It has been my experience that the more people have, the less risk they are willing to take. They are not willing to risk losing it, not any of it. Bill Kristol knows these people well. It will be rare for those at the top to push back. The resistance will not come from them. It will come from surprising people, the Samaritans, the people not at the center of power usually. Maybe more women than men. Margaret Chase Smith.
He's such a forking ass. He wants to plunder Greenlands resource's. And I'm sure most of the people living there are all white, except for the natives. Greenland has had Norse settlements since 986 AD. It has been a possession of Denmark since 1380 AD. It also has a thriving inuit population.
Well of course he could barely recognize himself. The artist, for whatever delusional reason, tried to make him look presidential. God only knows what he sees in a mirror in the morning but it certainly isn't that.
"But to fight now? Bad idea. That would simply play into Trump’s hands. After all, Trump and his allies are good at fighting."
C'mon now. Trump himself is terrible at fighting. Unless you count tantrums thrown by spoiled toddlers as "fighting." I would also argue that his allies are not very good at fighting either, at least not on an individual level. But they have the safety in number, further protected by the shrewdest and most shameless lawyers money can buy. And with Musk now co-cult leader, there's no shortage of money.
"You’re an elected official. The Trump administration has rounded up individuals and sent them, without any due process..."
Warning: Turn off your irony meters. Trump never got due process for "allegedly" (1) stealing classified documents, (2) obstructing their return and (3) "inciting" (aka "commanding") an insurrection.
Who's responsible for Republican Senators' abdication of their principles, and their character? Who's responsible for the degradation of our political culture?
Who's responsible for promoting lies in the interests of the rich?
I had 4 questions to help provide more context for the significance of the Paul Weiss settlement agreement:
1 Why'd they agree to stop (?) their DEI activities? Not to mention DEI means so many different things to different people/firms so how did they define DEI and why would they agree to some government imposition on (for example) their hiring rules? Separately that seems a bridge too far?
2 Does the agreement prohibit Paul Weiss from representing clients (plaintiffs) who are suing the government? If not, then I feel SLIGHTLY less violated by the $40M of pro bono work FOR the government?
3 What happens if they aren't prohibited from representing clients that sue the government and the government says "we want you to defend us"? WHO gets to decide which of the parties they represent? Again, that could make me feel less OR more violated.
4 Does Paul Weiss have any "right of refusal" for what they get asked to do the pro bono work for? Again, that could make me feel less OR more violated.
We can't fight everywhere always. Every battle is tempting. But not every one is on terrain where we hold the high ground. Immigration fights are important on principle, but we won't win public opinion on those.
What if the fight wasn't about immigration but was about "due process", e.g. Some people fortunately (for them) have the benefit of unlimited resources and are able to delay and obstruct the justice system (e.g. the current president) and as a result get the maximum benefit of "due process". Others simply want to have a hearing before the courts before a verdict is rendered. Is that too much too ask?
My take is, the people we need to win over don't know or care much about due process, or anything abstract. For now, they want immigrants, especially supposed criminals, rounded up and sent away. We can argue "Yes ok but due process" and they will see more delays, less action, like they perceived with Biden. So no, it isn't too much to ask legally. But politically its not a winning fight for us. We need to understand the difference.
First they came for the gang leaders, but I wasn't a gang leader so I said nothing.
Then they came for the immigrants on green cards, but I wasn't on a green card, so I said nothing.
Then they came for the Journalists who published what might be classified chats, but I wasn't a journalist so I said nothing.
...
When they came for the Republicans in congress and there was nobody left to speak for me.
It has been my experience that the more people have, the less risk they are willing to take. They are not willing to risk losing it, not any of it. Bill Kristol knows these people well. It will be rare for those at the top to push back. The resistance will not come from them. It will come from surprising people, the Samaritans, the people not at the center of power usually. Maybe more women than men. Margaret Chase Smith.
He's such a forking ass. He wants to plunder Greenlands resource's. And I'm sure most of the people living there are all white, except for the natives. Greenland has had Norse settlements since 986 AD. It has been a possession of Denmark since 1380 AD. It also has a thriving inuit population.
Well of course he could barely recognize himself. The artist, for whatever delusional reason, tried to make him look presidential. God only knows what he sees in a mirror in the morning but it certainly isn't that.
"But to fight now? Bad idea. That would simply play into Trump’s hands. After all, Trump and his allies are good at fighting."
C'mon now. Trump himself is terrible at fighting. Unless you count tantrums thrown by spoiled toddlers as "fighting." I would also argue that his allies are not very good at fighting either, at least not on an individual level. But they have the safety in number, further protected by the shrewdest and most shameless lawyers money can buy. And with Musk now co-cult leader, there's no shortage of money.
"You’re an elected official. The Trump administration has rounded up individuals and sent them, without any due process..."
Warning: Turn off your irony meters. Trump never got due process for "allegedly" (1) stealing classified documents, (2) obstructing their return and (3) "inciting" (aka "commanding") an insurrection.
Unpopular opinion: It’s a perfectly damn fine portrait.
Check out Ann Talnaes on the topic of Trump's portrait
https://anntelnaes.substack.com/p/a-trump-portrait?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1250616&post_id=159768880&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=9qxw7&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
It’s quite more flattering than his actual real-life face is, I must say in all honesty.
That portrait looks a bit like Trump with the mumps!
RE: No Excuse.
Who's responsible for Republican Senators' abdication of their principles, and their character? Who's responsible for the degradation of our political culture?
Who's responsible for promoting lies in the interests of the rich?
I hope it hangs there forever, or at least until he is dead, at which time, I hope they remove it and leave his spot on the wall blank.
I had 4 questions to help provide more context for the significance of the Paul Weiss settlement agreement:
1 Why'd they agree to stop (?) their DEI activities? Not to mention DEI means so many different things to different people/firms so how did they define DEI and why would they agree to some government imposition on (for example) their hiring rules? Separately that seems a bridge too far?
2 Does the agreement prohibit Paul Weiss from representing clients (plaintiffs) who are suing the government? If not, then I feel SLIGHTLY less violated by the $40M of pro bono work FOR the government?
3 What happens if they aren't prohibited from representing clients that sue the government and the government says "we want you to defend us"? WHO gets to decide which of the parties they represent? Again, that could make me feel less OR more violated.
4 Does Paul Weiss have any "right of refusal" for what they get asked to do the pro bono work for? Again, that could make me feel less OR more violated.
That portrait is way too flattering. He doesn't have his mugshot look going on.
We can't fight everywhere always. Every battle is tempting. But not every one is on terrain where we hold the high ground. Immigration fights are important on principle, but we won't win public opinion on those.
What if the fight wasn't about immigration but was about "due process", e.g. Some people fortunately (for them) have the benefit of unlimited resources and are able to delay and obstruct the justice system (e.g. the current president) and as a result get the maximum benefit of "due process". Others simply want to have a hearing before the courts before a verdict is rendered. Is that too much too ask?
My take is, the people we need to win over don't know or care much about due process, or anything abstract. For now, they want immigrants, especially supposed criminals, rounded up and sent away. We can argue "Yes ok but due process" and they will see more delays, less action, like they perceived with Biden. So no, it isn't too much to ask legally. But politically its not a winning fight for us. We need to understand the difference.
The picture makes him look better than he looks and certainly better than he is.