Trump also rejects the conclusion that he lost the 2020 election. I think he would reject any conclusion that implied he wasn’t actually as popular and admired as he claims to be. The conclusion about Russian interference isn’t unusual in that context.

I’m not saying bullying is ok, but I think I would interpret a spiked collar in public as fetish gear unless it was part of an elaborate punk outfit.

Trump seems to admire Putin and there is reason to think that Putin wants Trump to be elected, but despite all the accusations there is no evidence that Putin has any sort of control over Trump. And I haven’t even heard anyone else claim that Salman or Kim control him.

I don’t think that Trump is easy to control. The Republican party in 2016 totally failed to do so, and so did members of his administration (both the extremists and the ones trying to be a voice of reason). He’s not interested in the day-to-day business of governing but he is interested in power and I think he has good intuition about people who would try to limit his power or have power over him. He uses people; people don’t use him.

I’m not sure that you and I actually disagree. I’m just saying that maybe he really doesn’t know (or care much) about the ideology of Project 2025. If you asked him to explain what their policy goals are, I don’t think he would be able to. If so, he’s actually telling the truth here.

Call me crazy but I think he might be telling the truth. His main priority is self-aggrandizement and he has no respect for any institution that stands in the way of that, but his political positions were actually fairly mainstream for a Republican. I don’t see Romney, McCain, or GWB giving the speeches (or provoking the mobs) that Trump did because they acted with respect for America’s democratic institutions, but I can see them supporting similar laws and policies. My guess is that Trump doesn’t actually care much about the practical reality of governing a country and in 2016-2020 the existing Republican establishment did most of the policy work. Now extremists are putting a lot of effort into becoming the ones who influence him, and maybe they will (which certainly frightens me) but that doesn’t mean that he currently cares much about their policies.

San Francisco (for example) has spent a billion dollars a year attempting to address the problem and apparently not succeeding. I think people would be entitled to ask where the hell the money is going if it isn’t dealing with homelessness the nice way.

Some groups of people will be hurt, and other groups will be helped. The groups that will be helped are the ones that vote and pay taxes, and even in liberal areas these groups are running out of patience with being on the giving end of expensive but apparently ineffective local programs to deal with homelessness the nice way.

“I don’t care where you go but you can’t stay here” doesn’t work if it’s the policy everywhere, but the alternative appears to be a situation where cities that do more to help the homeless simply attract homeless people from other places until they too are overwhelmed. (It’s a big issue in NYC with the large numbers of migrants arriving here, but the city is required to provide them with shelter by the state constitution so the Supreme Court ruling won’t have a direct effect.)

I think local and state level solutions are fundamentally unsuited to actually solving the problem but I don’t expect a federal solution either, especially if Trump is elected. So it seems like LA, San Francisco, and other places with an insurmountable liberal majority and good weather all year are simply screwed.

My non-joke answer is apprenticeship. Kids could actually learn how to do a valuable job rather than graduating from high school with almost no useful skills.

Hah, I expect that Mitch McConnell is still going to vote for him.

defense attorneys argued that Manhattan prosecutors had placed “highly prejudicial emphasis on official-acts evidence,” including Trump’s social media posts and witness testimony about Oval Office meetings

It’s unclear to me why an official act cannot be used as evidence that a different unofficial act occurred. Let’s say candidate Trump shoots Bob on Fifth Avenue and then, after being elected, threatens to “kill Joe the way [he] killed Bob” during his State of the Union address. He can’t be held accountable for threatening to kill Joe, but he did just confess that he killed Bob while he wasn’t president. Why couldn’t this confession be used as evidence in his trial for killing Bob? Or, for that matter, in his trial for killing Joe if he went on to kill Joe after he was out of office?

I wonder if Watergate would have been an official act according to this new doctrine.

lots of ads and mailers before the election that when they show their ID to vote they’ll be arrested and taken away

I’ve seen a mailer providing false information that a certain very liberal group (out-of-state college students) wasn’t allowed to vote, but I’ve never seen something like this. Do you have a link to an example of it?

The funny thing is that a basic understanding of the Bible is actually important for making sense of American history - the people making that history were strongly influenced by the Bible and so unless you know at least the major “plot points”, their actions (and a lot of literature) won’t make much sense.

With that said, I don’t trust Oklahoma to teach about the Bible in a manner appropriate for historical analysis rather than religious dominance.

the Catholic Church is their competition when it comes to running private schools and otherwise lucrative community support institutions

I generally agree with what you’ve written, but I think you’re assuming more pragmatism here than is actually present. Bitter hostility between Protestants and Catholics is as old as Protestantism (and much older than the institutions you mention).

Also, as a side note, there are plenty of Catholic Republicans. (37% vs 44% that identify as Democrats, according to Pew.)

Then it becomes “okay, call this prick the c-word. Now I need to also cite this fact that is part of my border security answer. And then I need to talk about… jesus christ are we actually talking about global warming right now?”

That would be an understandable reaction from the average person but the president should be a lot more capable than the average person. Even if this specific sort of thing isn’t something he needs to be able to handle, he still needs to handle things a lot harder than this and his performance here isn’t reassuring me that he can. Trump is so predictably rude that Biden should have been totally ready for it.

I should clarify. I’m not saying that most people who distrust the justice system are going to like Trump more after his conviction. I’m also not saying that I think he’s likely to reform the justice system in a way that helps people affected by racial bias.

However, many of Trump’s supporters consider his conviction evidence that he’s genuinely an anti-establishment candidate rather than proof of wrong-doing. (See the variety of “I’m voting for the convicted felon” merchandise.) This attitude requires a distrust of the justice system. We’ve already seen that Trump’s conviction hasn’t hurt his poll numbers very much and that he currently has more black support than he did in '16 or '20 so I’m saying that his conviction might actually lead to a small increase in support for him from black people (the majority of whom are still never going to support him) because more of them distrust the justice system.

No, I’m saying that we know black people are less likely to trust the police than white people are, and so it seems reasonable that they might also trust the courts less too. That doesn’t imply some supervillain-like love of crime.

I wonder if there’s actually some truth to his claim. The experience of blacks with the justice system is quite different than that of whites, so I wouldn’t be surprised if their attitude towards a candidate with felony convictions would also be different. Perhaps they’re more likely to believe the narrative of an unfair prosecution than white people are.

Aren’t souls canonically real in the Marvel universe? I expect that only the piece with the soul regenerates.