Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

Wiz - Is the reason you were so down on WH earlier because you were both competing for the same pool of prison labor?

[THE_WIZARD_]

Listen bub...all the paperwork is in order....BACK OFF!

[AlabamAlum]

Waffle House hashbrowns with onions and cheese (smothered and covered) is absolutely outstanding.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Correct

[Jeff Buchanan]

I think the majority of states have laws banning convicted felons from appearing on the ballot directly. That's a more realistic scenario than any 14th Amendment challenge to Trump's candidacy.

I don't know how likely it is for Trump to be convicted of a felony before the general. It's not happening to the extent those sorts of state laws can be used to keep Trump off the primary ballots .... maybe for the general.

I've read the 126 page link I provided above on the constitutional law that apples to the question. The two authors are convinced 14A applies and can keep Trump off the ballot - they make a strong case. They make it very clear that the application of 14A does not require a felony conviction but does require the political will and courage to apply it.

However, opinion pieces I've read on this approach offer that practical issues of banning Trump from a ballot arise. First, 14A has never been used to prevent a former president from running again; it becomes a novel application of 14A. This particular Supreme Court isn't going to want to rule on the question. Second is the fallout should a state's secretary of state be courageous enough (or stupid as the case might be) to be willing to enforce 14A on it's merits and keep DJT off the state ballot that all state's SOS are responsible for constructing. DJT and his base of Trumpsters would rebel - at what level is hard to tell but rebellion over removing Trump from a State ballot is a foregone conclusion.

I think it interesting to look at the historical background of 14A. It was authored after the Confederate army's, commander, Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses Grant in 1865, formulated by the US Congress in 1866 and passed in 1868. It's purpose was to, very specifically, prevent a confederate agitator, an "insurrectionist", from running for the US presidency There were a lot of them not happy with Lee's surrender and were willing to fight on. What was at stake for Lincoln at the time was the preservation of the union. The end of the Civil War, did not mean an end to the potential for insurrection.

There are similarities in the application of 14A to the now. There are also dissimilarities that cloud absolutism in determining if 14A applies to DJT. I am of the group that believes the risks of fomenting large scale protests if 14A is applied to the 2024 presidential election, thereby denying Trump from appearing on State's ballots, are greater than the risks of letting the primary's and the general playout with the voters appropriately taking care of eliminating Trump from re-election to the presidency.

[AlabamAlum]

Now, I’m gonna need smothered and covered hashbrowns with a rasher of bacon and a cup of strong coffee.

[THE_WIZARD_]

waffle house hash browns.jpg

[Tom W]

There are similarities in the application of 14A to the now. There are also dissimilarities that cloud absolutism in determining if 14A applies to DJT. I am of the group that believes the risks of fomenting large scale protests if 14A is applied to the 2024 presidential election, thereby denying Trump from appearing on State's ballots, are greater than the risks of letting the primary's and the general playout with the voters appropriately taking care of eliminating Trump from re-election to the presidency.

This. But of course, that's all contingent on at least one of the parties providing a competent alternative. The level of doubt increases with each passing day.

[Jeff Buchanan]

The two main sources of information on the war in Ukraine that I follow have been, for the last month, just about useless for providing a picture of the battle space. Their headlining posts (e.g., from the Guardian) are all political in nature and feature Zelenski's and other European politicians globe trotting. There is little information on troop dispositions in Ukraine - a lot of that is due to Ukraine's operational security.

I'm not following milbloggers on FB or any of the Russian blogs that are still up and operating with posters who are allegedly at the front reporting from unknown locations. These are the one's Putin has left untouched in order to bestow favor on the Russian, pro-war ultra-nationalsts that post on, e.g., Telegram. I'm getting these posts second hand if one of my primary sources happens to mention them.

The war has entered a strikes and counterstrikes period where not much on the ground with respect to military advances or retreats in Ukraine is happening. The current situation reveals two waring opponents each trying to advance strategic goals while continuing tactical operations on the ground. Ukraine is demonstrating that it can strike both Russian rear areas and targets inside Russia while slowly advancing and attriting forward deployed Russian combat assets. Russia is demonstrating it can continue to defend territory it has seized, damage Ukraine's agricultural economy and disrupt life in Ukraine. This strategy is an effort to outlast Ukraine and cause the disengagement of it's western supporters. Right now, Ukraine is holding an edge when analyzing the strategic goals of the two countries. How to extend the current situation to the long term and predict outcomes just isn't possible.

In the bigger picture, NATO actually has a "proximity deterrent" effect on Putin that is probably keeping Russia from optimizing it's military advantages it has in Ukraine by unleashing, e.g., a full scale air campaign. Putin has repeatedly demonstrated he does not want to enter a direct conflict with NATO allies. He's getting close to seeding it though by his air launched missile attacks on Ukrainian ports on the Danube. These are 100s of meters from NATO allied countries, Poland and Romani in particular. One errant missile destroying a ground object in Poland or Romania could trigger a NATO military response

From an opinion piece in The Economist on "proximity deterrence"

As the dynamic (between Russia and Ukraine) continues to evolve, and potentially to spiral, nato must take pains to bolster proximity deterrence, keeping up its air-policing of Black Sea transit lanes close to nato states. It must post constant reminders of the nato promise to defend every inch of the alliance’s territory, including Romanian territory across the Danube from Ukrainian ports. Furthermore, nato should reinforce the message that it tolerates Ukrainian attacks on Russian targets so long as nato-supplied weapons and equipment are not used.

In this way, the alliance can continue to provide the benefits of proximity deterrence—with their inherent limits—to Ukraine’s Danube ports and to shipping in and out of the Black Sea. However, were Russia to increase the pressure in that neighbourhood, nato would face growing danger of attacks straying onto its territory. That could be the moment at which nato-Russia deterrence fails, leading to direct confrontation. The stakes could hardly be higher. Escalation, particularly nuclear escalation, must be avoided at all costs.

[Hannibal]

Waffle House is crap.

[lineygoblue]

Me and you are going to have a fistfight Hanni ...

Meet me at the corner of Stadium and Main in 10 minutes. If I'm not there, start without me.

[AlabamAlum]

Some Waffle House is crap. Burgers, steaks, and assorted fare is not great. The pies are what you can buy from the freezer case at your grocery. The eggs are usually over cooked. The bacon is usually undercooked.

The hashbrowns, however, are very good. The waffles are decent. The rest is just varying levels of meh, but they are open 24/7 and through hurricanes.

[iam416]

The 14th A argument is bad....very bad...so, I'm dismissing it. Entirely. It was, as noted, very much directed to people who actually took up arms against the United States. It was aimed at acutal insurretionists. Not only has DJT not been convicted of treason, sedition or insurrection, he never will be because he will never be charged because there ain't a chance in fucking hell it'd be sustained.

When people say all the need is "political will" what they really mean is the -- "here's a fucking fig leaf of an argument, if you got balls you can try to make it work."

The Supreme Court would absolutely, 100% weigh in on this and absolutely 100% tell this bullshit argument to piss off.

Also, DSL's argument re felons appearing on ballots is great for statewide elections, but I don't think they get to so say who runs in Federal elections.

The Constitution provides and obvious and plain remedy for removing people from office. It's so glaringly obvious that we all fucking know about it. When that didn't work -- whether you agree or not -- but when that didn't work there is no particularly good 2nd argument. It wasn't like the Founders were like, "Man, we provided a goddamn explicit process to do this shit, but just in case we better wrap up a backup in some sort of broad, catchall language."

Come. The. Fuck. On.

If you want to read opposing scholarship to this nonsense: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3749407

[Jeff Buchanan]

The Supreme Court would absolutely, 100% weigh in on this and absolutely 100% tell this bullshit argument to piss off.

Glad you got pissed off enough to offer an opinion on the two that authored the argument for the application of 14A. As a lay-person, I thought it was convincing but that's the problem - I'm a lay-person and constitutional law is hard. Where I quoted you above is where the rubber meets the road. Headed to read your OPO link now.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Right, no way 14A can be applied to DJT not according to any OPO but rather based on a long list of examples of when an "Insurrection Proclamation" was made or Section 3 of 14A was applied by a US president invoking it. For those interested, I came across this link after reading the conclusion at the link talent provided. It's an eyepopping historical account of events that actually warranted the application of 14A. It would be a misapplication of 14A, as it applies to what actions comprise an insurrection, to try to encompass DJT's alleged crimes as such.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-wo...ct%20of%201792.