arrowsmith

Comedy may be subjective but there is no indication here that you’re trying to be funny. Make jokes - this is a deathlist site so I expect black humor. However, you seem to be disappointed by the result. If that’s true you should really rethink your values.

You’re a creep and should be ashamed of yourself.

Fair enough. I’ll cop to being upset, and if your point was merely that the political environment, which he has contributed to, has inevitably led to this and not that this is somehow a deserved outcome, then I apologize.

I didn’t say that. I am merely saying that political violence of this type is a different sort of crime and suggesting in any way that other acts of violence somehow justify this or minimize it is absolutely idiotic. This thread is updating quickly. I missed the other comment you referenced. My facepalm reaction which bothered you so much was a reaction to the implicit minimization of this.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you had. I used my response to you to respond to those who are saying disgusting things.

This is a false equivalency. Violence is, of course, terrible. Shooting a presidential candidate is an assault on the nation. It is an attempt to usurp our right to choose our leaders. I despise Trump and all he stands for, but this is not merely an assault on him. As a citizen of this country, I am injured by both the attempt to alter the election but also the contribution to general political upheaval. Regardless of whether he is a demagogue and has endorsed violence himself, it is truly disturbing and disgraceful to suggest that this is a missed opportunity.

No

I really didn’t realize how much I would feel his death. I never had any particular attachment to him but he was a fixture of television in my youth. He always struck me as a decent person and it takes a certain kind of bravery to deliberately be the object of ridicule for the joy of others. RIP.

My only hope was that the damn search function would know that the millennium had come and gone.

Interesting article discussing his place within certain actuarial tables. https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/is-papal-demography-destiny?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Entirely possible. I merely thought her absence conspicuous and worth noting.

This is a decent overview: https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/uk-cultural-grandees-urge-vatican

No. That’s her sister in law.

Her name is conspicuously absent from the public letter in The Times supporting the new Agatha Christie indult. I sincerely cannot imagine that she wouldn’t have signed if asked and able. It would not be because of her status as Princess Michael of Kent signed. Perhaps an indication of declining cognition.

Are you actually expecting a rational explanation? My theory is sir creep gets drunk once a week and says whatever pops into his head in as he reads each thread.

Not wrong. As they say in The West Wing their “constitutional obligation is to have a pulse”. Not hard to be more than that. Some people simply meet their obligations.

My personal frustrations with her, beyond her rather lackluster time in the senate and her atrocious record as California AG, is that she has turned being a boring VP into an art form. The only thing she was put in charge of was the border, that went spectacularly.

Unfortunately, no. Many of us hoped he’d commit to standing down after his first term but he never did.

All 45 of you?

Probably not. The ruling is rather broad. What I suspect will happen, if the trial judge is disinclined to drag their feet, is that the judge will take a broad view of the opinion in order to force the DC circuit to make of what they can. Depending on how that ruling goes, the Supreme Court will have to write the decision they avoided writing here. I don’t want Trump to win for many reasons but the foremost of them has just become clarity on this opinion. I think it was decided rightly but in a cowardly fashion. If he wins it’s all over. He can have the justice department end the investigation. If he doesn’t it will get properly hashed out. The state court trials are a different story. They are nominated/elected in a different fashion and care less about their place in the system/history. Regardless, it is impossible to prosecute a sitting president. So if he wins there are issues of statutes of limitations and/or political will that will hamper what happens with these prosecutions in 2029.

Indeed. However, this has nothing to do with the money. Should he drop out after the convention everything gets much much worse.

I saw this too. My understanding is the rules are more opaque (just what you want!) than would be required to necessarily determine this. Primary campaign funds cannot be given to candidates but are typically given to PACs or the party. I have a feeling the DNC would make an emphatic case for being the recipient of those funds if Biden desired them to have them, whether Harris believed she was legally entitled to them or not. Again, this is novel. Campaign finance laws are fairly new as most of this was unregulated in the past and laws have not been written to determine what would happen in extraordinary circumstances. Most of these laws are based on the possibility of a candidate for lesser office dropping out or dying and their party’s chosen successor having a process to get the funds. The vice presidency is a peculiar office - no one runs for it. The vice presidential “candidate” isn’t actually a successor until they are nominated, as delegates are bound to nominate them a vice president. Not as president should the presidential candidate no longer be running. The article writers are enjoying making it seem as though she has a bargaining chip but if the DNC doesn’t want her to be the nominee that advantage seems to dry up fairly quickly. VP Harris is also probably more interested in not having Trump win than in subjecting whoever is running to the legal shit show of arguing over money. Just my two cents. Well, really more of a dime as I wrote too much. Sorry.

I’m not entirely sure that this is accurate. I believe, if Biden declined to be nominated, that he would be free to donate his campaign funds away. Harris would not be entitled to them as the campaign up until now has been a primary campaign (she has not been nominated for anything) and Biden is the sole recipient. I can also imagine that a campaign contributor would have a cause of action should she attempt to appropriate the funds without the consent of Biden. Of course this situation is entirely novel so no one really knows what would happen.

Wrong Flack!!

From your lips to God’s ears.