Tax WHO?

 Here is a case where we might HAVE to tax the rich in order to keep things going.

Back when this country started, we were pretty much self-sufficient. You grew your own food, made your own clothes, built your own house. What you didn’t have, you traded for. Time passes and with science and technology - the two main drivers of civilization - things become specialized.

Now trading became more important than being self-sufficient. This led to the importance of money, credit cards, loans, etc. Home industries like manufacturing were farmed out, and brain power overtook physical work. This led to inequality as hard work could not make up for technological increase in productivity. So even if jobs were to come back to America, they would fall into two possibilities. First would be low paying menial jobs. Second would be high paying technology jobs. As the income shifts from the majority to the minority, the saying often attributed to Al Capone comes to mind. “Why do you rob banks? Because that is where the money is.”

Taxing the average person will become less and less productive as their average salary falls. So their transferred share of the country’s wealth will end up in the pocket of others. These people’s “fair share” will include those they make their money off of. That is why it was proposed that when a machine replaces 5 workers; the machine, or the person who profits from the machine, would owe the tax normally paid by those 5 workers.

Spending is a separate issue and needs to be analyzed differently. However, I do think there is a link. As the majority of people see their relative income shrink, then they demand more services from the government. If that increased spending basically comes out of their own pockets in increased taxes, it does not seem like a really smart move.

This idea was in part from a video I watched - you might enjoy it and find this channel interesting.

How Cheap TVs Made Healthcare Unaffordable!

Math is Hard

 "These countries around the world have had 70 years to do the right thing by the American people and they have chosen not to. They have ripped off American workers. They have taken our jobs overseas. The president is putting an end to that yesterday."   - Karoline Leavitt. https://trt.global/world/article/a91f07174f64

This got me because I will turn 70 this year, so the math was pretty simple.  70 years ago is 1955, and not sure what countries she is talking about - most countries were still recovering from WWII.  China, Japan and Germany were pretty messed up and England and France were just getting their act together.  If anything they were all still buying stuff from the US, and but we were pretty happy just building stuff for the growing baby-boom generation.  

What she might have said was about 50 years ago, when Nixon opened up relationships with China - but we still were not doing much about trade then.

She could have said it was around 40 years ago when Reagan and the Republicans started changing the tax laws to benefit corporations, and companies started to move production overseas to increase profits.  Had to keep those new 401K plans growing somehow....

She could have said 30 years ago, when the Democrats wanted to use targeted tariffs against China and were shot down by the Republicans.  

I am also trying to find where countries like Vietnam ripped off American workers when the companies exporting from there are American companies who left China in the last 20 years.  We thought then that was a good thing.  Least we could do for a country we bombed that is still digging up explosives today.

The reason the stock market is down is that it is not China, or other countries that are necessarily the problem, when Apple, Tesla and GM all built factories over there to take advantage of the Chinese market and of course pass some savings on to US customers, but also the fact that if these sales drop, then the profit that would have come back to America is also cut off…..

Anyway, this just goes to prove that Karoline does not have a good grasp of math…

"Blimey! This redistribution of wealth Is trickier than I thought!"  Dennis Moore - Monty Python

originally posted to my Facebook account 4/5/2025

Is this a shell game?

 Okay - A prediction - or maybe some homework.

In a perfect world you buy a stock and it goes up.  You sell the stock to someone and it goes up again.  They sell the stock and again it goes up.  In this “staircase” model, no one loses, it is just a function of time.  

Now when a stock goes down, two things could have happened.  First, the person bought at a lower price and they have lost value but not principal.  However, for the price to have gone up, someone must have bought at that price - they are losing money.  There are winners and losers.  Now, if you have the ability to hang on to the stock and not be forced to sell, IF the stock goes back up, you could regain those losses and maybe even make money, or at least minimize the losses.  But if you are drawing on that money, say to fund your retirement, they are definite losses.

So here is the homework.  When these people sell at a loss, who is buying?  I see two possible choices.  Before we look into them, these people have to have spare money.  Buying on margin in this situation can be a dangerous gamble.  So we assume the people (or companies) are well funded.  I think this leaves two entities.  First the companies themselves, buying back their own stock.  Second will be large capital investment companies, or wealthy individuals who can afford to take a loss, or use it as a write off.  Thus I see wealth being consolidated from the general population (mostly 401Ks) back to a smaller group of individuals and companies.  Watch who buys.

That and giving them a potential tax break, will actually do just the opposite of the proposed result of the tariffs.  It will not bring jobs back to the US, it will hurt many people’s retirement funding (the immediate sacrifice) yet continue to expand the national debt, resulting in even more pain for our children and our grandchildren….. 

Two sides of the same coin.

Those who watch

 In 1978 Congress established the position of Inspector General (IG) in Public Law 94-505.

The President appoints the Inspector General, but the IG REPORTS to Congress.

To prevent political removal or reassigning of an IG, Congress established some guardrails:

Removal Procedure:

The removal procedure for presidentially appointed IGs is found in Title 5, Section 403(b), which reads in part:

"An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President. If an Inspector General is removed
from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall
communicate in writing the substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons for any
such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress (including the appropriate congressional
committees), not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer. Nothing in this subsection shall
prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or removal."

"The 30-day notice requirement was established under the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-409), and the requirement that notice include a “substantive rationale” was added by the Securing Inspector General Independence Act of 2022 (Title LII, Subtitle A, of P.L. 117-263)."

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11546

https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ409/PLAW-110publ409.pdf

Now, what constitutes breaking the law under this act?  Well - not following the procedure!

If the President does not follow this procedure, it could be considered an impeachable act.

It would probably go to the Supreme Court to rule on the original law, but considering that this was not brought up before the action, the "beg forgiveness rather that ask permission" argument I don't think would fly.

Rubber Stamp anyone

 White House Warns of 'Consequences' for Republicans Who Don't Get Behind Trump Cabinet Nominees"

International Business Times

"The White House has issued a stark warning to Senate Republicans to fully support Donald Trump's Cabinet nominees, emphasizing political repercussions for any dissent."

"The White House is doubling down on its pressure campaign, warning Republican senators of political fallout if they fail to back the president's picks."

Biden Joins the Club: Each of the Previous Five Presidents Had an Early Cabinet Nominee Withdraw

Center for Presidential Transition

"Biden becomes the sixth president in a row who has notched at least one unsuccessful Cabinet-level nomination by the end of their first two months in office. Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Donald Trump each had one, while President Barack Obama had three."

The words are "to advise and consent", which is understood to enable a balance of power.

While it is customary for the Senate to approve cabinet picks, it is not a guarantee.

The fact that the advise and consent can occur before or after the nomination comes before the Senate, implies a working relation ship to get the best people in office.

Making threats against elected politicians doing their constitutional duty, would seem like an impeachable offence.  Hmmmm....

Doesn't anyone know about Tariffs?

 Yes, I do.  I have been involved in the Import/Export business for over 40 years, starting with my work with the Skip Barber Racing School in 1982.  We imported race cars and parts from Ireland and England.

Later, through 3 European companies, Mannesmann Demag, Arburg and Wittmann, I was involved in the importation of machines and parts for injection molding.  

I worked with many freight forwarders and brokers.  Even working in the domestic elevator industry as a parts supplier, we had dealings in England, and Australia.

So when someone tells you the company exporting goods pays the tariffs - they do not know what they are talking about.

https://incodocs.com/blog/incoterms-2020-explained-the-complete-guide/

Look at the chart above.  Notice the last line on the left column.  That is where the sender (exporter) pays the tariff.  Notice this is only one out of eleven situations, and the least likely.

In all the ten other cases, the receiver (importer) pays the tariff and it goes to the government.  In this case it is a TAX.  

Now the purpose is in theory, to make imported goods more expensive than domestic goods.  This works when the exporting country is dumping (selling deliberately at a low price to buy market share) or has an extreme manufacturing cost advantage compared to the domestic manufacturers.  

The problem that arises in many cases, is that the price to the consumer goes up and the quality of the domestic product goes down, as they do not have to be competitive.

Are tariffs useful?  Yes, they are a tool in the economy, but more like a precision screwdriver than a sledgehammer.  If you need a sledgehammer than sanctions are more the political solution, but this is usually a last case scenario.

Even President McKinley was moving away from tariffs at what turned out to be the end of his presidency.  You might want to read his last speech to understand.

More people, More people, More people

 The new Trump administration seems to be focused on getting immigrants out of America.  

Trump immigration crackdown: Denaturalization just a drop in the bucket

One interesting line in the article:

"While denaturalizations are unlikely to have a demographic impact by themselves, some economists fear reduced immigration could slow the broader economy."

Why is this important?  Well the US birthrate is below 2.1, what is considered the replacement number to keep a population from declining.  Right now, with the number of baby boomers living longer and with the immigrants - our population is growing.  This needs to happen to keep the economy from stagnating.

While Baby Boomers have a fair amount of money - many lost during the last recession and most are on fixed incomes - their money is tied up in their houses.  At some point this will trickle down, unless eaten up by health expenses.

So we need more young people willing to buy and borrow in order to grow the economy.

Or else we need to build and export - the problem is if we get too greedy with tariffs, then we will be subject to retaliatory tariffs.  Oops.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Blimey! This redistribution of wealth Is trickier than I thought!"  Dennis Moore - Monty Python

And now for something completely different

 If this last election proved one thing, it is challenging a person's beliefs no longer works.

I have come to the conclusion after studying conspiracy theorists that providing them with facts will not change their mind.  Besides a personal experience (if we could shoot flat earthers into space) it is now very hard to change someone's mind.

So here is a different method.

Do not criticize, belittle, or contradict.  

Just ask:        "Why"

Ask why and then ask them to defend their position.

They probably cannot.  

Then ask "What if" questions.

What if this or that part of their argument is proven false, would they change their mind.

If they say no, then there is no further use arguing with them.  They are locked in their ways.

Fortunately, there are people who might be willing to change. 

That is the only hope we have.

Well What do they say now?

 “They’ve already started cheating, 2,600 votes. Every vote was written by the same person. It must be a coincidence,” he said at a rally in Allentown, Pennsylvania, last Tuesday.

Donald Trump dances as he leaves a campaign rally in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, 30 October 30, 2024: he has his fists raised and people are holding red Make America Great Again placards behind him

Republicans preparing to reject US election result if Trump loses, warn strategists

Nationally, a key pillar of Republicans’ claims has been the falsehood that non-citizens are voting and could sway the election. Elon Musk, the billionaire who is a key Trump ally in the campaign, has played a significant role in amplifying this claim. Several studies have shown that non-citizen voting is extremely rare.

“If the fraud theme of 2020 was: ‘Covid is allowing ineligible people to vote or ballots to be manipulated,’ the 2024 theme seems to be ‘illegals are voting,’ and that fits in very much with the kind of nativist anti-immigrant language coming from the top of the Republican ticket,” Richard Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview in October.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/04/trump-2024-election-subversion-explainer

So I guess in the end, they were lying.  Well what do they say now?

Well which is it? Man-made or not man-made?

 JULIE GREEN: This is exactly one of the things that the Lord had talked about. I have to get out which prophecy it was. I think it was the one from yesterday or Monday. He was talking about how this is the same thing as Maui. This is all on purpose. This is all done for complete devastation. And one of the things that He actually had on there and I have to — I'll look it up, of which one it was because I have several of them pulled up here again. But He said it was blatant. It was deliberate. What happened in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and those really hard areas, those areas were hit for a specific reason. And again, this is all man-made. All of the stuff, we know they can modify weather, and they're doing this on purpose. This is another form — and I hate to say this, but it's so true. This is what the Lord was saying. It's another form of election interference. This is another form to weaken people, to destroy people more, it’s more to get us to the point where we are so broken spiritually, physically, financially that we will not fight them back. This is another tactic and a strategy of war.   (2024)

"If you believe in God, then intellectually, you cannot believe in man-made global warming. You must be either agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something he cannot create."  Rush Limbaugh 2013

There is a big difference between controlling the environment and controlling the weather.  Is sitting in a air conditioned room, controlling the weather?  Cloud seeding to create rain, assumes there are clouds holding moisture first.  You cannot create moisture where there is none.  So man has very limited effect on the weather.  So how then can man affect the climate?  Well one man cannot, 10 men cannot.  But 8 billion people working unknowingly together can give it a kick.  Give it a kick over 300 odd years and it might kick back.  Pour grease down you sink drain and not much happens.  Do this for ten years and it is time for the plumber.  

So no we cannot direct hurricanes.  One person can start a wildfire - but one started has no control over it.  An atomic bomb strategically placed, might start an earthquake, but the damage by the bomb would probably be worse.  

Ironically misinformation and disinformation can have a bigger effect on an election, and is much cheaper that trying to change the weather.  

DeSantis also seemed to equate hurricane-related conspiracy theories — which authorities say are causing real harm — with scientists pointing out that human activity drives climate change. When asked for his response to the disinformation swirling around the hurricanes, the governor joked: “Look, if I could control the weather, I would do, you know, 78 and sunny year-round.” 

Well - at least he is consistent.

---------------------------------------------

Julie Green - https://www.mediamatters.org/hurricanes/lara-and-eric-trump-backed-prophet-claims-god-told-her-hurricanes-were-man-made-and-they   (+many more)

Rush Limbaugh: https://geochristian.com/2013/10/24/rush-is-wrong/ (+ many more)

Ron Desantis - https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/ron-desantis-climate-change-hurricane-milton-florida-rcna175047

Words of Jefferson

 In 1785 Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Peter Carr, probably a protégé of Jefferson.  He was the son of Jefferson's sister.

Her wrote the following:

 It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/let31.asp

Ah, but only if the current political establishment would take this to heart.

But how do we know when a politician is lying (the old cliche not withstanding)?

First - anything that gets you upset or angry, be suspicious of.  These statements are usually exaggerations or embellishments of items which have just a slight bit of fact.

Second - be aware of projection - this is somewhat new but traces its origination way back - the pot calling the kettle black.  Someone accuses the other of a crime the first has committed.

Third - watch for amplification and spread.  A saying attributed to Mark Twain, but more probably from Johnathan Swift, is the idea that a lie spreads so fast that the truth is always lagging behind.  If everyone is sending it to you or you are being bombarded with a statement - be wary.

How to you be sure a statement is true or false?  In the past you would have to go to the library or find a person with  personal connection.  Today, you need to go to the Internet - set the search parameters BEFORE the statement was released, and do some digging.  I have found that most of the "just found out" items, have already been found and discussed and rarely rise to the level of outrage warranted.

Fact checking sites are useful, but don't just read their summaries - look at their sources. If they don't have sources and references - move on.   If something is important to you - do the research 

They still cannot count (Update)

 In the post "Lies, damn lies, and statistics", David Strom attacks those on the assumed left for promoting climate change fears.

"What percent of conversations regarding a contested issue are actually focused on assessing the evidence and determining the truth?

It’s not large. In fact, such discussions are rare as hen’s teeth."

He uses this statistic:

To claim that 2023 is below 2022.  Comparing 1/2 a year to a previous year.

And he compares days over 100, without differentiating a 100 degree day with a 119 degree day.

"But John Burn-Murdoch of the Financial Times? He is clearly trying to lie to you. He is a data analyst. He knows that he is lying with statistics."

Well David, you do not back your argument up with statistics, just that other's statistics are wrong and their methodology defective.

The problem with this argument, is that without doing proper research, your argument is just as flawed as you claim the other side.  

"That’s why it is vital to keep bringing up these failures in truth-telling made by these journalists who are really advocates. If people don’t change their minds right away, and they almost never do, it is our job to undermine the credibility of the “amen chorus” and propagandists. People will have their own “Aha!” moments.

We all get red-pilled at different moments."

Pot meet Kettle.

All this does is feed polarization - but maybe that is what your purpose is.

Update.

We are not at the end of the year, but for a year that was Ranked 113 when he did this post, it has jumped up to #3

https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/phoenix/yearly-days-of-100-degrees

I wonder if he will take down or edit his post.....

UPDATE - well I guess he is really looking bad this year:

https://www.foxweather.com/weather-news/phoenix-hits-least-100-degrees-100-days-row-shattering-record

When you only get one side of the story

 I was flipping through the radio dial when I came across the Mike Gallagher show.  The first guest was:

Edward Kovalik Joins Mike to Talk About Oil Facts And Fueling The Energy Market: The Indisputable Facts And The Irrefutable Truths To Support Them.

Edward is one of the directors of Prairie Operating Company, a company whose business claims:

Committed to Responsible Energy

Prairie places sustainable development at the heart of its projects and operations to contribute to the well-being of people and the environment. We are dedicated to developing affordable, reliable energy to meet the world’s growing demand, while continuing to protect the environment.

But it basically is a oil drilling rights company:

July 9, 2024 Prairie Operating Co. Announces the Launch of Its Development Program"

HOUSTON, Texas, July 09, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Prairie Operating Co. (Nasdaq: PROP) (the “Company” or “Prairie”) today announced plans to commence its initial drilling program in August 2024, starting with an 8-well pad on the recently acquired bolt-on acquisition, “Shelduck South”.

The have a web page:

Oil Facts.com

Which basically says - Oil Good - everything else bad.

Their entire premise on oil is that it alone has made life better in the world along with other fossil fuels.

Forgetting of course that water and wind power have been around before fossil fuels became the dominant form of energy.  Their statement that China is doubling down on fossil fuels goes against this information.

"How China Became the World’s Leader on Renewable Energy"

I thought one of the more interesting quotes from the interview is that the Biden/Harris administration was politicizing energy, and then in then next sentence said we should be producing more oil to go against Russian and Iranian oil production!  What is that, if not politics?

Oh well - as long as people sit in their echo chambers.....

What happened to "Don't trust anyone over 30", and "Trust but verify"?

My way or the low way

 In politics today, there are 4 ways of governing:

1. The Democratic Way
2. The Republican Way
3. The Bipartisan Way
4. The Trump Way

We could have had a border security plan - a bipartisan plan - but no - it would hurt Trump so it has to go.

The Fed might lower rates before the election, but already there is pressure NOT to do so, not for any reason, other than it would hurt Trump (rather than helping the average person say, be able to better afford a house?).

See the pattern here?  Only what is good for Trump is allowed.  

If he gets elected - you can be sure that the first 3 ways will go out the window, and number 3 is the one that hurts the most.....

Stop the world, I want to get off

 Just a quick one today.

Florida judge dismisses the Trump classified documents case

Judge Aileen Cannon handed down her decision on Monday in a big win for the former president.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/florida-judge-dismisses-trump-classified-documents-case-rcna161878

There are a lot of questions:

1. Why did it take so long?  Jack Smith was appointed in 2022.....

2. Judge Cannon was a Trump appointee, should they have chosen someone else?

3. How does this fit with other federal cases? (State cases should be separate)

Remember the facts in this case.  Trump left office in 2021.  He took papers with him that he shouldn't have.  He returned some of the papers (if he returned all of them, we would not be having this conversation),  Other classified papers have since been found and seized (Trump disagrees with all of this).  The question is, why did he hold on to these papers and fight so hard not to give them back?

I will go out on a line and say this is Judge Cannon's way of getting off this case.  For her it was a no win situation.  Now it will go to an appellate court and if they rule against her, she will still be safe as no one will reassign her the case.  As they say in England - she is done and dusted.

It is Spock vs T'Pring all over again.

Sorry - Official business

Well the Supreme Court has ruled.  The President is immune from prosecution for any acts done in his official capacity.  This makes sense.  If he ordered a plane shot down because a terrorist had a bomb on board and was going to blow up the Super Bowl, the families of the passengers on the plane could not sue the President.  Or if he ordered a financial plan to save the dollar or punish a rouge nation and some people lost money, they would not be able to sue for incidental damages.

But when the President says "You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."  This was a direct appeal to benefit him, not the American people.  This was done as candidate Trump, not President Trump.  It was not to root out corruption (that was not found) but rather a specific number personally requested.  

Or when he said "Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. (1) He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me. [Italics mine]   For this he was impeached.

When the President asks for or requests something that will benefit him personally, he is not acting in the interest of the country and should be subject to prosecution.   Now the Supreme Court could have defined the line, instead kicked the can down the road.......

(1) who has just been disbarred - Rudy Giuliani disbarred over false 2020 election claims

It is all in a name

 I was thinking the other day about names and titles.  We feel required to give people titles and in some cases it is helpful in organization - mostly to assign responsibilities.  Then there are honorary titles such as Mayor of the Day,  Woman of the year, Student of the Month.  In sports there are winners - Champions, but with the adder of a year to differentiate that this is not a permanent position.  Then there are elected positions from the President right down to dog catcher.  Positions chosen by the people to serve the people.  But some do not understand that.  They wear and use the title as that of privilege.  That it makes them special and people need to bow down before them.  They feel they have earned it in perpetuity.

But titles are fleeting, and it is not the title that gives you respect, it is your actions while you carry that title that is important.  Now if we only can convince people to use some humility when they are given a title.  Nah - never happen... 

So where do we go from here?

So former President Trump has been found guilty of falsifying records.  This is not the end as there will be appeals and future court cases.  Based on the type of charges, jail time is probably out of the question, although a possibility.

So were do we go from here?  Before the election of 2016, I said there was no direct collusion with the Russians.  But it was obvious that the Trump team used every dirty trick to affect the election.  He claimed the other side fixed the election while he was doing it.  While he wanted the other candidate locked up, he was guilty of many of the crimes he accused the other of, or was due to commit those during his term.

Trump the business man was guilty of many things.  Using bankruptcies to cover bad business decisions, shorting contractors and other suppliers, and cheating on taxes by using manipulated paperwork.  Almost all of his associates, Cohen, Manafort, Weisselberg, and others have spent time in jail.  His three marriages and philandering were well known before the election.  Yet he was elected.

So where do we go from here?  In a perfect world the Republicans would look for a new candidate and nominate them at their convention.  This person would have a better chance of beating Biden.  Ironically, this might just force the Democrats to do the same. But I am not holding my breath.

I am reminded of the song by The Who, "won't get fooled again", however.......

So where do we go from here?

Say that again?

 Court rules for South Carolina Republicans in dispute over congressional map

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/05/court-rules-for-south-carolina-republicans-in-dispute-over-congressional-map/

"The Supreme Court on Thursday threw out a ruling by a federal district court holding that a congressional district on the South Carolina coast was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander – that is, it sorted voters based primarily on their race. In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, the justices cleared the way for the state to use the map going forward. The 6-3 decision, with the justices divided on ideological lines, means that the disputed district will remain a safe seat for Republicans, who hold a 6-1 advantage in the state’s congressional delegation. More broadly, Thursday’s decision creates a high bar for plaintiffs in future racial gerrymandering cases to meet."

"Defending the plan, the state argued that the legislature’s goal in enacting the map was to ensure that the district remained a safe seat for Republicans: Although the district had historically elected Republicans since 1980, in 2018 a Democrat, Joe Cunningham, won in an upset. Mace defeated him in 2020 by less than 1%. "

What!  If it is done along racial lines it is not acceptable, but if it is done to ensure a perpetual office to one or the other party it is acceptable?

"I am sorry your Honor - I was charged with robbing a bank, but that was just a coincidence, I really just wanted to shoot a guard...."

"Thus, Alito continued, plaintiffs in racial gerrymandering cases must first “disentangle race and politics” – that is, to show that race was the primary factor behind the legislature’s decision to move voters into or out of a district. They can do so using direct evidence, Alito wrote, or circumstantial evidence, although relying solely on circumstantial evidence makes their task “much more difficult.” This is particularly true, Alito added, when the state counters that the moves were made for partisan reasons, rather than on the basis of race."

People on the conservative side are clamoring for term limits.  South Carolina has admitted int he Supreme Court that they do it to ensure votes for the Republicans.  Is everyone up there deaf?

Be careful what you wish for

 One comment in a news story struck me as pertinent.

It said, "If Donald Trump succeeds in getting total immunity, then Joe Biden can do whatever he wants before the election."

One of the arguments that Trump's lawyers have made is that any action taken during the presidential term could be considered part of their executive responsibilities, and if they felt that a campaign opponent was corrupt, then he could deal with that:

"Presidents could be immune from prosecution even if they stage a coup or assassinate a political rival, one of Donald Trump’s lawyers argued at the US Supreme Court."  

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/04/25/president-immune-assassination-donald-trump-supreme-court/

So if Trump wins, he loses; since Joe Biden would have the right to go after Trump, even though there is no current evidence that he has.  There goes Trump's argument that the court cases are a political vendetta - in this case - so what?  Just Biden exercising his presidential duties.

Now if he loses, then Joe Biden will be subject to the same prosecution -  if the Republicans can find anything - they have not up to now.  BTW - How can he be sleepy, incompetent Joe, while at the same time be an international mastermind? Hmm?

So be careful what you wish for - you may get a surprise.  I really do not think Trump wants to win, just kick the can down the road till after the election.

My prediction - the Supreme court will come up with something fuzzy, that will allow most of the cases to continue.

The current NY case happened before Trump was elected, the case of the confidential documents mostly happened AFTER he left office.  The two biggest are the Georgia election case and the January 6 incitement case.

In these cases, the argument to be made, is the President is the enforcer of the laws, but not above the laws.  Congress is the branch that makes the laws.  The argument that the presidency is a shield for previous or future crimes, not related to his job responsibilities; is a stretch that I am not sure the Supreme Court is willing to make.  They cannot try corruption, but neither can they condone it.