Friday: Hili dialogue

November 8, 2024 • 6:45 am

Welcome to the tail end o’ the week: Friday, November 8, 2024, and National Cappuccino Day.  I’m having a latte, but that is a sister species to cappuccino, having just a little more milk. Here’s mine this morning (I put a bit of cinnamon on top). I’m sipping it as I write!

It’s also World Pianist Day, National Harvey Wallbanger Day (a drink made with vodka, Galliano liqueur, and orange juice), and X-ray Day (the anniversary of the day on which Wilhelm Roentgen discovered X-rays in 1895). Here is the first “radiograph”, an image of Roentgen’s wife’s hand (her name was Anna Bertha Ludwig):

Credit: Wellcome Library, London. Wellcome Images images@wellcome.ac.uk Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 

Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the November 8 Wikipedia page.

Da Nooz:

*Control of the House of Representatives, crucial in what will happen in the next two years, is still undetermined.  The Republicans have to win 7 more seats out of the 25 left; the Democrats must win 19.  But the Senate is in GOP hands. Here’s the latest count from the AP:

And Trump has named Susie Wiles as his chief of staff (her Wikipedia bio is here):

Susie Wiles, who was named Donald Trump’s new White House chief of staff, will be the first woman in US history to serve in the role as gatekeeper to the president, a position that typically wields great influence.

The chief of staff position is usually the first appointee that a president-elect names, and may oversee the transition from one administration. Once Trump is sworn in as president, Wiles will also be in charge of all White House policy, serving as a confidante and adviser and managing day-to-day affairs.

Wiles, 67, is a veteran of Florida politics. She began her career in the Washington office of New York congressman Jack Kemp in the 1970s. Following that she did stints on Ronald Reagan’s campaign and in his White House as a scheduler.

. . .  Wiles joined up with Trump’s third campaign and served as his “de facto chief of staff” over the last three years to lead his successful re-election bid and helped him work with lawyers on his various criminal and civil cases.

*Here is a clickbaity headline from the NYT. I couldn’t help but read it (click on screenshot to read):

Buyt the essential bet is a bit anodyne. I’ve put the “essential bet” in bold:

How he won in 2024 came down to one essential bet: that his grievances could meld with those of the MAGA movement, and then with the Republican Party, and then with more than half the country. His mug shot became a best-selling shirt. His criminal conviction inspired $100 million in donations in one day. The images of him bleeding after a failed assassination attempt became the symbol of what supporters saw as a campaign of destiny.

“God spared my life for a reason,” he said at his victory speech early Wednesday, adding, “We are going to fulfill that mission together.”

At times, Mr. Trump could be so crude and self-indulgent on the stump that aides wondered if he were engaged in an absurdist experiment to test how much aberrant behavior voters would tolerate.

But Mr. Trump successfully harnessed the anger and frustration millions of Americans felt about some of the very institutions and systems he will soon control as the country’s 47th president. Voters unhappy with the nation’s direction turned him into a vessel for their rage.

“The elites cannot come to grips with how alienated they are from the country,” said Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, an informal adviser to the former and now future president.

But more than just broad societal forces were at play. His victory owed, in part, to strategic decisions by a campaign operation that was his most stable yet and was held together for nearly four years by a veteran operative, Susie Wiles — even if the candidate himself was, for much of 2024, as erratic as ever.

Is there any “there” there? All it seems they’re saying is that people who liked Trump would ignore stuff that would hurt any other candidate.  But we know that! After all, he was the one who said that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and wouldn’t lose any voters.” That was in 2016!

*I guess I’m just obsessed (as many Democrats are) with why the party lost. So here’s a WSJ headline that drew me in (click to read). I have an endless obsession with this kind of speculation because, of course, nobody knows for sure what changes would have led Harris to win:

Heading into Election Day, Donald Trump kept making controversial comments they thought would play right into their strategy of showing voters he was unfit for another term. They were optimistic the vice president was on the precipice of victory in a race they viewed as on a knife’s edge. Her final campaign appearance, on the iconic Philadelphia steps from Sylvester Stallone’s “Rocky,” would cap the arc of an underdog’s rise.

Instead, their optimism was a sign of how badly the Harris campaign misread an electorate that was more wound up about inflation and immigration than about Trump’s character. Trump punched his return ticket to the White House with a stunning electoral romp that batted away Harris’s attacks and lured voters who believed the country was on the wrong track and blamed President Biden, Harris’s deeply unpopular boss. Her inability to separate herself from him and offer her own specific solutions to Americans’ problems, despite a lavish campaign war chest, was a central reason for her loss.

Is this really news to anybody? That voters were concerned with immigration and the cost of living and Harris waffled about those things, offering only a promise to stop “price gouging”? And that when asked how she differed from Biden, she couldn’t give a substantive answer? But there’s more!

More broadly, the party erred in failing to plan a smooth transition from Biden’s presidency to the next generation of younger leaders despite his pledge to do so. Thrusting Harris atop the ticket in July left her campaign ill-prepared to compete against an opponent with a firm grip on the electorate.

In a 15-week campaign, Harris’s advisers knew from the start the fundamentals of the race were against her, but they eventually came to believe that bringing into focus Trump’s character was the only way to neutralize her headwinds.

Voters’ discontent with the direction of the country—including their frustrations with inflation and record illegal border crossings—meant they were looking for a change agent. Harris didn’t feel comfortable coming off as critical of Biden, despite a push from some allies, and her advisers also didn’t think it would work, given her role in the administration.

And who hasn’t said this? I said it, for one. Again, we have a postmortem analysis that is speculative and, more important, old news. Let’s move on (I’m getting the feeling that my writing about the election is drawing to a close).

*Can we find something interesting in the Washington Post? How about this?

An excerpt:

President-elect Donald Trump is poised to push swiftly for new tax cuts if Republicans win full control of Congress, further slashing corporate rates and extending trillions of dollars of other cuts even as the national debt soars.

Major portions of Trump’s 2017 tax law are set to expire next year, and Republicans are aiming to give Trump a major legislative accomplishment within his first 100 days in office.

The GOP won control of the Senate in Tuesday’s elections. While control of the House is still uncertain, Republicans are optimistic that results are trending toward maintaining their narrow majority.

As party leaders discuss their plans for the early days of a new Trump administration, the attitude that’s emerged on taxes is, “Just go,” according to a top conservative lobbyist familiar with the discussions, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe private talks. “Rip the Band-Aid and run and just plow it through.”

Trump ran on a promise of extending individual tax cuts — which reduced what taxpayers in every income bracket paid — and a bevy of other expensive new changes. He pledged to exempt tipped wages and overtime pay from taxes, along with Social Security benefits, which could rapidly accelerate the insolvency date for social safety-net programs. His 2017 law cut the corporate tax rate from 35 to 21 percent, but Trump on the campaign trail said he hoped to lower it to 15 percent.

The earlier Trump tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited the nation’s highest earners, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

. . . . Congressional Republicans could move to approve those policies through a process called reconciliation, which would allow a bill to pass the Senate with a simple 51-vote majority, dodging a potential filibuster. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) and other GOP leaders have been meeting for months to plot their moves at the start of a second Trump administration.

Note the sort-of editorial remark in the first sentence, implying already that Trump’s proposal, not yet enacted, will hurt the national debt. As for passing this thing, well, it has to pass both the Senate and the House, and passing the Senate means “reconciliation,” which, as I recall, is something the Democrats did—so they can’t object to it. And if the House goes Democratic, well, they’ll vote as a block on this and it won’t pass.  I just want to see what Trump really does on Day 1.  Mass deportations, as he promises? (I’m a bit worried about that!). And I’d be curious what readers think about exempting overtime pay from taxes (“tipped wages” are typically so low—except in rare cases where wages excluding tips are high—that they should be exempt from tax).

*Finally, how can I ignore this? (Click to read):

An excerpt:

Donald J. Trump’s election victory is plunging efforts to reach a cease-fire in Gaza into further uncertainty, after a year of failed attempts by the Biden administration floundered because of irreconcilable demands from Israel and Hamas.

For months, leaders across the region — in Israel, Lebanon, Gaza and Qatar — have taken a wait-and-see approach to the U.S. election. It is unclear what will come next, but any firm advancement on a cease-fire, if there is one at all, would most likely be delayed until after Mr. Trump’s inauguration in January, analysts said.

The sense was that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel “was waiting for the results of the U.S. presidential election to make a move,” said Michael Stephens, a Middle East expert at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based research group. “Why would he give Biden anything now?”

More than 43,000 people have been killed in Gaza since the war began, including thousands of women and children, according to health officials in the enclave, and Gazans had been skeptical about whether Mr. Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris would do much to improve their situation. The war was set off the Hamas-led attack last October in which the Israeli authorities said roughly 1,200 people in Israel were killed and about 250 were taken hostage.

There is, of course, no mention about whether that figure is accurate (I doubt it) or what percentage of those people were Hamas fighters rather than civilians (I suspect about 35-50%). But let’s proceed.

The Biden administration had urged both sides to bridge their remaining differences and agree to a three-stage truce. As part of the proposed accord, the phases would see Israel end the war against Hamas, withdraw from Gaza and release Palestinian prisoners; Hamas would free the 101 hostages still held there. (Proposals for a short-term truce were rejected by Hamas, which demanded an end to the war as a condition for agreeing to a deal.)

Mr. Netanyahu has welcomed the election of Mr. Trump, who was a staunch defender of Israel during his first term. He was one of the first to congratulate Mr. Trump on his victory, and spoke to him on Wednesday evening. The two agreed “to work together for the sake of Israel’s security,” according to a statement from the Israeli prime minister’s office.

But how Mr. Trump might rearrange the chessboard is still unclear. He has expressed broad support for Israel’s right to defend itself after the Oct. 7 attacks.

At the same time, he has called on Israel to “finish up” the campaign — a position that would clash with many in the hard-line Israeli government who support indefinite Israeli control in Gaza.

The Biden administration’s plan for a truce would involve freeing thousands of Palestinian terrorists in return for the hostages (there are probably only 30 alive, not 101),  Would a withdrawal from Gaza entail Hamas surrendering unconditionally? I doubt it. And of course Harris, at least, kept trumpeting the “two state solution,” which is a total nonstarter. I don’t know what Trump will do, of course, but I’m pretty sure he’ll do more of what Israel wants than would Harris, which of course is why Netanyahu was so eager to congratulate Trump.

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, a hedgehog ate cat food. But Hili is okay with that!

Hili: A hedgehog was here yesterday.
A: Have you seen it?
Hili: No, Paulina said that it was here. She gave him cat food and he ate everything.
In Polish:
Hili: Tu wczoraj był jeż.
Ja: Widziałaś go?
Hili: Nie, Paulina mówiła, że był i dała mu kocią karmę, wszystko zjadł.

*******************

From Jesus of the Day. This must be a Halloween costume:

From Science Humor:

From Cat Memes:

 

From Masih. Another brave Iranian girl goes unveiled (with lipstick). If she has ulcers, she should be on antibiotics! Ceiling cat bless the brave women of Iran!

Titania tweeted, like a good liberal should (h/t Jez):

A tweet by #10 cat sent in by Simon two years ago. There’s no doubt where Larry’s politics lie!

Somebody sent this to me, but I can’t remember who.  No worries, Texas stayed red but the spelling stayed lousy!

From my feed.  Crikey, this lady has a fit because they don’t serve fries without salt!  She should just go elsewhere.

From the Auschwitz Memorial, one that I re-Xed:

Two tweets from Matthew. I don’t see why these people had “too” move, and I don’t really believe it. But I believe the stealing incident happened:

. . . and Cat Crazy Hour!

49 thoughts on “Friday: Hili dialogue”

  1. Last night there was a pogrom on the streets of Amsterdam, where visiting Israelis (fans supporting their soccer team) were assaulted by mobs. See here.

    Judging from posts on X the attackers were mostly Muslim immigrants to The Netherlands. The BBC’s reporting largely omits mentioning that.

  2. Here’s my two cents
    1. Biden should never have run for a second term
    2. Harris was already behind Trumps campaign
    3. Trump convinced enough people that he’ll lower prices and punish ‘others’ who are clearly to blame for all your problems.
    4. Democrats need to stop with celebrities, most people see them as the elite
    5. Your electoral system is broken, you need campaign finance reform and you need to create election seasons. Presidential season is nearly 4 years long
    6. Democrats want to create policies that help ‘marginal’ groups stop demonising your opponents and think of broad plans that help more people.
    Tax credits for first time buyers, tax incentives for apprenticeships. Other forms of support that help as many as possible rather than exceptional few.

    Fix the road – pothole politics

    Build better build first build america

    From a foreign policy perspective Trumps too unpredictable and tends to spoil for a fight with his notional allies than potential threats. I recommend NATO holding a gala dinner for him and creating an award medal in his name. EU golf course, tournament called the the Donald Trump Presidential tournament. Really nice trophy that gets to award and gets to keep

  3. A piece from CNN regarding mass deportations, interesting for these deportation numbers (from the paper cited):

    Clinton: 12 million
    Bush: 10 million
    Obama: 5 million

  4. Trump is a misogynist yet he appointed a woman to be chief of staff. She must be one too, just like Blacks who supported him were White supremacists.

    1. He probably won’t grab her because she’s in her sixties, but I’d still call him a misogynist.

      1. In a world where language is so-often devalued (with a ready resort to the most extreme labels: “trauma”, “genocide”, “fascist”, et cetera), I’m going to get all pedantic and suggest that, while he may well be sexist, he is not a “misogynist” (someone who literally hates women).

        1. Misogyny is gonna be a tough word to use then. A man could beat his wife, but then say he loves her. An incel could hate women because they’re not interested in him. A rapist could love women, but still rape them. Trump could be a demagogue, but not really. He can love democracy, but only if he wins. We can inject bleach, but that was a joke. Nothing really sticks.

          1. Like all epithets, “misogynist” is just an insult, not an argument. Someone calls me a pervert or a retard or a misogynist or a racist, I just channel Hitchens, shrug, and reply, “So? Your point?” Now, there was a time when one led one’s life in such a way to never deserve being called racist. One thought one had erred or failed somehow, and reflected soberly. But today when opposition to DEI is called racist, who gives a crap? Ditto if being thankful that the bitter-single-woman vote didn’t propel Kamala Harris to victory is called misogyny. Shrug.

            I’m sure Donal Trump doesn’t lose any sleep over whether anyone, supporter or opponent, ties himself in knots over what epithets should stick. None do.

          2. “Misogyny is gonna be a tough word to use then.”

            Until the woke era it was indeed rarely used (though someone like Peter Sutcliffe qualified; and the typical “misogynist” was a bachelor who genuinely didn’t want interactions with women). Instead, everyone used the milder word “sexist”, or a word like “cad”.

            Back in those days, “trauma” was used for actual trauma (not for encountering an opinion one dislikes), “genocide” was used for actual genocide (not for a refusal to “affirm” someone’s self-IDed “identity”), et cetera.

          3. A lot of people really like indecency and it doesn’t bother them. I understand that. A lot of people are just using the excesses of DEI to justify their obscene behavior. Andrew Tate is their hero. And If you call someone obscene and provide reasons for it, it’s by definition an argument?? I suggested Trump is obscene. Walking in on teenage girls at a beauty pageant is obscene. Though wokism has gone too far, I argue it’s still obscene.

  5. Regarding the election post mortems, I just saw the headline for a piece in City Journal: “Trump Won on the Issues.” Without even reading it, I think that that is right. The Dems were (are) ideologically incapable of accepting that the things people said were issues were, in fact, issues. (And by “ideologically” incapable, I mean exactly that. Their World View requires them to reject all opposition to their viewpoint and policies as wrongheaded and evil.) They should google “why I voted for Trump”, and put together a list of the reasons people give (actually, use Bing, the results seem better). Start there.

    1. I can’t really disagree, other than that one cannot use blanket descriptions about Democrats. There is a large contingent toward the middle, and they only supported Kamala bc she was Not Trump.
      But true enough that the national policy setters among the Dems are too far to the left, and their traits are as you describe.

      1. Yes, and I don’t really mean to tar everyone with the same brush. The same is true, of course, on the Republican side.

    1. The guy who came out to my house last week to install a couple of electrical outlets in my garage and hang a couple of extra LED lights in there had a Trump bumper sticker on his van. What does he deserve? Just wondering how deep the hatred for all people who voted for Trump goes.

      IMO, he deserves the best possible life he can obtain for himself and his family, which is the same as I’d say for someone who voted for Harris or anyone else, or who didn’t vote at all. But if you would prefer to have some sort of divine intervention punish those who disagree with you, I’m not sure what advice I can give except to maybe find a hobby to take your mind off politics.

        1. I expressed no hate in my comments. I don’t inherently hate Trump voters. But when chickens come home to roost, they cam leave an awful mess.

          1. The statement makes sense and I would say the same to those who voted for Harris, if she won. We get leaders we deserve, and if people think we deserve better, they need to stop supporting extreme positions.

  7. Re Chiefs of Staff: I really miss Rahm Emanuel, rendered “half mute upon losing the middle finger from one hand”. Ah, the remnant scent of old Chicago politics.

  8. I don’t quite understand the rationale for not taxing income from overtime. These are still wages. I’m not convinced that exempting tips and social security benefits is justified either. Income is income, right?

    1. I think that the rationale is that “no taxes at all” is the default condition for these guys and thus everything that is taxed is a change from the default that must be justified as an additional item taxed.

    2. It could be pandering, but I don’t know how important the tipped employee vote is. Didn’t Kamala promise the same?

    3. Its pandering. In that it is providing special favors to a cohort who you want to vote for you. But all sides do it. Student loan forgiveness, for example.

      1. Yes, indeed, those promises were a useful form of pandering, and I’m sure people new to paying income tax, especially, are likely to suffer mightily from what I used to call “Yuppie sticker shock”. But beyond that, neither side gave a plausible explanation of why those approaches were valid or logical. Many tips are not taxed now, because they are not reported, and the personal deduction is pretty generous. I’ve never had a job that paid overtime so I’m not sure exactly how it works. Does overtime income qualify for fringe benefits such as retirement plans? Does it add to the record that the SSA uses to determine the amount paid as Social Security benefits? If so, how many people getting that particular proposed tax exclusion/deduction would be happy if those things were taken away? And why remove taxes on Social Security, since the benefits could just be increased.

    4. If the measure passes, I will be sure to leave smaller tips during my visits to the United States, knowing that the employee doesn’t pay income tax on it. This is a great measure to reduce the cost of dining out, especially since the percentage tip demanded seems to have been skyrocketing.

      Your country must have a spectacularly progressive tax system if a full-time employee drawing tipped wages pays no income tax at all, as a commenter has implied. When Americans say the rich pay almost all the taxes, they aren’t exaggerating.

      1. Many restaurant servers don’t make enough to pay any or much tax, so the “no taxes on tips” concept is of limited value. Of course, it sounds good, and supportive of the “common man” (usually women, though, I’d bet). And both Trump and Harris pledged this.

        One unintended but foreseeable consequence of this could be it will allow restaurant owners to not give servers raises, reasoning they just got a raise by not having to pay tax on tips.

      2. The problem is that there are states that allow restaurants to pay their wait staff less than minimum wage, due to the assumption that tips will be high enough to compensate for the low wages.

        But of course, tips are optional, and not guaranteed.

        If you visit a fancy restaurant in a state like California, which guarantees servers at least minimum wage, leaving a smaller tip would be reasonable, but I hope you wouldn’t stiff some poor stiff working a greasy diner in Alabama! 🙂

    5. Re taxing Social Security benefits, there is a reasonable case to be made that a worker’s FICA input to the SS “trust fund” has already had income tax taken out, so the future benefits arising from that should not be double-taxed. (A counterargument is that a worker’s benefit amounts vastly exceed their past contribution amounts; I would propose just taxing the net benefits minus contributions.)

  9. In assessing any change to Middle East approach, there is a useful 33-minute video on a quiet but key element, the UNRWA, by former Knesset member and scholar Einat Wilf at url
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV0ct9pECzQ

    She sees UNRWA as the glue that perpetuates an ongoing war since 1948 and the source of last Oct 7 and future Oct 7s. Important viewpoint.

    1. I think that last time around, Trump defunded US contributions to UNRWA, which later uncle joe promptly restored. So understanding the UNRWA “issue” is important as it might be in play.

  10. It is amazing to me that the stock market has shot up dramatically with Trump’s win. Most concerning is the 25% jump in Tesla stock. Nothing has changed at that company. In fact, Trump has repeatedly stated his disdain for EVs and emissions requirements (emissions credits are a major source of income for Tesla) so his anticipated policies cannot be good for Tesla. Despite this, the company is suddenly worth 25% more than it was on November 4th. Investors are literally pricing political favors into the value of that company. It’s just a given that Trump will use the power of presidency to reward his political allies and punish his rivals. How is this acceptable to anyone?

    1. To explain: the current Tesla share price is justified only if you believe they will be the first to mass-market automated driving and automated (no human driver) taxis. For that, they need sympathetic regulators who are willing to approve this (and who are willing to accept the occasional crash, just as human-driven cars crash sometimes).

      The Democrats have long been gunning for Musk, particularly since he took over Twitter. When Biden held a Whitehouse summit about the future of electric cars they didn’t invite Tesla. When recently, California regulators were considering a request for additional SpaceX launches, they turned it down, explicitly saying on video that this was (at least partly) because they didn’t like Musk. There are also government lawsuits aimed at SpaceX and Tesla that many think are motivated by dislike of Musk.

      This is partly why Musk went all-in in trying to get Trump elected. He had concluded that, ever since he bought Twitter and removed woke censorship, that a Democratic Whitehouse would try to hurt his companies.

      Regulators could easily hurt Tesla badly, simply by stalling the approval of fully automated driving. They wouldn’t have to do this blatantly, they could just keep asking for more testing and stall until other companies had caught up with Tesla.

      Since the election, the markets now consider that Musk has the ear of the President and hence sympathetic government regulators. Hence the huge jump in Tesla’s share price. You can indeed call this “political favours” or you can call it the absence of government dis-favour.

    2. To add: of all the dumb things that the Democrats have done, picking a fight with Musk is one of the dumbest. Musk, by inclination, is a moderate centrist who had voted Obama, Obama, Clinton and Biden in the last four elections. They then picked fights with him and alienated him. Not inviting Musk to a Whitehouse summit on EVs was just dumb.

      Then there’s Musk’s eldest son turning trans and rejecting Musk, which Musk blames primarily on the Democrats’ embracing and promoting gender ideology. Then there’s the Democratic abandonment of free speech in favour of cancel culture. Any sensible “classical liberal” would have agreed that Musk had a point in wanting Twitter as a free-speech public square. Instead they just started treating Musk as the enemy. A senior Californian Democrat said (about Musk removing woke censorship from Twitter) “Fuck you Musk”. Musk replied “message received”.

      He did indeed receive the message that the Democrats are a threat to what he holds dear. And when he decides something like that he generally does something about it, and he generally goes all-in and plays to win. The Democrats created their enemy.

  11. To be sure, there is no simple explanation for the election results, so I’m not offering one. I do think, however, that part of Trump’s appeal was his honesty. Allow me to explain…

    I think it’s well understood that politicians dissemble, prevaricate, lie, and tend to the hyperbolic but it’s generally an implicit understanding, an unspoken truth. Trump’s extraordinarily explicit lies were perceived by his supporters as a more honest (transparent) form of political communication. His, often outlandish, lies reveal an unspoken truth about politicians and political rhetoric. By constantly lying, he was being more honest about the fact that pols lie.

    When the Dems’ lies about Biden’s mental fitness, for example, was revealed, it drew this distinction clearly. The norm has been that Dems and Repubs present their lies as truth/fact in order to win elections. Trump’s lies admit this fact.

    Finally, I don’t think it’s a conscious strategy on his part. He’s not an evil genius. This rhetorical phenomenon is a coincidence, a happenstance, a statistical ~inevitability of the law of high numbers.

    1. It’s not coincidence or happenstance (or evil genius): Trump appears to be unaware of the distinction between truth vs. untruth (or facts vs. “alternative facts”). In his favour that means he isn’t actually lying, since lying implies intent; OTOH it means he is a perpetually erratic unstable delusional narcissist. Personally, I’d prefer an evil genius….

  12. Very serious comments, but did no one notice Jerry said “A latte has a little more milk than a Cappuccino”? This is not even wrong! A latte has 100% more milk than a Cappuccino! Completely different drinks! You could say a flat white and a latte are similar.

    The Dems lost because of woke policies that are disconnected from reality. And they will lose in four years if they keep blaming their loss on “racism and sexism”, and don’t actually change their policies.

    Random thought:
    The USA can end illegal immigration by having huge fines for hiring illegals (like most countries). For example, in Canada hiring illegals gets you a fine of up to $50,000 per illegal hire and up to two years in jail. And anyone he helped gets fined too.

    1. Many places in America put a LOT of milk in a cappuccino. Maybe that’s “wrong” according to your definition, but I’ve seen it many times.

      And you are very definite about why the Dems lost. Is that your suspicion, or do you have evidence for that.

  13. Nothing the Democrats did lost the election. It was Trump’s appeal to men, non college educated, far right, and religious that won it for him.

    And why are the Gazans waiting to see what Trump will do with Gaza. The answer is obvious. He will take a hands off approach, give Israel what that ask for and not badger Israel to reach a ceasefire until they are finished, whenever that might be,

    1. I would take issue with what you said, staring with Biden’s refusal to stand down, the Democrats not having an open vetting of candidates, and Harris’s own refusal to distinguish herself from Biden and to put forth substantial policies.

      I distrust explanations that completely exculpate the Democrats.

  14. There are rumours that Chase Strangio might be departing from the ACLU. See here.

    This might signal that, with Trump’s re-election, the high-water mark of gender insanity has now passed. (And just perhaps the ACLU is waking up to common sense.)

  15. The bright side of Trump 2 might be for Israel. He’s broadly pro-Israel but the problem (as I’ve explained to my orthodox friends – “hats” – in NYC) is he’s so unpredictable. What if the next Israeli PM criticizes the chocolate cake at Mar a Lago, or says something not positive about Trump? In this he is chaos.

    BUT… when dealing with medieval terrorists and Arab dictatorship I think his craziness is an asset. The Madman Theory in human form. He admires Putin and Xi, Orban and Erdowan – all terrible – but he despises loser jihadis. So that’s a plus.

    Witness the whacking of Sulimani in Iraq last time. This really worked. And the Abraham Accords. Almost certainly better than Kamala and the squad keening over the millions of Palestinian kittens and puppies those evil Zionists do racisms on. 🙂
    So I’m mixed about this.

    D.A.
    NYC

    1. That is my biggest hope for what Trump might accomplish. While radical Islam is generally not a direct threat to the USA, at least not in the same way it is a threat to Israel, it is something that needs to be dealt with if humans are ever going to live together peaceably on this planet.

      It is how he might do it that is troubling.

  17. https://youtube.com/watch?v=0Biws4eiwOk

    I saw Harrison Ford for the first time in a really long time. 🇺🇸🎬😢

    https://www.instagram.com/p/DCCBG75uHjF/

    Here is Alec Baldwin’s Instagram. 🇺🇸🎬😢

    https://x.com/BetteMidler

    Bette Midler has stopped Twitter. 🇺🇸🎶😢
    Because Twitter (X) is owned by Elon Musk. 😔

    https://x.com/StuartHumphryes/status/1854225008765157860

    This is a repost by Jennifer Tilly. 🎬😢
    It is “Painting of a Woman Mending an American Flag.” 🇺🇸

    https://www.instagram.com/p/DCCz6fgzDDp/

    Jamie Lee Curtis says, “You are not alone.” 🇺🇸🎬🙂

  18. Why Harris lost is understandable. Had she run for the nomination in an open primary contest (had there been one) she would never have prevailed. Her positions were too hard left even for the Democratic primary voters. Though she purported to repudiate all of her positions when she got the nomination this summer, she never replaced them with anything else. I would suggest that most of her voters this week were simply voting against Trump, would have voted for anyone as opposed to Trump.
    Her career was launched at its outset and sustained and propelled for a long time by the fact that she was the mistress of a very powerful married Democratic politician who was thirty years her senior. Pretty much everyone knows the general story. (I was living out there then and by happenstance am friends with a few key people in the SF DA office.) She had little ability, little work ethic, and few accomplishments when she was eventually elevated out of the SF DA’s office into state office, where her gender and racial identity were her primary qualifications. As a staff DA in SF she tried two cases in three years, meanwhile sitting on various state boards and raking in the money. She was not well liked by her colleagues, her subordinates, or her staff after Willie Brown made her the DA. All of this would have come out, more or less, had she had to face primary challengers.
    As for Trump that is a discussion for another time. I don’t see him as a villain and would be surprised if he is a savior. His position of many issues resonates positively with a broad swathe of the American electorate.

Comments are closed.