The context was that Hannity was throwing a slow pitch so Trump could reassure people that he doesn't have dictatorial ambitions. Trump could have hit a home run by saying, "No of course I don't want to be a dictator, I respect our democratic form of government and our U. S. constitution, blah, blah, blah." But he didn't. He hit a foul ball by 'joking' (?) about being dictator on day one. If people are concerned about something, joking about it in a tone-deaf and obscure fashion probably isn't the best response. So, I have no sympathy for Trump on this. As usual, Trump is the source of most of his own problems: financial, legal, political, and otherwise.

Here is a clear reminder that autocrats do not act alone. They need their minions. From Axios:

Stefanik Urges Ethics Investigation into Judge Linked to Trump Jan. 6 Cases:
Stefanik urges ethics investigation into judge linked to Trump, Jan. 6 cases

Stefanik requested an ethics investigation into U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell for a speech she gave in November, in which she said the country was at risk of falling into authoritarianism.

"Judge Howell's partisan speech is obviously highly inappropriate election interference by a federal judge that undermines the public's trust in our courts," Stefanik wrote.

Apparently the limits of free speech stop at the doorstep of Dear Leader.

But rest assured, Trump promises he will only be a dictator on day one. That is enough time to root out the vermin across government agencies and replace them with his henchmen like Stefanik, who cannot wait to begin the purge. The investigations he has threatened have already begun.

Sleep well. Sweet dreams. All praise Caesar Trump.

You can watch as the maggots bury themselves in the brains.

Hannity:

We almost have to go to a break. I want to go back to this one issue, though, because the media has been focused on this and attacking you. Under no circumstances, you are promising America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody.

Trump (18:51):

Except for day one.

Hannity (18:53):

Except for?

Trump (18:54):

He’s going crazy. Except for day one.

Hannity (18:55):

Meaning?

Trump (18:56):

I want to close the border and I want to drill.

Hannity (18:59):

That’s not retribution.

Trump (19:05):

I’m going to be… He keeps… We love this guy. He says you’re not going to be a dictator, are you? I said, no, no, no. Other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator. Okay?

Hannity (19:18):

That sounds to me like you’re going back to the policies when you were president.

Trump (19:21):

That’s exactly….

It's painful to read a Trump transcript. To be fair it's often painful to read a Biden transcript, too. Why can't we have leaders who can speak with precision and clarity? What's up with all of this mumble-mouth crap?

I just reserved the Cassidy Hutchinson book "Enough" from the library. Next up is Liz Cheney's book. I see Adam Kinzinger has a book out, too. One thing I notice is that a lot of the people raising the alarm about Trump are Republicans. They get called RINOs but they've all been more consistent in their political affiliation than Trump has been.

What's up with all of this mumble-mouth crap? — GRWelsh

Incomplete sentences, because if you never quite make sense, you never actually lie. (First discovered by admen). Hope to have given a strong impression of exactly what I have definitely not said that you might think.

What's up with all of this mumble-mouth crap? — GRWelsh

He's mentally challenged.

Rudy Giuliani hit with $148M verdict for defaming two Georgia election workers
Anyone feel sorry for Time Magazine's 2001 Person of the Year?

I'm predicting a more sanguine future for Taylor Swift.

:rofl:

Should be in prison. I hope this causes him a great deal of suffering. At least in proportion to how much he’s inflicted on others with his baseless lies.

Although the magnitude of the award is plainly absurd. How is a man of Guiliani’s much-depleted means supposed to actually shell out such an amount? It might be intended to be symbolic but it’s also somewhat ridiculous. (Not saying he doesn’t deserve severe consequences for his perfidy.)

I have zero sympathy for Giuliani. He went from being America's mayor to being Trump's stooge. He pushed the "election was stolen" narrative when he knew it wasn't true. You can get away with claiming they stole the election as long as you never define who "they" are. The problem is once you start naming names -- which you have to, eventually, to be taken seriously -- it is no longer a generalized conspiracy theory. And there are serious consequences to that if your accusations are untrue.

What kind of person would do what Giuliani did? You ruined people's lives, and for what? To prove your loyalty to Trump?

In some ways these kinds of people are worse than Trump, because they know what the truth is, and they know what Trump is all about, but they allow themselves to be corrupted. They made a political calculation to go along with the lies. They know it's wrong, but they do it anyway because they are betting that they will be on the winning side in the long run. This also applies to people like Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz and anyone else who could see Trump's flaws at one time but then later sold their own souls to become Trump loyalists.

How absurd that judgement might be needs to be assessed in the context of the differences between criminal and civil law, especially as that regards the application of Tort law. The distinction between compensation and punitive damages is still a loose ball in U.S jurisprudence as explained in this SEP article on Theories of the Common Law. The matter is described there as:

This entry examines philosophical accounts of tort law, distinguishing its obligations from other types of private legal obligation, and distinguishing its characteristic remedies from the punitive responses of the criminal law and from administrative regulation. It focuses exclusively on tort law within common law systems, that is, legal systems descended from English law, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, the United States. Other legal systems, originating in continental Europe, are usually described as “civilian” systems. They have detailed civil codes covering many of the same issues as the common law of torts. Some civilian systems share many doctrinal features with common-law system; others, particularly France, offer fundamentally different ways of dealing with the same set of interactions and the problems to which they give rise. — Arthur Ripstein

The purposes and justification for distinguishing compensation from 'punitive damages' is easier to measure when the damage is 'in kind.' The Dominion suit against Fox, for example, gave ways to calculate monetary loss. The case was settled so no punitive damages were involved. Punitive damages often become an issue when paying compensation by itself does not stop the defendant from injuring the plaintiff again. Dominion must have satisfied themselves on that score.

The Giuliani case involves monetary consequences that are difficult to calculate. The harm and fear along with the burden of disrepute imposed upon the life of the plaintiffs are incommensurate with any particular financial penalty. If the defendant does not accept that an injury has occurred, the only instrument left to get something from them is with money.

The need for the incommensurate quality of injury and redress is because it is something the defendant can elude responsibility for altogether if not applied. A common example is making the cost of repeating the injury too expensive for an agent to write it off as an expense incurred in the course of doing business.

The problem of arbitrary values being assigned by juries is an ongoing matter for constitutional law. Limited guidance and obscure means of calculation bring challenges to fairness and due process. The argument made by Mark A. Geistfeld does a good job of showing how this relates to case law. I agree with his proposal as a way to make this process better:

Even if this damages practice passes constitutional muster, the ideal of due process does not disappear. As compared to current practice, the tort system could adopt a more constitutionally defensible method or determining pain-and-suffering damages by being more true to the constitutional values of notice, predictability, and reasoned decision-making. Such a tort system may also be more secure from legislative reforms like the tort-reform bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in March 1995, which capped pain-and-suffering damages in a section of the bill entitled "Limitation on Speculative and Arbitrary Damage Awards."8 2

As the issue of pain-and-suffering damages illustrates, the tort system can be guided by the ideal of due process without abandoning its reliance on fairness and individual rights. In a rights-based tort system, damages for pain and suffering provide redress for rights-violations. Money is not equivalent with the right, nor can money represent the value of the pain and suffering. These characteristics of the tort right do not imply that there is no method for determining the appropriate form of redress for a rights-violation. Au tort right creates a corresponding duty of care for the duty-holder. To determine the safety precautions required of the duty-holder, the standard of care must monetize pain-and-suffering injuries. To violate the plaintiff's right, the defendant must have breached the duty of care in a manner that caused injury to the plaintiff, making it appropriate to redress the rights-violation by relying on the way in which the standard of care monetizes the injury. Not only does the nature of the tort right provide a method for determining the amount of damages, it also provides the foundation for a tort award that can be securely defended from constitutional attack — Geistfeld

This above is a roundabout way to say that the damages were not based upon what Rudy could cough up. Probable factors include the lack of full acceptance by Giuliani that injury had occurred. His lawyers argued the damage was less but did not argue how to evaluate it. The decision does not look absurd with the latest move by the Mayor:

The judge later ruled that they were false and defamatory. But now Giuliani is pulling a remarkable public about-face. In an interview outside the courthouse on Monday night, Giuliani claimed that “everything I said about them” — the two women — “is true.”

“Of course I don’t regret it,” Giuliani said. “I told the truth. They were engaged in changing votes.”

When it was pointed out that there remains no proof of that, Giuliani responded, “You’re damn right there is. Stay tuned.” — Aaron Blake

In an interview outside the courthouse on Monday night, Giuliani claimed that “everything I said about them” — Aaron Blake

It beggars belief that he will still maintain this obvious lie in the face of all that is happening. And thanks once again for the detailed breakdown, it does help to comprehend the massive amounts of money being awarded.

What kind of person would do what Giuliani did? You ruined people's lives, and for what? To prove your loyalty to Trump? — GRWelsh

Giuliani's lawyer said this in his closing statement: “remember this is a great man.”

If I were on the jury, this would have pissed me off. No greatness was displayed by this man in his remarks about the election workers, in the lead up to the trial (where he constantly complained he was being treated unfairly, and in his failure to provide required disclosure material), nor during the trial. He did something great once, 22 years ago. That doesn't make him a great man, in perpetuity.

If the justification for punitive damages is to stop the injury from being repeated, the dollar amount was not enough.

It beggars belief that he will still maintain this obvious lie in the face of all that is happening — Wayfarer

He emulates his mentor, who has developed quite a following with this sort of behavior.

I do not know how much the plaintiffs will get after all the appeals and bankruptcy strategies, but it will still cost Rudy.

If the justification for punitive damages is to stop the injury from being repeated, the dollar amount was not enough. — Paine

Will it stop him? I don't think so. Following Trump, who learned this at the knee of Roy Cohn he will continue to double down. He might even believe his own lies.

Mind you, if you consider the net of the awards to Dominion Voting and this case alone, Trump's lies have cost various parties around a billion dollars. And counting!

I have the best words, and the best words are whatever you want to hear... if you want to hear I am mentally challenged, you will hear it, but if you want to hear I am a very stable genius you will hear that. And that is why everyone loves to hear what I say, and they are all very special people.

Depraved clown. What does that make his voters?

Trump tells rally immigrants are ‘poisoning the blood of our country’
^{— Chris Michael · The Guardian · Dec 16, 2023}

At least someone has a spine and calls him out.

Trump’s rhetoric in final campaign sprint goes to new dark extremes
^{— Zachary B Wolf, Ariel Edwards-Levy · CNN · Dec 18, 2023}

"David Frum
@davidfrum
If liberals insist that enforcing borders is a job only fascists will do, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't."

Frum is on to something.

I agree with Frum's tautological statement. I also agree that it is wrong to regard anyone who looks to secure the borders is a fascist. But what Trump is saying goes far beyond border enforcement. The borders could be closed today but based on what he is saying the immigration problem would remain. If immigrants are poisoning "our" blood then the distinction between legal and illegal immigration is dissolved. What is to be done with them? Sequestered? Deported? What about their children? Are they too poisonous? How many generations back should we go?

Maybe the whole thing is an elaborate attempt to get rid of Melania?!

Maybe those who will vote for Trump are not bothered by this because they assume they will be included as "ours". They should not be too certain.

I agree with Frum's tautological statement. — Fooloso4

I don't think it's tautological. Frum is saying that voters value border security so strongly that they'll pick fascists to do it over liberals who won't. That's not true by definition. Voters could behave differently and pick liberals who are soft on border enforcement. But that's not where American voters are at the moment. I think he's right on that.

I agree with Frum's tautological statement. I also agree that it is wrong to regard anyone who looks to secure the borders is a fascist. But what Trump is saying goes far beyond border enforcement. The borders could be closed today but based on what he is saying the immigration problem would remain. If immigrants are poisoning "our" blood then the distinction between legal and illegal immigration is dissolved. What is to be done with them? Sequestered? Deported? What about their children? Are they too poisonous? How many generations back should we go? — Fooloso4

I always ask Republicans how they're going to deport over ten million undocumented immigrants. I remind them there's a proud tradition of xenophobes using cattle cars to round up "vermin". I usually get called names after that. America has historically low unemployment. America needs an influx of young workers to prop up social security and medicare.

Maybe the whole thing is an elaborate attempt to get rid of Melania?! — Fooloso4

:rofl:

America needs an influx of young workers to prop up social security and medicare. — RogueAI

Hey if the GOP thought said influx would vote for them they'd be laying out the red carpet.

On a more serious note, there's a kind of osmosis at work with undocumented immigrants. America has a human rights framework, whilst many or all of the countries from whence they come do not. So to return them to their point of departure is to violate their human rights - rights which of course are not recognised by their home countries. And no humane country can do that. So what MAGA are suggesting amounts to descending to the level of the originating regimes and abolishing the rights they are automatically granted to undocumented immigrants by merely turning up in America. It might work, but at the cost of undermining the kind of nation that America aspires to be (not that MAGA would understand that, as it means nothing to them, and they seem eager to bring it down to that level.)

I don't think it's tautological. — RogueAI

If only X will do Y then Y is will be done by X.

Frum is saying that voters value border security so strongly that they'll pick fascists to do it over liberals who won't. That's not true by definition. — RogueAI

As I say in the next sentence, it is wrong to regard anyone who does Y as X. Many liberals recognize the need for border security. The question is how to go about doing that. The problem of thinking that anyone who advocates for border security is a fascist is that it blurs the meaning of the term and opens the door to actual fascists.

Some voters might put it in the hands of actual fascists. I would like to think that most voters would not choose fascism, but I am no longer confident that is the case.

As I say in the next sentence, it is wrong to regard anyone who does Y as X. Many liberals recognize the need for border security. The question is how to go about doing that. The problem of thinking that anyone who advocates for border security is a fascist is that it blurs the meaning of the term and opens the door to actual fascists.

Some voters might put it in the hands of actual fascists. I would like to think that most voters would not choose fascism, but I am no longer confident that is the case. — Fooloso4

I think you're misreading Frum's quote. He's not saying border security is a fascist thing. He's saying that given a choice between fascists who happen to police the border and liberals who won't, Americans will pick the fascists.

I gonna put this here as well as the shout box, because it's almost on topic and it is a refreshingly philosophical take on politics.

I am not a Conservative, but here is a rather long lecture by an ex conservative UK mp about world politics that I think is worth hearing. Apart from the insightful contents, the clarity and fluency is an absolute delight. I defy you to listen to it or to read a transcript and not learn something, if only the startling fact that Aristotle did not have an iPhone!

https://www.gresham.ac.uk/sites/default/files/transcript/2023-06-08-1800_Stewart-T.pdf



Actually, if conservatism was all like this, I probably might be a a conservative.

I think you're misreading Frum's quote. — RogueAI

It is, rather, that you are misreading what I have said.

He's not saying border security is a fascist thing. — RogueAI

That is correct.

He's saying that given a choice between fascists who happen to police the border and liberals who won't, Americans will pick the fascists. — RogueAI

Not exactly. It is not as though if Americans were asked to choice between securing the borders or fascism they would choice fascism. He is warning the liberal readers of The Atlantic that immigration must be taken seriously, that if they dismiss such concerns as fascism we could end up with fascism.

In the article he says:

The question before the United States and other advanced countries is not: Immigration, yes or no? In a mobile world, there will inevitably be quite a lot of movement of people. Immigration is not all or nothing. The questions to ask are: How much? What kind?

As I said above:

The question is how to go about doing that. — Fooloso4

The rise of fascism, however, is not the result of immigration alone. According to the article:

The extremism and authoritarianism that have surged within the developed world since 2005 draw strength from many social and economic causes. Immigration is only one of them.

The more I see interviews with Trump supporters at Trump rallies the more disturbed I get. They seem to care more about the narrative than facts. They hold signs that say "Live Free Or Die" while at the same time they cheer Trump when he praises Kim Jong Un, quotes Vladimir Putin, and jokes about being a "Day One Dictator." They cheer on his authoritarian leanings, and so in my mind they encourage him in this direction. Yet, that would end up taking away their own freedoms in the long run. That's the thing about enabling an authoritarian or supporting expanding the powers of the executive branch... In the short term, you may support it because it is being used against your political opponents (liberals, RINOs, etc.) but in the long term it may erode your own rights and freedoms. Trump supporters don't seem concerned by this, or even cognizant of it. When interviewed about why they support Trump, they say vague things like "Trump cares about us" or "Drill, baby, drill" but there don't seem to be a lot of specifics. It's more like buying into an "us versus them" narrative about Trump being a heroic figure fighting against evil: Democrats who get equated with communists, antifa, globalists, Satanists, pedophiles, the Deep State, and fill in your favorite conspiracy theory here. It's definitely like a cult or fast growing and popular religion. I see a lot of fervor, but not a lot of critical thinking, in this MAGA movement. If you are a Republican and critical of Trump, you get cast out as an apostate RINO or even accused of being a traitor and receive death threats. Scary times!

The "they" he was speaking of were his political opponents, for instance "Biden and the lunatic left" and "the radical left democrats". He was saying they were poisoning the blood of the country, in this context by refusing to secure the southern border and stemming the influx of illegal immigrants. He falls in love with, marries, and has children with immigrants, so the notion that Trump is implying immigrants qua immigrants are poisoning the blood of the nation is just plain stupid.

Why do his haters fall for this cheesy propaganda all the time?