $1.5 million. djt advocates for lighter crypto regulations, i.e., almost no regulations. That fine MAGA policy increases the value of djt’s holdings. All of this enables secret bribery of djt and his family on a gigantic scale. All of this corrupt sleaze coincides with djt’s efforts to broker a corrupt deal that allows TikTok to continue U.S. operations. GD Culture Group creates content for TikTok, which is owned by China-based ByteDance. In essence, the Chinese government is buying the US government by paying djt. 

Based on common sense, I presume that GD Culture Group is controlled by the Chinese Government, but asked Pxy.
Q: Can one reasonably surmise that GD Culture Group is controlled by the Chinese government?

A: While GD Culture Group isn't proven to be state-controlled, its financial dependencies, regulatory environment, and opaque transactions create plausible deniability for indirect influence. The company maintains its U.S.-based leadership (e.g., CEO Xiao Jian Wang in New York) and describes itself as independent, but this directly conflicts with its own risk disclosures.
There we have it. When it comes to the Chinese Government hiding behind plausible deniability, that constitutes persuasive evidence of culpability. There is no empirical basis for trust or the benefit of any doubt. Heck, that situation is no different than when djt or MAGA elites hide behind plausibility, i.e., there is no basis for one shred of trust. 

America First!! 
(or not)