Nikki Haley finally got Trump one-on-one. There’s a reason she’s still losing.

Donald Trump’s Republican rivals have been saying since 2016 that if they could only get him one on one, they’d have a chance.

But that’s not working out for Nikki Haley. And if the former U.N. ambassador’s campaign is proving anything, it’s that the real problem for Trump’s opponents isn’t really about candidate math at all  

It’s a bear market for fiscal conservative, neoconservative ideology in a MAGA-centric GOP.

“She’s running as a conservative. Trump’s running as a populist,” said Alex Conant, a Republican strategist and former adviser to Marco Rubio’s 2016 and Tim Pawlenty’s 2012 presidential campaigns. “Haley’s challenge is that the party is increasingly a populist party.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/01/nikki-haley-pre-trump-conservatism-00138954

News bits: Historians make their case at the USSC; About Perplexity; Etc.

A slew of historians submitted a brief to the USSC in the pending case that will decide if DJT is an insurrectionist and barred from running again for office. Law & Crime writes:

Even Jefferson Davis, leader of the Confederacy — and his lawyer — knew the insurrection clause in the U.S. Constitution not only disqualified him from holding office but, importantly, that Section III of the Fourteenth Amendment “executes itself” and once that constitutional Rubicon is crossed, disqualification was his “automatic” punishment.

This is one of several key arguments lifted straight from history that 25 prominent historians, professors, and legal scholars have presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in a new amicus brief supporting a December ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court finding that Donald Trump should be removed from the ballot for 2024 since he engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, and is therefore ineligible for office.  

For roughly 40 pages, the amicus brief traverses centuries to expose lively, and often clear, congressional debate about the so-called insurrectionist clause and its understanding among senators, as well as its import in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson and how it came to force when it was time to reckon with one of America’s most famous insurrectionists: Jefferson Davis. 

Pointing to Jefferson Davis and quoting Davis’ own lawyer at the time, the historians noted:

In seeking to quash his indictment for treason, Jefferson Davis argued that he was already punished through his automatic disqualification to hold public office under Section 3, which ‘executes itself … It needs no legislation on the part of Congress to give it effect.’

But with this radical authoritarian USSC, no one can know what they will decide or why. The court is unprincipled, leaving the basis for predicting outcomes a matter of partisan politics. Even if a defendant walks, talks and looks like a Republican insurrectionist, they could be just an innocent patriotic martyr under severe attack by the evil socialist, pedophile deep state. Of course, if it was Hillary who done it, the judges would be screaming:

LOCK HER UP!! LOCK HER UP!! LOCK HER UP!! 

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

A NYT article discusses Perplexity, an AI-powered search engine that can be accessed here. I tried it on the input words: Netanyahu financial support for Hamas. It gave back a nuanced answer that included some information I was unaware of: 

The numbers (1 - 5) in the circles at the end of the response are links to information sources relevant to the input search words. The NYT article comments:

One impressive Perplexity feature is “Copilot,” which helps a user narrow down a query by asking clarifying questions. When I asked for ideas on where to host a birthday party for a 2-year-old, for example, Copilot asked whether I wanted suggestions for outdoor spaces, indoor spaces or both. When I selected “indoor,” it asked me to choose a rough budget for the party. Only then did it give me a list of possible venues.

Perplexity also allows users to search within a specific set of sources, such as academic papers, YouTube videos or Reddit posts. 

Under the hood, Perplexity runs on OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 model along with its own A.I. model — a variant of Meta’s open-source Llama 2 model. Users who upgrade to the Pro version can choose between a handful of different models, including GPT-4 and Anthropic’s Claude. (I used GPT-4 for most of my searches, but I didn’t see much of a difference in the quality of the answers when I chose other models.)

Looking under the hood . . . . . .

Ah, there it is

GPT-4 running Anthropic’s Claude!

Perplexity is also refreshingly good at admitting when it doesn’t know something.

Lately my Google searches have been less useful, so I'll give Perplexity some test drives to see how it works out. 

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

From the Impeach Joe Biden Saga -- Oops!: The New Republic writes that a witness the GOP was touting as having damaging dirt on Biden, would up testifying under oath there was no dirt to be had. Poor old morally rotted Republican Party. They just can’t find the dirt they need to impeach Joe. TNR writes:

A man House Republicans had previously claimed was a whistleblower on Joe Biden’s corruption categorically debunked all of the GOP’s accusations in a closed-door hearing on Tuesday.

Eric Schwerin, a longtime business partner of Hunter Biden, testified in front of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees in a closed-door interview. Schwerin also worked as a financial adviser for Joe Biden from 2009 until 2017, during which time he was able to see transactions in and out of the then vice president’s bank accounts.

“Based on that insight, I am not aware of any financial transactions or compensation that Vice President Biden received related to business conducted by any of his family members or their associates nor any involvement by him in their businesses,” Schwerin said in a prepared opening statement obtained by The New Republic.  

“In my discussions with the Vice President concerning his personal finances, he was always crystal clear that he wanted to take the most transparent and ethical approach consistent with both the spirit and the letter of the law,” Schwerin said. “Given my awareness of his finances and the explicit directions he gave to his financial advisers, the allegation that he would engage in any improper conduct to benefit himself or his family is preposterous to me.”

From the Bad Faith Republican Politics Files: NBC reports: GOP senator doesn’t want to pass a tax bill because it could make Biden ‘look good’ -- Sen. Chuck Grassley made the comments ahead of a House vote on a $78 billion package that would expand the child tax credit and provide some tax breaks for businesses

From the Trump loses another court case files: Sky News writes: Donald Trump data protection claim over allegations he took part in 'perverted' sex acts in Russia dismissed by judge -- The so-called “Steele dossier” alleged Donald Trump took part in “sex parties” and engaged in “golden showers”, giving Russia material with which to blackmail him -- Donald Trump's legal claim over allegations he took part in “perverted” sex acts and gave bribes to Russian officials has been dismissed by a High Court judge.

The core reason for dismissal was that Trump does not have a case, and not due to any content content in the dossier.

Peanut gallery insights:

1. So he’s losing cases in multiple countries now lol

2. Intercontinental loser.
3. Incontinent loser

4. The piss tapes are real! Bring on the piss tapes! We want the pee pee tapes! Pee pee tapes!

5. Weird sex with prostitutes would probably be the least offensive, least criminal thing about Trump at this point.

Nikki Haley blithely comments on the dissolution of the Union -- Sure, why not?: Texas has the right to secede from the U.S. if its citizens decide to do so, Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley argued on Wednesday -- a controversial view that contradicts centuries of established history and precedent. Similar secession efforts infamously led to the Civil War.

Git your coffee, and get ready, here comes a Taylor Swift thread y'all

 

Why Trumpers are losing it over Taylor Swift

Swift goes to football games to support her boyfriend, shattering MAGA brains.

MAGA this week at last found its true, final, most hated enemy. Not Barack Obama. Not Hilary Clinton. Not Joe Biden. Not even Hunter Biden. No, the epitome of everything Trumpers set themselves against is not a politician at all, but that nefarious pop singer/songwriter, Taylor Swift.

Swift is not running for election and is not really a political figure. Thus targeting her seems at best pointless and at worst counterproductive for a political movement.

But the conservative media marketplace often has different incentives than the Republican Party — which is part of why the Republican Party is such a mess. Swift’s music now effectively functions as the soundtrack for the GOP crawling into a dumpster and setting itself on fire.

Why have Republicans chosen this moment for their much-more-than-two-minutes Swift hate? Well, this week Swift released a provocative album titled The GOP Sucks and So Does Donald Trump.

Ha ha. No, she didn’t do anything like that at all. Instead, her sin was … attending a football game. Last Sunday, she went to see the Kansas City Chiefs/Baltimore Ravens matchup because she’s dating Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce — who has been reviled by the right for making ads for the Pfizer covid vaccine and (gulp) alleged woke beer brand Bud Light. The Chiefs won, giving them a berth in the Super Bowl and destroying right-wing talking points about Swift being the Chiefs’ Yoko Ono.

Newsmax host Greg Kelly went as far Monday as to accuse Swifties of “elevating her to an idol … and you’re not supposed to do that. In fact, if you look it up in the Bible, it’s a sin!” Another Newsmax host dismissed the Swift-Kelce relationship as “fake.”

Meanwhile, one of Fox News’ “hard news” shows devoted a segment to attacking Swift, her fans, and Kelce, who a commentator derisively referred to as “Mr. Pfizer.”

But that was nowhere near as wild as a segment earlier this month during which Fox News host Jesse Waters described Swift a “Pentagon asset” developed at a NATO meeting and deployed to help Democrats.

Republicans loathe successful single women, especially if they’re Democrats. So it’s not exactly a surprise that they hate Swift.

Oh, there is more to read along with your morning cuppa:

https://www.publicnotice.co/p/taylor-swift-causes-trumpers-to-lose-it-kelce

News bits: Faux tells Swift what to do; DJT’s double liar attorney; PA court attacks Dobbs

Mind-blowing Republican hypocrisy

Various media are reporting that America's authoritarian radical right including Faux News is engaged in a propaganda campaign to stop Taylor Swift from involvement in politics. The WaPo made a 1 minute montage of clips from various Faux blowhards insulting Swift and telling her to stay out of politics. The blowhards say things like (i) it is best for her to stay out, (ii) she can't name one Biden policy, (iii) she complains about climate change but she flew on a private jet, (iv) please don’t believe anything Swift says because she does not do what she says.

The Hill reports: 

“Does Taylor realize the guy that they want her to endorse is a kind of stumbling, bumbling mess, doesn’t have the energy to even give a 30-minute speech, let alone perform a three-hour concert like she does?” Hannity said of Swift and Biden on his nightly show. “He also is kind of very creepy. She may want to check out those creepy videos, they’re online.”

Faux accuses Swift of hypocrisy and Biden of being creepy?? The arrogance and hypocrisy of the Faux blowhard crew is stunning. And Hannity is creepy.

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Trump’s double liar attorney

The New Republic reports that crackpot Trump attorney Alina Habba, the Kraken-Lite of Trump thugs, has retracted her allegation that the judge on the latest defamation case was biased. She alleged that the judge should have recused himself from the trial due to a conflict of interest with the prosecuting attorney. In her retraction, Habba lied about her original accusation, calling it merely an inquiry. It was not a mere inquiry. It was full blown accusation. 

Then she lied about retraction saying the basis for the conflict of interest allegation had been resolved and there was none. There was no resolution, just statements from the judge and the prosecuting attorney that there was no conflict of interest. That is not a resolution. That is just statements from accused people.

What really pushed Habba back from continuing with the original lie about a conflict was a threat by the prosecuting attorney to seek sanctions against Kraken-Lite for lying to the court and smearing both the judge and prosecuting attorney Roberta Kaplan. Kaplan accused Trump and Habba of asserting “a false narrative of judicial bias” and said she will consider filing for sanctions against Habba.

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

The Pennsylvania state supreme court issued an opinion that that abortion restrictions constitute sex-based discrimination and are “presumptively unconstitutional” under the state constitution’s equal rights amendment. Slate writes: 

The Supreme Court’s eradication of the constitutional right to abortion in 2022’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization had an immediate and devastating impact on gender equality in the United States. With a single ruling, five justices wiped out millions of women’s access to basic health care and handed control over their medical decisions to politicians and judges. It wasn’t just the court’s judgment, though, that relegated women to a lesser place in the constitutional order; it was also the court’s reasoning, which used the centurieslong oppression of women to justify an ongoing oppression of women by way of a deprivation of their rights. Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion rested largely on the views of dead white men who condoned the rape, beating, and murder of women to maintain female subjugation in every realm of life. And he dismissed his ruling’s ruinous impact on gender equality in a single conclusory paragraph asserting that abortion restrictions could not possibly discriminate against women.

This week the Pennsylvania Supreme Court responded to that conclusion: no. On Monday, the court issued a landmark opinion declaring that abortion restrictions do amount to sex-based discrimination and therefore are “presumptively unconstitutional” under the state constitution’s equal rights amendment. The majority vehemently rejected Dobbs’ history-only analysis, noting that, until recently, “those interpreting the law” saw women “as not only having fewer legal rights than men but also as lesser human beings by design.” Justice David Wecht went even further: In an extraordinary concurrence, the justice recounted the historical use of abortion bans to repress women, condemned Alito’s error-ridden analysis, and repudiated the “antiquated and misogynistic notion that a woman has no say over what happens to her own body.”

It is not clear what impact this might have, but at least in Pennsylvania abortion will remain legal. The logic attacking Alito’s crackpot “reasoning” is simple but solid. Restricting abortions does discriminate against women.

Rep. Ilhan Omar faces calls to ‘resign in disgrace’ over speech in support of Somalia

 

https://nypost.com/2024/01/29/news/rep-ilhan-omar-faces-calls-to-resign-in-disgrace-over-unbecoming-speech-in-support-of-somalia/amp/

“Ilhan Omar’s appalling, Somalia-first comments are a slap in the face to the Minnesotans she was elected to serve and a direct violation of her oath of office,” House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) wrote on X. “She should resign in disgrace.”

Omar, the first Somali American in Congress, appeared to assure her Somali American constituents that she would do everything in her power to prevent the disputed, breakaway Republic of Somaliland from entering into a sea-access deal with landlocked Ethiopia.

A clip of the Minnesota lawmaker went viral with over 2.6 million views after it was posted on X, with a translation saying Omar had said: “As Somalis, one day we will go after our missing territories.”

Newsweek cannot handle inconvenient truth!

A post here yesterday focused on comments by a Palestinian about the mess in the endless Israel-Palestine conflict. I read the article and it just didn’t make a lot of sense to me. So I thought I would set up an account and comment to ask a question. Newsweek rejected the comment. Here is the rejection email with my comments and question:

The AP article I quoted is headlined: Netanyahu says he told the US that he opposes a Palestinian state in any postwar scenario

I clicked on the learn more button in the rejection email and got this:

As far as I can tell, my comments and question were not uncivil, spam, profanity, incoherent, obscene, threatening or an attack on the identity of the author or other commenters. 

That leaves insulting and inflammatory as the only possibilities for rejection. But, were they insulting and/or inflammatory? Apparently so in the eyes of the Newsweek censor. 

But if inconvenient truth is insulting and/or inflammatory to at least some people and that merits censoring it, how is it possible to have open and thoughtful conversations as Newsweek claims it wants? That is how I analyze the reasoning that led to rejecting my comments and question.

For some context about Newsweek:

Qs: Is Newsweek incapable of dealing with inconvenient truth generally, or is this a response limited to exceptionally emotional issues like the endless Israel-Palestine conflict, misery and bloodshed? For example, in an article that denies Republican animosity toward non-heterosexuals or abortion, would Newsweek have rejected similar comments and questions about Republicans passing laws that interfere with the freedoms of (i) the LGBQTN community, or (ii) women who want an abortion? Ditto for a pro-gun article about lack of gun violence but comments and a question about actual data on how severe the gun violence problem actually is? 

Is this just a tempest in a teapot, or is there something important going on here?