Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 15, 2023
How Will Trump’s Fourth Indictment – And RFK Jr. – Influence The Election Season?

Another month brings another indictment of Donald Trump:

ATLANTA — Former president Donald Trump and 18 others were criminally charged in Georgia in connection with efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory in the state, according to an indictment made public late Monday night.

Trump was charged with 13 counts, including violating the state’s racketeering act, soliciting a public officer to violate their oath, conspiring to impersonate a public officer, conspiring to commit forgery in the first degree and conspiring to file false documents.

With so much alleged conspiring should we call all these indictments a conspiracy theory?

This indictment is again too wide and borders on, like the others against Trump, criminalizing the retelling of rumors and free speech.

Just consider this part:

COUNT 29 of 41

And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, do charge and accuse DONALD JOHN TRUMP with the offense of FALSE STATEMENTS AND WRITINGS, O.C.G.A. § 16-10-20, for the said accused, in the County of Fulton and State of Georgia, on or about the 2nd day of January 2021, knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully made at least one of the following false statements and representations to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Georgia Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs, and Georgia Secretary of State General Counsel Ryan Germany:

  1. That anywhere from 250,000 to 300,000 ballots were dropped mysteriously into the rolls in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia;
  2. That thousands of people attempted to vote in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia and were told they could not because a ballot had already been cast in their name;
  3. That 4,502 people voted in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia who were not on the voter registration list;
  4. That 904 people voted in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia who were registered at an address that was a post ofiice box;
  5. That Ruby Freeman was a professional vote scammer and a known political operative;
  6. That Ruby Freeman, her daughter, and others were responsible for fraudulently awarding at least 18,000 ballots to Joseph R. Biden at State Farm Arena in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia;
  7. That close to 5,000 dead people voted in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia;
  8. That 139% of people voted in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Detroit;
  9. That 200,000 more votes were recorded than the number of people who voted in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Pennsylvania;
  10. That thousands of dead people voted in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Michigan;
  11. That Ruby Freeman stuffed the ballot boxes;
  12. That hundreds of thousands of ballots had been "dumped" into Fulton County and another county adjacent to Fulton County in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia;
  13. That he won the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia by 400,000 votes;

said statements being within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Georgia Secretary of State and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, departments and agencies of state government, contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof;

Even the Washington Post write-up finds that a bit too excessive:

The indictment takes an expansive view of the behaviors it alleges were acts “in furtherance of the conspiracy” — including, as an example, at least a dozen instances of Trump’s tweets alleging fraud and other claims. Such details from the indictment quickly drew criticism as potential violations of the defendants’ free speech protections.

Trials over these indictments, if any, will likely start only next year and will take quite a long time. Any judgment in them will be appealed.

All this will mean little for voters who mostly have made up their minds:

Yet most Americans made up their minds about Mr. Trump long before prosecutors like Fani T. Willis or Jack Smith weighed in, polls have shown. He is, depending on the perspective, a serial lawbreaker finally being brought to justice or a victim of persecution by partisans intent on keeping him out of office. The Georgia indictment, powerful as it is in its language, has been priced into the market, as the Wall Street types would put it.

“The accumulated indictments are kind of a white noise for voters,” said Sarah Longwell, a Republican political consultant who has organized opposition to Mr. Trump and conducts weekly focus groups with voters. “They can’t tell the difference between Georgia and Jack Smith because it all blurs together in one long news cycle of Trump’s-in-trouble.”

I believe, like Trump, that the indictment will help him. First in the primary and then in the general election:

Speaking to supporters in Alabama a couple of days after his last arraignment, [Trump] claimed he was looking forward to the next one. “We need one more indictment to close out this election,” he boasted.

That is bravado — the sort of bring-it-on bluster that electrifies a Trump rally.

Contrast that with the case and against the Bidens which will be laid out by a special prosecutor to the same public. As I wrote when the last bits about the Bidens-Burisma saga came to light:

On the one side we have a case which shows the deep corruption of 'the big guy' and his family who are supported by the deep state they control.

On the other side we have the underdog who thought he was doing the right thing but is now indicted by the deep state for, at that time, saying so.

The media will shine the light on both cases. Each time they will mention Trump it will, independent of what they write about him, be positive for him by making the case of the lone guy who gets unfairly prosecuted by the deep state.

Each time the Biden case will be mentioned it will remind the public of Biden's corrupt dealings.

Proceed through that for sixteen month and the outcome is assured.

Now add to that the possible quirks of the Democratic primary. RFK junior has entered that race:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has raised eyebrows as the first right-sympathetic populist to run as a Democrat since William Jennings Bryan. Launching with twenty paid staff and functioning now with seventy, Kennedy’s campaign has latched on to several issues important to mainstream Republicans—Covid tyranny, censorship, government surveillance—as well as to the dissident right: public health threats posed by chemicals in food and water, ending forever wars. The difference is the right frames these issues as matters of social cohesion and public order, while Kennedy uses the language of democracy and freedom.

In the currant fashion RJK Jr. is not really a Democrat:

When discussing the issues that animate him most—the environment, censorship, state and corporate collusion—he brightens. His hopeless intellectual humility and his hesitation to emphasize the most divisive ideological commitments of his own party while regularly taking up the language of his partisan opponents are setting up a general election that could divide populist voters almost entirely on the basis of aesthetics.

During the primaries the Democratic Party mafia will do their best to eliminate him even when he is unlikely to be a real danger to Joe Biden's candidacy.

Should Trump then consider to run for president with RFK Jr. as his future vice-president he could form a quasi bi-partisan populist ticket that might well attract a larger majority.

Comments

If you think Biden/Harris was a hoot wait until you live under Newsom/Whitmer.

Posted by: Fred777 | Aug 16 2023 15:30 utc | 201

Posted by: LoveDonbass | Aug 16 2023 15:27 utc | 199
There are plenty of people in the world and for purposes of identifying and resolving the root problems it does not matter.
I’m with any queer that can subordinate their personal life and manufactured identity to the struggle to oust the RC and capitalism, end the imperialist wars and creater a healthy society for all.
Obviously, I don’t think queer is the norm, but everyone should be free to do what they wish in their personal life, do long as it doesn’t hurt others.

Posted by: Ahenobarbus | Aug 16 2023 15:40 utc | 202

LoveDonbass: You might want to have a serious talk with your straight buddies. According to the CDC’s National Health Statistics Report no. 88 (7 January 2016), among those aged 18-44, 35.9% of women and 42.3% of men have had anal sex with the opposite sex.
Meanwhile, condoms are a great way to avoid having to “play with poop,” and it’s amazing what a little fiber can do to promote intestinal health.

Posted by: malenkov | Aug 16 2023 16:11 utc | 203

Once the point is reached where the general population can no longer trust their elections, what else do they have to cling to? There will be no trust in any federal institution, from this point on. So who will save the US from slipping into chaos? They appear to be on their way to a failed state. Contributing to their inner decay is the fact that the guy at the top is a criminal, yet justice is not being served as the corrupted system has already lost its bite.
RFK junior, who still has credit with the people and embraces a lot of the right topics, would be a blessing if he was to become POTUS at this time, but the Obamas in the party establishment will know how to keep him away from power.
Europe is not yet at the same point of inner decay. But unless free speech is restored and pluralism allowed in matters of foreign politics, the trust in our institutions will be taking similar damage, putting us too on a path of destabilization.

Posted by: grunzt | Aug 16 2023 16:52 utc | 204

Posted by: LoveDonbass | Aug 16 2023 15:27 utc | 202
In fact, the current bottleneck to reproduction is mainly an economic constraint, that is to say, it stems mainly from capitalist exploitation.
Perhaps we need to improve the economic conditions of workers rather than condemning them for not having children when they can’t save or/and buy a house, or scapegoating LGBTIQ people.
Of course, given the maximization of per capita welfare in the long run (an implicit goal of macroeconomics), maybe we don’t have to be so afraid of declining fertility.

Posted by: Colin | Aug 16 2023 17:10 utc | 205

MFB | Aug 16 2023 9:07 utc | 181
*** Given that the CIA is clearly involved in the campaign against Trump, why hasn’t he simply been assassinated? ***
Deflection, distraction and space-filler in politics and the mass-media.
Even though he may not always want to be….
How many years now, of non-stop often hysterical wall-to-wall drivel about “Trump” — and no focus on *real* problems home and abroad?
Just like with how the rather pathetic Corbyn — who Pompeo announced in advance the USA would not *allow* to win — was treated by mass-media and politicians in the UK 2019 election …. no discussion of policies and serious issues (including suggested, and very popular across all parties, proposals for nationalisation) at all.

Posted by: Cynic | Aug 16 2023 17:11 utc | 206

Posted by: grunzt | Aug 16 2023 16:52 utc | 206
Why shouldn’t the people know these facts?
The election of RFK Junior will only lead to further disillusionment.
Either he does what he says he’s going to do and then will be wiped out like the Gracchi brothers, or he doesn’t do what he says he’s going to do and then people will be equally disillusioned.
This is exactly why even though he or Sanders cannot be elected despite not posing a direct threat to the bourgeoisie.
The fact that Trump has already had some similar effects is exactly why Trump is so strongly ostracized and rejected despite the fact that he can barely do anything he says he will.

Posted by: Colin | Aug 16 2023 17:19 utc | 207

Just like with how the rather pathetic Corbyn — who Pompeo announced in advance the USA would not *allow* to win — was treated by mass-media and politicians in the UK 2019 election …. no discussion of policies and serious issues (including suggested, and very popular across all parties, proposals for nationalisation) at all.
Posted by: Cynic | Aug 16 2023 17:11 utc | 208
Like the minimum wage issue and health care issues that are very popular in the US ……

Posted by: Colin | Aug 16 2023 17:21 utc | 208

In response to malenkov@205,
That’s like saying you’ll avoid getting shot in a gunfight if you wear a bullet-proof vest, when in reality the one has no influence on the other, but simply mitigates (to a degree) the potentially adverse effects associated with being shot, such as loss of life. Putting on a hazmat suit before electing to descend into a sewer is not by any definition a great way of avoiding human waste — the initial premise inherently precludes such an outcome, by virtue of the very nature and intended purpose of sewers, and the use of protective equipment tailored to the task implies full awareness of and surrender to the inevitable.
As for the underlying topic, I agree with your premise, since it doesn’t particularly matter what the sexual orientation of a couple is when it comes to sex as opposed to reproduction, or even what the specific sexual act is. All such activity fits neatly into a single category, together with masturbation, since all these activities serve to satisfy the innate reproductive drive of living organisms without fulfilling the function which this drive serves. On one hand it shows off the ability of humans to manipulate their own animal programming, and on the other their continuing inability to come to terms with it in any structured fashion, since it ultimately amounts to self-deception.
As for hurting others, as per Ahenobarbus@204, this oft-repeated maxim is, I believe, a window into a very complex and frightening topic. If our current stance on individual freedoms ultimately serves to erode social cohesion to such a point that we put human existence itself at risk, which isn’t a far-fetched prospect for me, would that constitute hurting others or not? If yes, could we as individuals withstand the type of restructuring which might be necessary to build a society where our survival as a species is guaranteed? Perhaps it’s a question of short-term v.s long-term considerations, where both options are terrifying in their own way.

Posted by: Skiffer | Aug 16 2023 18:02 utc | 209

Posted by: Skiffer | Aug 16 2023 18:02 utc | 211
It is economic conditions that really lead to existential threats, not people’s freedom of sexual orientation.
Covid, for example, exacerbate the general fertility declines because it destroys the economic conditions of the vast majority of people.
The culture war is just a way to hide the fact that they even don’t want to pay their fair share to keep people in line.

Posted by: Colin | Aug 16 2023 18:39 utc | 210

Colin: Exactly. The birth rate decline during peak COVID provides devastating proof, because normally when couples are confined to their homes — say, during power blackouts and prolonged blizzards — one expects a spike in births nine months afterward. I mean, what else are couples going to do when they’re stuck at home? Board games get tiresome after a while.
As I see it, there are two ways to juice the birth rate:
1. Remove women from the professions and put them back into the home.
2. Pay workers fairly so that they can afford to have kids.
And even if you could get away with option 1 — not even Hitler got very far with it — you still have to do option 2.
As for those who think that everyone will go gay or trans if we don’t repress such elements in our society, perhaps they should ask themselves whether they’re projecting their own insecurities. Believe it or not, most people just don’t want to get physically intimate with a member of their own sex, and the sight of a bearded man in a dress (non-ecclesiastical, of course) or two guys kissing isn’t going to make a straight guy stray from the straight-and-narrow. In fact, the sight of two girls kissing might just make him randy . . .

Posted by: malenkov | Aug 16 2023 19:05 utc | 211

In response to Colin@212,
I don’t believe any proposition can afford to be categorical where this topic is concerned. The mental states of individuals, including sexual orientation, do not exist in a vacuum, meaning that they have influence on and are influenced by social developments, including economic conditions. In order to form a comprehensive description, never mind make predictions about the future or play with the variables involved, all aspects need to be accounted for.
Admittedly, the thought of trying to construct a comprehensive social model already gives me a headache, so I generally limit myself to small-scale analogies. So, when you claim that sexual orientation is irrelevant, and what really matters are economic conditions, I take that to mean that there’s no discernible difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual family unit in its impact on society, provided that their economic situation is comparable. Maybe that is true, I couldn’t tell you for certain that it’s not, but intuitively I would expect that a heterosexual family would have priorities, particularly where children are concerned, that a homosexual family would not have, and vice versa. I also wouldn’t exclude the possibility of sexual orientation, among other aspects of individual proclivity, to be the result of political decisions’ influence on society, being thus as much a symptom of policy decisions as a driving force for their continued implementation.

Posted by: Skiffer | Aug 16 2023 19:25 utc | 212

In response malenkov@213,
If forcing women to stay at home during Covid didn’t boost birth-rates and is meant as a prime example of some point or other, then removing women from the workforce and forcing them into home occupations should have the exact same result, surely? And, at the same time as we’re gutting the workforce of all women, we’re supposed to be improving household economies. All that’s left is to defer to Adolf Hitler as the prime example of a social reformer, so that the presented rationale doesn’t just collapse in on itself at first glance, but also spontaneously combust and set tangential topics on fire.
I think any reasoning which assumes that a good household economy is by itself an incentive to have children should have to expand on why that is the case, because there’s no direct correlation that I can see. The population of street animals grows in inverse proportion to the availability of food and they’re wired the same as us in terms of biology.
Furthermore, Covid restrictions weren’t selectively applied to couples but also concerned singles, whose ability to find partners for reproductive activity was severely restricted, including restrictions on most public places where people socialize and look for mates. Coupled with the scaremongering of infection, any rise in birthrates of couples could thus be argued to have been offset by the decline in new couples being formed. Any methodology that examines the impact of Covid on birthrates is incomplete without also considering this aspect.

Posted by: Skiffer | Aug 16 2023 20:02 utc | 213

Skiffer: wrt your first paragraph: umm, no. As I stated — and as you ignored — forcing women back into ghe home would have to be accompanied by fair worker compensation, precisely so that couples could afford to raise families. In the COVID situation, the meager gummint checks hardly imparted the requisite sense of security afforded by a secure and well-paying family breadwinner job.
I should have added that much more generous government support for families — better child tax credits, free daycare, free child healthcare — would be highly beneficial as well.
(And as for Hitler, just as with the entire KdF program, he promised much more than he had any intention of delivering until Germany could feed off the spoils from Brittany to Baku, or even Baikal.)

Posted by: malenkov | Aug 16 2023 20:21 utc | 214

addendum to previous: oh, snd when I mention free daycare, I do mean to imply that forcing women back into the home is a truly depraved idea. I should hope that only the most extreme social conservatives would advocate it.

Posted by: malenkov | Aug 16 2023 20:23 utc | 215

In response to malenkov@216,
I just found it amusing that you’d use an identical premise to argue for two diametrically opposite results in short succession.
If the issue is a presence or lack of a sense of security, it’s fair to argue that any such sense generated by household incomes could be offset by global developments, real or imaginary, such as a deadly worldwide pandemic, restrictions on freedom, implementation of digital systems of control, impending ecological disaster and the world on the brink of nuclear war. If true, resolving the material component of increasing household incomes to a point where family units can be comfortably supported might not have any appreciable effect on birthrate trends anyway, as couples would instead prioritize investment in security from threats, real or imaginary.

Posted by: Skiffer | Aug 16 2023 21:01 utc | 216

Skiffer: Fair enough; we can’t re-create the world of Father Knows Best. On the other hand, there are plenty of couples — I know more than a few — who would have a kid, or another kid, if they just had a little more money. Factors like global warming, impending nuclear catastrophe, or Wall Street “black swans” don’t seem to factor as much.

Posted by: malenkov | Aug 16 2023 21:10 utc | 217

In response to malenkov@219,
That’s probably because almost any obstacle can be measured in the financial resources necessary to overcome it, while the root cause for all of these problems have little to do with money per say. For a nonsensical example, maybe my wife and I are willing to have children only on Mars, as we feel the Earth is beyond salvation at this point. Well, with enough resources at our disposal, it’s arguably within human technological limitations to make it happen, but it wouldn’t make sense to argue that every family should have enough resources to settle a different planet in order to boost birth rates, and that the problem is with income and not people giving up on Earth.
To phrase it a different way, I would propose that modern society is increasingly accumulating ideological hurdles that stand in the way of the traditional family experience, and the extent to which these can be overcome depends on the amount of resources at your disposal. Where before, all that a family needed to thrive would have been food and a roof over their head, with some families having neither and still expanding, the populations of modern society increasingly find their own existence and the prospects of their future children too bleak to settle for perpetuating them, and although a higher income could be used to alleviate this problem, it’s unrealistic to expect every household to be able to afford to reshape their community, circumvent legislation, wield executive power over political processes or relocate to a more favorable environment.
Even with the resources at hand, a lot of effort has to go into a modern family, while an increasing amount of opportunities are generated for lifestyles that exclude procreation, which are furthermore affordable on a single-income, achieve more in terms of hedonistic pursuits on a higher income, and even variations that used to be considered degenerate in this regard are rapidly becoming normalized and celebrated. In our consumer-oriented society, having a product that’s difficult and expensive competing with one that’s cheap and easy, and which is getting ad-space in every other available product, it’s obvious which one the majority of consumers will pick.
If a person is taught that they can achieve contentment without procreation, and there’s nothing within the social matrix or underlying ideological system that mandates procreation, and the institution of parenthood is gradually hollowed out and bureaucratized, and you live in a society that celebrates lifestyles which expressly exclude procreation, that person needs to be a contrarian just to consider raising a family.

Posted by: Skiffer | Aug 16 2023 22:15 utc | 218

Skiffer #220:
“…but it wouldn’t make sense to argue that every family should have enough resources to settle a different planet in order to boost birth rates, and that the problem is with income and not people giving up on Earth.”
Likewise it doesn’t make much sense to completely outlaw not only abortion, but to take away access to morning-after contraception and other regressive draconian means of ensuring that every woman (or couple) without the resources is forced by the state to conceive and attempt to raise a family in this late-stage capitalist shithole country (US in particular).
Not necessarily directed at you, but conservatives and right-wingers want it both ways. They complain constantly about out-of-wedlock children, single (black and hispanic) mothers, property/poverty crimes and at the same time want to restrict access to abortion, birth control, family planning services and a social safety net.

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Aug 16 2023 22:36 utc | 219

If a person is taught that they can achieve contentment without procreation, and there’s nothing within the social matrix or underlying ideological system that mandates procreation, and the institution of parenthood is gradually hollowed out and bureaucratized, and you live in a society that celebrates lifestyles which expressly exclude procreation, that person needs to be a contrarian just to consider raising a family.
Posted by: Skiffer | Aug 16 2023 22:15 utc | 220
I can’t decide whether that’s reductio ad absurdum or the slippery slope fallacy.

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Aug 16 2023 22:38 utc | 220

I understand your argument but find your last paragraph horribly exaggerated, as there are still plenty of social forces that valorize and encourage procreation. That, and there may be a biological imperative to procreate that many people feel and which doesn’t wilt in the presence of happy faggots.
Now as for mandating procreation, let’s hope that notion dies the ignominious death it deserves. Nobody benefits from the production of unwanted children, especially those born to parents who are reluctant or even resentful of the new responsibility — least of all the children themselves.

Posted by: malenkov | Aug 16 2023 22:43 utc | 221

H. L. Mencken (1880 – 1956): “As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents… the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
First of all, RFK moron isn’t a Democrat no matter who his dad was. He’s just another loud-mouthed ignorant fool, in other words, a traitorous Trumpanzee. This means the Democrats have the unrestricted right to deny his claim he’s a Democrat. The author merely underlines RFK’s treachery by asserting Trump should win with so-called Democratic support.
Noam Chomsky: ”Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. Media.”
Secondly, the author isn’t a Georgia prosecutor, or even a member of the bar. He hasn’t seen the evidence, and won’t attend the trial.
John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873): “I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally conservative.”
Third, Fani Willis isn’t criminalizing free speech and rumour. Lies and threats aren’t ‘free speech’: they are attempts to bury the truth and free speech alive under a mountain of bullshite and violence. Expectations the Washington Post would have a honest, respectable opinion were buried forever under lies told in support of AmeriKKKa’s Bandera Nazis.
H. L. Mencken (1880 – 1956): “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”
Fourth, Ms Willis can use an expansive interpretation of the RICO Act because the Georgia legislature and citizens enacted an expansive version of the law. She has chosen this path to show Trump’s traitorous conspiracy in all its arrogant, venal, lying stupidity.
Frank Wilhoit (The travesty of liberalism by Henry Farrell): “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Fifth, there is no ‘Burisma Case’. There’s barely a Grand Jury investigation. This is nothing more than political grandstanding to divert attention from Trumpanzee treason and rebellion. It’s designed to maintain there’s a difference between Democrats and Republicans.
William Casey (CIA Director 1981-1987): “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
Vladimir Putin: “If people in the media cannot decide whether they are in the business of reporting news or manufacturing propaganda, it is all the more important that the public understand that difference, and choose their news sources accordingly.”

Posted by: Ricardo2000 | Aug 16 2023 22:53 utc | 222

In response to malenkov@223,
I don’t dispute that there may be social forces that encourage procreation, although I notice that you didn’t give a single example, seeing as how we’re talking about birth-rates being unsatisfactory we might deduce which forces are having more success. I would expect that arguing that the impetus for having children is actually increasing, while actual births are decreasing, might be difficult, especially if this enthusiasm isn’t in any way reflected in domestic political decisions.
As for biological imperatives, if they’re weak enough to be offset by economic consideration, as you have previously argued, why would they be strong enough to withstand social pressure? And, doesn’t the compulsion to be able to provide a certain standard before raising a family also stem from social pressure? After all, having children, on the face of it, costs only as much as one is willing to pay, and anyone should be able to afford that.
I’m curious who you think benefits from unwanted children not being born and how that benefit can be quantified. Not that parents today never come to regret their decision to have children along the way, or the capability of even enthusiastic parents to mess up their kids. Considering that we’re talking about various incentives for and encouragement of procreation, things that are by design meant to convince more people to have children, we should logically expect more to fall into the aforementioned categories.

Posted by: Skiffer | Aug 16 2023 23:32 utc | 223

lol at anybody in this thread believing democracy ever existed in the US. Anybody could vote in 1820 right? Oh well, maybe not slaves, but certainly all white people? I’m begging the question but you get the gist (hint: google “universal suffrage America”). Anyone else familiar with the shennanigans in the 1948 Texas senate election?
Willfully ignoring history is no better than distorting the present, which is why we have fools claiming America is a pure little democratic country. Never was, never will be. Its like saying America is capitalist, or that China is communist. Mao Zedong and his compatriots would like a word with you if you believe the latter.
A banana is a banana, a rose a rose. Democracy, like philosphizing about economic systems, is an idea put into practice and like all ideas, they sound better on paper.

Posted by: shadowloser | Aug 16 2023 23:36 utc | 224

In response to Tom_Q_Collins@222,
It’s consistent with informal logic, but the premise may be wrong. Cherry picking, circular reasoning etc.

Posted by: Skiffer | Aug 17 2023 0:01 utc | 225

I thought Trump was the final excrescence of a failing US democracy and then the ageing warmonger Biden was elected. The nation appears to be falling apart and the gerontocracy don’t give a dam as long as they retain power. Trump is saying some god awful things about China. Seems the non Democrat majority in the US blames China, communism, Marxism, socialism, for all their problems. Very very clever. It’s hard to imagine the slave class waking up. RFK jnr. cannot and will not flip re big pharma and pollution if he makes it to the presidency. It would be good for America if he did make it, but I would be surprised if he did. RFK jnr is not perfect but a dam sight better than anything else on offer.
I don’t like this claim of ‘controlled opposition’. It’s the new conspiracy theory. A way of denigrating people and ideas. Dividing us. If you don’t agree argue the point or provide proof don’t make sweeping nonsensical claims. It’s just another tool for manipulating the slave class and is being used against intellectuals/scientists who question pandemic measures. Very very clever.

Posted by: Inki | Aug 17 2023 0:03 utc | 226

Talking of the west of course. There was a time mid 1970s when a body of feminist thinking opposed childbearing. Then women realised if they waited too long it was too late. I think the conversation was started amongst film ‘stars’ who had left it too late. In New Zealand there was always free kindergarten for half a day for all children after age three. I think this is a true statement – I did not live there for long. Australia supposedly a wealthy country has only just managed some free hours for the not well off. I believe after a policy position of mine was accepted. The expense is still crippling and financial support for pre school is linked to vaccination status (Bastards!).
Population/procreation is unbelievably complicated. There was a baby bonus here Oz of a not insignificant amount but all clawed back by child care and then it was discovered there were not enough school places and now teachers have had enough. I would like to know what the bar thinks of the Polish measures to encourage the younger adults to procreate.

Posted by: Inki | Aug 17 2023 0:38 utc | 227

Skiffer: I’m not at all sure what you’re getting at in your first two paragraphs. Different couples will feel different concatenations of pressure and deal as they see fit.
As for your last paragraph: the primary beneficiary in the case of the non-birth of an unwanted child is the unwanted and unloved child. Better not to exist than to exist in misery. Of course the forces of evil, such as Holy Mother Church, would disagree, but fuck them.

Posted by: malenkov | Aug 17 2023 1:06 utc | 228

The Trump Defense: An Initial Evaluation
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-trump-defense-an-initial-evaluation
(Very good objective unbiased deep dive) What the Heck Happened in Coffee County, Georgia?
A detailed look back at the computer intrusion that features prominently in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s election interference indictment
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-the-heck-happened-in-coffee-county-georgia
Three Questions About Section 241, the Conspiracy Against Rights Statute
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/three-questions-about-section-241-the-conspiracy-against-rights-statute
And this is alarming totalitarian overreach to me – 2016 to 2023 – Twitter user found guilty
The Last Time the Justice Department Prosecuted Election Interference Under Section 241
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-last-time-the-justice-department-prosecuted-election-interference-under-section-241

Better known by his online nom de guerre “Ricky Vaughn,” Douglass Mackey was one of the most high-profile Twitter users dedicated to spreading pro-Trump falsehoods during the 2016 election. He was prolific enough that some of his posts, which encouraged supporters of Hillary Clinton to “vote from home” by texting or posting on social media rather than heading to the polls, made a prominent appearance during a 2017 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the responsibility of tech platforms for 2016 election interference. A document provided to Congress by Twitter names his posts as examples of “voter suppression activity” removed by the platform.
For five years, though, Mackey seems to have flown under the radar, identified only by his Twitter handle. That changed in 2021. On Jan. 22 of that year—only two days after President Biden took office, and just over two weeks after the Jan. 6 riot—Mackey was charged under § 241 for his “vote from home” posts. In a press release, the Justice Department condemned what it described as Mackey’s “conspiring … to use various social media platforms to disseminate misinformation designed to deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote.”
Section 241—originally passed [in 1870] to secure the rights of Black Americans against a campaign of white supremacist violence following the Civil War — has long been used to prosecute conspiracies threatening the right to vote.
One filing in the Mackey case, the government’s opposition to Mackey’s motion to dismiss the charges, is particularly instructive when it comes to the Justice Department’s understanding of the statute’s scope. Quoting the 1941 Supreme Court case United States v. Classic, the department writes, “a conspiracy to prevent the citizen from voting or to prevent the official count of his ballot when cast is a conspiracy to injure and oppress the citizen in the free exercise of a right secured by the Constitution within the meaning of [Section 241].” The Justice Department also quotes United States v. Mosley, in which the Court held that, “We regard it as equally unquestionable that the right to have one’s vote counted is as open to protection by Congress as the right to put a ballot in a box.”
Likewise, ruling against Mackey’s motion to dismiss, the district court wrote, “For more than a century, courts have held that this statute flexibly proscribes conspiracies to injure the right to vote in a variety of contexts and undertaken using a variety of mechanisms.”
According to the complaint, at least 4,900 separate phone numbers texted the number provided by Mackey in an apparent effort to vote for Clinton. It’s impossible to say how many of those people didn’t vote in person because of Mackey’s scheme.
Mackey was found guilty by a jury in March. He’s currently awaiting his sentencing, which has been set for October. Following the verdict, his lawyer indicated to the New York Times that he plans to appeal the conviction.
When Mackey was first charged in January 2021, I spoke with Deuel Ross, the deputy director of litigation at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, about how to understand the “Ricky Vaughn” case as part of the broader landscape of § 241 prosecutions. Ross told me then that, as far as he knew, the Mackey prosecution may well have been the first instance in which the Justice Department had brought § 241 charges over the distribution of voting disinformation over social media.

Posted by: Lavrov’s Dog | Aug 17 2023 4:09 utc | 229

Happy to see the different factions of the western elite fighting each other. It seems Trump is the spokesman of the nouveau riche upstart capitalists; while Biden represents the old Anglo-Saxon rich more comfortable with the British aristocracy than their own working class. The US voters should think strategically and seek to foment this conflict as far as possible; put your fingers on the gash and make them scream.
The ideal scenario is Biden wins 49.9% and Trump 50.1%; immediate civil war erupts; in the ensuing disorganization and mutual weakening the workers seize control and establish the American People’s Republic; whose first act is to nuke L’vov (half-joking). This would be the ideal scenario…

Posted by: Browser | Aug 17 2023 7:26 utc | 230

malenkov | Aug 15 2023 18:09 utc | 48

…one thing I’ve learned from you Trotsky fanbois is how much you despise faggots…

An observation I share. But how do you know, though, that they are Trotskyites – from the comments I read it certainly follows that the majority (including the mostly silent part) is pro-Russian or pro-Putin like myself, but ideologically, they appear to me to be quite a mixed crowd…

Posted by: grunzt | Aug 17 2023 12:41 utc | 231

This has nothing to do with free speech.
You grossly mislead readers by falsely framing and failing to provide the context of this cherry picked sham argument and the legal relevance of the criminal charge.
Shame on you.

Posted by: bill wolfe | Aug 15 2023 16:13 utc | 9
Fundamental to your critique is the assumption that the election was not stolen. A courtroom is not the worst place to test this element in dispute.

Posted by: Stumpy | Aug 17 2023 14:19 utc | 232

Posted by: grunzt | Aug 17 2023 12:41 utc | 231
I’m actually a Maoist but no one seems to notice, probably because I support the lgbtiq movement lmfao

Posted by: Colin | Aug 17 2023 18:02 utc | 233

BTW I’m not pro-Putin or Russia, but I think NATO’s intervention in Ukraine has to be stopped for now.

Posted by: Colin | Aug 17 2023 18:04 utc | 234

I live in a closed primary state and play the hand that’s dealt me. The R Primary is next April and D Primary in August. I’m registered R and will vote for Trump in April. Immediately afterward I register D and vote for Bobby Kennedy Jr in August.
If Republicans wise up and follow my strategy we might eliminate FJB in the primary! If Kennedy loses in the D Primary I figured that last statement out long ago.

Posted by: Longtrail | Aug 19 2023 17:22 utc | 235

“Biden wins 49.9% and Trump 50.1%; immediate civil war erupts; in the ensuing disorganization and mutual weakening the workers seize control and establish the American People’s Republic”
Posted by: Browser | Aug 17 2023 7:26 utc | 230
Exactly what workers do you expect to seize control?? The McDonald workers? The Uber workers? The Starbucks workers? The Walmart workers.
This is why Marxism is irrelevant today. There is no Collective group of workers, and there will be fewer and fewer as AI and robotics is increasingly adopted.

Posted by: Jerr | Aug 20 2023 1:49 utc | 236

As Wiltek says above:

There is only one cure. Paper votes, hand counting and representatives for all interested parties as observers.

And of course, THAT VOTERS HAVE TO SHOW ID.
You can’t even get food at a soup kitchen without showing and ID. Every other country in the world requires the showing of ID, except for basket cases, where instead they dye the fingers of the voters so they can’t vote again.

Posted by: Tenet | Aug 21 2023 13:38 utc | 237

Hilarious that the socialist malenkov claims that homosexuals are “discriminated” against, when the propaganda and laws have elevated homosexuality to state religion, in every single country in the West.
That is because the Jews that control Hollywood brought in their homosexual friends to every level as support. The homosexuals demanded that their ridiculous causes be pushed in every TV show in exchange – homos have never actually wanted “gay marriage,” it was just a way to have a cause and something to attack normal people with.
Now a website is closed down because the provider is threatened, if the website calls a man a man, when he pretends he is a woman just to be in-your-face and show his state-backed power over other people.
And yet the socialist malenkov pretends he is discriminated against.
And the moron claims that Blacks have “taken back” the word nigger, which he is too afraid to even write out. Um, no. Its use by Blacks was entirely pushed by socialist media. Just like your beloved word “queer” that you talk about was entirely pushed by the media. You are too dumb to know that. You don’t know that twisting the word gay, which means happy, into being a word for you homosexuals was also a campaign by the Jewish socialist media owners and the Jew socialists in Hollywood. Instead you repeat lies.
No doubt you also think that 10% of the population are actually homosexuals, an impossibility in a species. The 10% number was invented by homo groups and pushed by the media – they have openly admitted later that they were lying. But again, you are too dumb to know any of this. Socialists are always too dumb to see through the media propaganda, otherwise you wouldn’t be socialists.

Posted by: Tenet | Aug 21 2023 13:44 utc | 238