news

“Independent” Mathematics

We have no visibility, or little visibility, into the fraction of the GOP that feels comfortable with right wing social policy, but is there for economic reasons. Or pseudo-economic reasons. I once had a discussions with someone who felt it was worse to go from a top marginal rate of 33% to 40% on his federal income tax, even if his income doubled. The funny part is he cited the state and local taxes he used to pay, as a New Yorker, but no longer had to pay since moving out. The hilarious part, given his job, is I doubted he was very far in the 28% bracket. Or people with almost no active trading screaming about equal treatment of capital gains and regular income, even if their house (by far their biggest capital gain) were exempted.

Sometimes peoples’ views on taxation have less to do with reality than with their status as temporarily embarrassed billionaires. Or vague notions that the “job creators” would leave the country if we taxed them (like they’re moving to Florida and Texas from New York… sort of). I’m not sure where they would go. Maybe they would try to move their business to low tax jurisdictions, like Europe, or where they might have a less heavy government hand, like China. Or that they would decide the next marginal dollar just wasn’t worth it. And would “slack off,” as if they did everything at the family offices or companies they helm. These are people who’d gladly trade your grandmother for a nickle.

These idiots may code socially liberal, like their favorite niece or nephew is “trans” and they are careful about pronouns and dead-naming. Or they might be gay. But have no problem backing bigots. Or enjoy recreational drugs, especially of the mind-expanding variety. Although I sometimes wonder if they’re using them correctly. They know it’s not a suppository, right? Abortion is okay. Although they don’t get too bent out of shape over taking rights from women. They love crypto currency because of some strange notion about a broken fiat-currency system. Some are staunchly independent, except almost always vote Republican because they think government is out of control, or would like to see a balanced budget. (Something no Republican has done since maybe Eisenhower,). But they would rather talk about sports, crypto-currencies, or video games.

Because they code two ways, I suspect they throw off our sentiment about the country. They might answer a survey saying they are unhappy with the way that Trump is running the country. They may express ire at rounding up immigrants, although they will also talk about “doing it the right way.” They might have liberal girlfriends or wives, or conservative girlfriends or wives, and write “that stuff” off as their partner’s thing. They’re independent. But they will vote Republican at the national level. They’re not Republican, they’re independents, and will point to (for example) supporting someone like Spanberger in Virginia. You know, a “normal” Democrat. But when push comes to shove, at the national level, they have pulled the lever for Trump, more than once, if not all three times.

I suspect status and other grievances in their psyche may play a bigger role in how they vote. Even though they code liberal they like to think they’re a man’s man. (And if you haven’t figured it out – I’m talking about men in particular). Some of them are well educated, even if they haven’t opened a book for pleasure since college. They are not having the career or age of adult manhood they anticipated. Something I suspect they covet, as they prefer super-hero movies, John Wick, or the “pre-woke” Lord of the Rings. They tend to listen to man-o-sphere podcasts. I think there’s definitely an aspect of anxiety about their position and their power. (A lot of them are technically adept but feel they lack power or feel they are bossed around).

This mass of mostly men (almost exclusively men) are part of the reason the mid-terms will be so hard to predict. The expectation, which if the vote were held today I think would be certain, is a wave of anger pushes even safe Republicans out of power. We wind up with a flipped House and Senate. But I’m already seeing more right-wing content show up in my social media feed, so we have to deal with that bleeding off the weak over the next 8 months.

If they view the election as a chance to reign in, or course correct, the president, they may vote for Democrats. Especially since they know the president makes all the decisions, but “congress has a role.” Voting for a Democrats might tell the Republicans to back it off a little. Or, if they are well managed and well messaged by the stupid amount of money that will be coming from the Ellisons, Musk, or any one of a number of injured billionaires, they may ride or die with the Republican party. Woke democrats will be out of control. And when they pull that lever, they think they are doing so as Frodo, not some anonymous orc in Sauron’s armies. After all, they are independent voters.

What the Supreme Court Decision was Not About

It was not about anything other than Article I specific powers that Congress has and the statute under which Trump was operating. Let’s say that despite their best efforts, Republicans lose the White House in 2028. And 2029, despite the Sargent at Arms arresting him to count the electoral votes, Democrats take over. A Democrat decides to cut tariffs on everything, but double them on hydro-carbons. Because the climate is an emergency and the president has these emergency powers. And the three justices who “crossed the line” understood that and the law.

I think they would have easily changed their tune had the tariffs been enacted by a Democrat. I think the mask has been off with Alito and Thomas for some time. They aren’t concerned with the about a Democrat using those powers, because they would stop that in a heartbeat. They are not there for precedents or the law. I think they’re there for a political agenda. This should have been a 9-0 decision. It should have been a slam dunk. Nothing in the statute indicated Congress gave up the power to tax.

My hope is that a Democrat House and (more importantly) Senate majority is in place when Alito or Thomas leave their posts. That way the majority leader could discover a tradition that says the appointment of a new judge can wait until the next president. You know, pulling a Mitch McConnell. Clarence Thomas is 77 and Alito is 75. The average age for upper income Americans is in the 80s. They might go for six more years, but they might not. Or it might be evident that they cannot. I don’t know what will happen if a dementia ridden judge refuses to step down because the president is the “wrong party.”

And let’s face it, we no longer care what the Bar Association thinks about qualifications, temperament, or caliber of individual. The court has come out as partisan so we’re going to pick the youngest partisan hack we can find that has a credible CV for the Supreme Court. An existing federal judge who we think will advance our agenda. The idea we’re going to pick our best jurists for the role is a quaint notion.

What the decision was not about was any kind of split or rebuke of the president. For the three judges who “crossed over,” their basic sense of the job and their sense of their legacy probably prevented them from voting to protect the tariffs. But only in this narrow instance. From the earlier immunity decision, we have plenty of evidence what the conservative justices think the limits of their president are. To varying degrees, they support a stronger, less restrained executive. (And thankfully it’s openly written about, so we know the Unitary Executive isn’t just a liberal brain disease).

Will the US Strike Iran?

I don’t think the gold market thinks so. Price action is essentially flat. This may change on Friday, but right now it looks like gold is having a consolidation moment after the run-up. I don’t think a lot of countries want to hold gold as a reserve, as its volatility means your reserves are subject to constant swings. The traditional reserve was the dollar, but many countries are looking at an administration willing to subvert its own laws and weaponize its currency. So that makes the Euro more attractive, but it lacks the depth and breadth of market the collar occupies.

The next proof point would be an appreciation of the dollar combined with falling prices on bonds. I see some, but not much movement. Again, that could change by Friday. But the dollar and interest rate aren’t signalling a belief the US will attack this weekend. The dollar continues to sit in it’s range and the upward movement is as easily explained by the strong economy and the likelihood interest rates don’t change until mid-summer.

What we learned from Venezuela is firstly the operation was a surprise. Second, we have some tactics and weaponry a lot of us didn’t realize we had. Third, the US had no interest in anything but a quick win. Forth, there is no interest in democracy or actual regime change. Fifth the goal, explicitly stated, is control of oil and oil sales.

Thanks to Charle’s brother, the news has a lot on the arrest of Andrew. Iran is below the fold at the NY Times, not on the front page at Bloomberg, and missing from The Guardian. I’ll get to the AP and BBC later, but likely the same. People aren’t looking that way and the administration has tamped down the rhetoric, making it look like talks are underway. No reason to attack if people are talking, right?

The attacks preceding the abduction may have been probes to test the speed, reaction, and air defenses of Venezuela. I suspect we have that dialed in on Iran after the raids with Israel. It’s likely we have good intelligence and wouldn’t need to probe their defenses by striking other targets. After all, we dropped bombs on their most sensitive nuclear facilities with impunity. I suspect we can strike anywhere in the country at any time. And likely one result of the Ukraine war is highly detailed information on Russian air defenses at their most capable.

It’s not likely the US would swoop in and take the Ayatollah back to Rikers in cuffs. But it might be a decapitation strike. There are plenty more religious leaders waiting in the wings to replace any “martyred” leader. So I’m not sure what lasting chaos or policy change it might cause. If there’s anything to strike that would have lasting impact, it’s the revolutionary guard and secret police forces. Maybe target the control and command systems that enable them to suppress internal dissent? After reading about their brutal response to protesters, I doubt anyone would shed tears for secret police and military that shoot at civilians.

The moon this weekend is heading to first quarter. The next new moon is March 3. This doesn’t matter as much as some people think, with the assault for Maduro taking place, as January 3 was a full moon. The moon will set in Tehran shortly after 10 PM, local time. Which means it will be moonless in the early hours of the morning. (The moon isn’t always up at night – remember?)

What will the US want? I don’t think anything but a vague “lay off the dissidents” and demands on the oil. It might have some added benefits of keeping Iranian drones out of Russian hands, to fire on Ukraine. With all the ships and capabilities arriving in the Gulf, a timer has started. There’s a point at which those assets have to be rotated out for maintenance and refurbishment, and to give their crews some time off. A build-up can’t sit there forever. A “permanent” presence, simply means the US rotates ships in and out of the region. It’s not the same ship, years on end.

I don’t expect the US to land troops or in any way take a long-term approach. I suspect it will be much like Venezuela, meaning they realize no one is going to keep paying attention to see it spiral into shit or realize nothing changed. I don’t know what targets they intend to hit. Maybe it will be the re-built nuclear sites. Maybe it will be the revolutionary guard barracks and headquarters. Maybe it will be government buildings. I have no idea. But I don’t think Iran will be able to retaliate in any meaningful way and I don’t expect Iran to be able to stop the attack.

[Note] With this administration, watching the markets may be a good indication they’re about to do/not do something. They tend to be leaky with non-public information.

Calling It What It Is

The practice of calling something what it is seems jarring sometimes. None of us want to come to the horrible conclusion what we’re looking at is as bad as we think it is. That’s why it’s nice to see the NY Times call out voting restrictions for what they are: an attempt to blunt the Democrats taking the house and possibly Senate. Do I think Republicans know better than to believe that illegal immigrants voted in 2020? At this point, I don’t know. I think the person who originates a lie knows it’s a lie, but maybe not the person who repeats it. And human beings have an amazing ability to believe something that suits them.

A lot of journalism, in order to avoid seeming biased, gives both sides a pass. That’s why people who pushed an anti-science agenda that carbon emissions aren’t ruining the climate got an equal hearing with actual scientists. This is especially true if the denier had some scientific credentials, even if they weren’t in anything related to meteorology or climate work. Putting one person “pro” and once person “con” in a discussion group makes it seem like there is a split on opinion. Even though you can see the impacts of a changing climate, you find something else to believe. Or you just don’t believe it, because it’s easier not to. Even with a top tier education, all the information in the world at you fingertips, and being accomplished in your own field, does not prevent you from convincing yourself of something that isn’t true. It allowed you to believe that the scientific field is split, and therefor no one knows. And if it’s all about money, maybe its the 60k a year climate researcher that’s making a mint on this.

Often, this follows familiar contours. We just went through the Epstein file dump and saw the degree to which people tried to excuse, minimize, hide, or ignore what it was about Jeffrey Epstein that was so vile. And what it implied about him and the people that frequented his island. It has become clear that at many turns people could have named Epstein for what he was and what he did, but chose not to. Not because they don’t abhor trafficking and raping children, but it would mean naming themselves as abetters and enablers, and their friends (and possibly family) as rapists. I’m not sure what they allowed themselves to think, or what to believe. I don’t think they can think of themselves in those terms. I don’t think any decent person can, so there has to be another explanation. He’s mentoring them. They’re actually older than they look. Maybe those girls are getting something out of it too, staying on a nice island. And for some of the abusers, probably that if she really didn’t want to, she would have left the room.

Unless we want to fall into that same pattern of behavior, at some point we have to name the Republican party and its attempts to illegitimately secure power. They intend to keep eligible voters out of the polls to hold power in the 2026 mid-terms and the 2028 election. This is an undemocratic attempt to maintain one party rule by tampering with elections in a way that gives a thin veneer of legality. Enough of a veneer to let people continue to believe it’s for securing or protecting the elections. That they’re the good guys, because otherwise, it would make them no better than any other one-party rule dictatorship. They have to believe there is a problem with illegitimate voting, despite the evidence to the contrary. Because if they actually named what they are doing out loud, if they acknowledge it to themselves, they will realize the enormity of what they are doing.

This is why the facts don’t matter. Because the belief is based on what they want to be true. For example, Biden won on the presidential ticket, but Republicans won down-ballot. Does that mean that those results are invalid? It doesn’t matter to them. If you look at pieces of evidence like the Utah audit of illegal voters, that found essentially no problem, it doesn’t matter to them. And it’s no longer just a few fringe lunatics like Sidney Powell, who came off as nuts. In terms of people who’ve convinced themselves illegal immigrants voted, it’s likely a majority of the Republican caucus. If not almost all of the Republican caucus. Some are just dumb and gullible, but others have just convinced themselves this must be true. Otherwise, they will have their asses handed to them in a few months. And more importantly, if they can’t convince themselves, it just means they are anti-democratic and breaking with a fundamental tenant of being American.

Representation, voting, was the chief complaint of Americans that lead to independence. That the English parliament, across an ocean, was making decisions about English citizens that were denied the same representation available to people living in England. While many people look at the tax issues, it was that the taxes were imposed without the colonists feeling like they had a say in it. Denying eligible voters, in America, access to the ballot box makes one a traitor to the very idea of being American. And that’s what these laws intend to do. To take people who could vote, and have grievances about how the government is running, and turn them away by adding additional requirements for identification well beyond what is necessary. Or up-ending the constitution and imposing control over a function explicitly left to the states.

For example, say you were born overseas but became a US citizen. You are allowed to vote. The proposed laws require you to show a passport or birth certificate to vote. Your birth certificate is useless. You have to show a passport. I have always had a valid passport. But only half the country does. I’m assuming among that half are people a fair number are born overseas. It can take weeks to get a passport and there is a non-negligible price. Or if you are a woman, who changed her name after being married, you need to show both the passport and a marriage certificate. I’m sure my marriage certificate is around somewhere, but I’ve never had to show it. Women have been been skewing toward Democrats, as might more immigrants after the horrific ICE crackdowns. What better way to throw up a little roadblock to registering to vote. The icing on the cake will be to place ICE at polling places. The goal being to instill fear into people afraid they might get unlawfully arrested and spend weeks in detention before their citizenship is verified, don’t show. Why on earth would they think that? Because that has been happening to brown people, especially if they have an accent.

But, that’s only a few people, right? Think about how close the elections can be in the United States. We now consider a presidential election decisive if there’s a whole percentage point difference in the popular vote. You don’t have to keep 10% of the likely Democrats from voting. Maybe just have to keep a percent or two from voting. You might still lose the House, but maybe keep the Senate, and pretty much stay in power. Nothing a Democrat House does will pass a Republican Senate. And the slim margin is even more true during the presidential election. And on top of that, the administration will lean on broadcasters and social media to avoid spreading messages that will hurt them in the polls. While no longer under the cover white supremacists funnel money into Republican races. And what coercion by the FCC or FTC can’t handle, and money can’t buy, the patronage system pressure companies to fall in line.

But that may not be enough. You may get a large number of people voting for Democrats, even with all that suppression work. You might think the laws would prevent them from claiming fraud. It won’t. Just like 2020, they will let results that favor Republicans stand, while claiming Democrats cheated with illegal votes. If passage of voter id laws is blocked by either the Senate or impeded by the courts, they will claim the results were full of illegal votes. If the laws are passed, enacted, and allowed for the 2026 mid-terms, they will claim the laws weren’t enough, or that Democrat states failed to enforce them. And it won’t matter if those states are traditionally ‘red’ states. They will do everything they can to deny Democrats seats but will not attack a Republican win, even on the same ticket. They did this in 2020. They will do it in 2026 and 2028.

The voter id laws are a thing to help them structure their fantasies. In one sense they don’t matter. With the laws in-place, after a defeat in the mid-terms, they won’t care about audit trails, voter roles, manual re-counts, or whatever you propose. These are people who legitimately looked for traces of bamboo in paper to show it was from China. They cannot believe anything else than they lost because they cheated. Will there be Republicans that know they lost but still make the argument? Of course there are. Just as there were tobacco executives that realized smoking was killing people, was addictive, and they needed to get kids hooked as teenagers. And that their claims about the science not supporting the cancer claims was just a smoke screen. But plenty of people allowed themselves to be convinced tobacco wasn’t the problem, it wasn’t that addictive, it was their right to smoke, and that if teens smoked, it was the parents’ fault.

It may come to mass protests in November through January to force the Democrats to be seated in Congress. You can be assured that every procedural impediment to swearing in new Democrat congress members will be applied. Every court challenge to their win. Every counter protest (complete with stop the steal activists in battle-rattle and long guns) to declare the results invalid will be pushed. Every attempt to cower the media and social media narratives to de-legitimize the results will be taken. Every time a Republican is interviewed, they will focus on language tuned to resonate with their base and help them continue to believe the election is being stolen. That their country is being stolen. That their voice is being stolen. And their way of life will be stolen, if the Democrats win. But at the same time, accepting every Republican win as legitimate, not really up for discussion, or part of the clever plot.

Just as many Republicans have made it clear they feel voting is a privilege, not a right. Or that maybe their faith says we should allow head of household voting. Or that they can discern who the real Americans are, and only they should vote. Or, if push comes to shove, they can’t trust the ballot box to their satisfaction so there’s no point in having elections. We have over-used the word “fascist” way too often. The county requires separating recycling by type, and people scream it’s fascist. It’s lost its meaning. Authoritarian and autocratic don’t hit has hard as fascist used to hit. But make no mistake, what I’m seeing in America is little different from the slide that Turkey and Hungary took, and Poland was taking, to a single-party, failed democracy. If Orban loses, he may not leave power without blood in the street. Erdogan has shown a willingness to brutally crack down on his opposition and probably won’t leave without a revolt or military coup. And Putin consolidated power that ten years ago so people largely stopped questioning obvious murder.

If the Democrats do well enough in the polls come November, we may not have to listen to history rhyme as Americans fight to be represented. That even if you wipe out a few thousand votes here or there, it doesn’t make any difference and the House and Senate are both taken by Democrats. And that if you don’t acknowledge the election, you can’t seat a new Congress, and the business of the country stops. (I don’t put a full up coup beyond the pale at that point. You just don’t seat Congress and the president runs the country by fiat. Or tries to, in which case we’ll see which way the military heads.) But the fact that a blow-out or landslide is the only way we keep democracy going, kind of shows we’ve already lost. And lost because of the dumbest reason, that people have convinced themselves of something that isn’t true as they can’t just admit they are sheep who would rather give up their rights and live in a dictatorship.

The Downside of Flooding the Zone

“Trump has Overwhelmed Himself,” by Ezra Klein, points out one of the problems with flood the zone. That it removes focus from the ones doing the flooding. It makes it feel like the entire White House is in chaos. I don’t know if Trump supporters see it that way, but for those who pay attention, it floods their attention as well. I assumed it would have a built in advantage because of the short attention spans of most people. Something horrible happens in the US, something that feels like we should never forget it happened. A year or two later we see a news story about an anniversary of the event and think “wow – that happened and I should not have forgotten.”

As much as the murder of Alex Pretti at the hands of paramilitary forces is tragic, will we remember a few months from now? What horror shows did you remember from 2025? Do you remember he gutted US AID? Do you remember DOGE rifling through government databases, in locked rooms, with no supervision and the windows blanked out? Do you remember the insanely ridiculous tariff calculations? Signal gate? And we’ve become accustomed to the absolutely corrupt use of the pardon power. The president has been issuing pay for play pardons to convicted scammers. That’s a thing. It barely makes the news. Remember when Clinton got roasted for a couple of questionable pardons at the end of his second term? Trump does that and more on a weekly basis.

I think part of the flood the zone strategy is to keep crisis after crisis going so the real problems don’t surface. Look at the companies footing the bill for the ballroom or the sycophantic Melania movie. Alone, in previous administrations, would have come across as so corrupt as to be career ending. However, when we’re threatening NATO countries, who’s paying attention to the graft from World Liberty Financial, the Trump crypto scam and bribe channel?

I don’t know if Trump wants to run again. But if he doesn’t, he’s going to walk away with as much lucre as he and his family can steal. The party that went purple in the face with rage over Hunter Biden clumsily parlaying his supposed connections to wealth, became the story of the “Biden Crime Family.” And yet turn a completely blind eye to overt corruption. They can because we’re screaming about whether or not the government has to respect the fourth or first amendments. The courts plod along on these cases, with the shadow docket in the tank for Trump. Only going to bat for the constitution and norms when money is involved. Any sense the Supreme Court was non political has been dashed and as far as I’m concerned, sympathy for my causes is more than jurisprudence.

I think it’s too early to declare “Flood the Zone” a dead strategy. Because Trump knows he’ll walk away with billions, hidden behind a screen of outrage. The next president will likely face new limits on their pardon power or power to gut agencies. This is especially true if the next president is a Democrat and the Supreme Court will suddenly rediscover the constitution limits the power of the President.

Tech Bros Are Going to Lose Europe

The Guardian asks. First off, it’s not that the European version of these services do not exist or need to be built from scratch. But that’s not the reason to switch. Until now, US elections, even 2016, produced reasonable outcomes for Europe. Now they have an agent of chaos more than an ally. A country that foments division among its alliances and has stated that a weaker Europe is in American interests. And so much of their communication is funneled through American companies. Companies that have shown a willingness to cooperate with an administration that shows a willingness to use the levers of government in a retaliatory manner. This retaliation could be illegal, but there has been little interest in the Republicans to stop it and there seems little ability (either talent or power) for the Democrats to put an end to it.

Even if the cost is a little higher (with the US being the low cost producer), it is the insurance you pay for having a functioning society. For the same reason you might choose the Grippen over the F-35. Maybe have some F-35s, along side a mix of other fighters. Should the relationship with the US result in a suspension of the contract for maintaining the F-35, or the US out-and-out prohibits their use in the defense of Europe, there is a plane Europe can fly. The resulting insurance against being effectively disarmed by America may be worth additional cost. As would be securing broader sources of many products and services.

But let’s say the 2028 election produces a left-of-center Democrat who is able to assume power. What is the guarantee they don’t pursue some of these policies because of political expediency? There are many instances where a policy unpopular with the winning voter coalition are continued. There is no guarantee that the new administration drops those policies on its first day in power. And what if it loses power to the ideological continuation of the Trump administration? What happens if, in four years, Marco Rubio decides it’s better to rule in hell as a populist autocrat than to serve in heaven? At this point, from an outside observer, I would imagine even Donald Trump Jr. would not be an impossible outcome in 2032.

But there is something coming with AI generated search results I think Europe underestimates. They can be primed to deliver answers that promote division and fringe movements. This could include AI summaries of documents or the generation of material from AI. These could be over-the-top, cringe inducing, obvious trolls to very subtle wording or choosing what information to present. And should Europe complain, threats of tariffs or outright cut-off of these services follows. Or EU leaders are sanctioned and cannot access their digital (or financial) assets.

So yes, Europe needs to figure out what would help. Making it cheaper to start businesses in Europe? Sure. Ensure these companies have guaranteed revenue through government contracts? Maybe. Changing the laws to withdraw from the anti-circumvention features foisted on the EU by previous trade negotiators? That’s a good idea. If Apple threatens to cut off iPhone access to the UK, for example, return the favor by making it legal to jail-break your iPhone and install alternate services. Tax the profits of tech companies to help pay for it? Even if you wind up taxing your own tech companies, the money might come back to them in other grants or contracts.

Right now the US companies have market dominance. Let’s say they have 95% of the office software market. The EU shouldn’t try to retake the 95% at once. It should just focus on reducing dependence on the US to 85%. From 85%, 75% feels possible. Because a lot of tech is based on network effects, as other companies plug in to the services of other companies, each tranche becomes an easier target. Just start with critical pieces, like your ability to share documents securely and e-mail. And start with the easiest part to control, your own bureaucracies. At some point you’ll need to worry about other cloud services, or even the content on social media, but it will be from a stronger place.

It’s a Bleak Battle

I expect the administration was taken a little aback by Republican voices expressing discontent. I think the 40% that is the bottom of Trump’s approval probably excused the extra-judicial killing by paramilitary forces in Minneapolis. Many in the Republican party barely said a word about the rest of the brutality. I think the push-back was unanticipated and they weren’t ready for it. The canker-lipped spokesperson of the administration had a muted statement. They are regrouping, not defeated. They have flooded the zone with a sea of shit and this is like saving exactly one house from partial inundation. One mole whacked down as other pop up.

We’re back to the two party system of the Autocrats and Ineffectuals. The Autocrats want to rough-up blue areas of the country before the next election. Their goal is establish control, purge voter roles, and stifle turnout where possible. And while they had a setback in Minnesota, their continued success in building a system of patronage was on display at the Melania premier. With corporate executives finding clever ways to pump money directly into the hands of the Autocrat kingpin and his family. And as they take ownership of Tik-Tok, popular voices from the actual opposition are being banned. The platform was essentially handed to one of the regime backers.

Meanwhile the Ineffectuals will continue to send very strongly worded letters. But will seek to work with the administration where they can. Because it’s important they aren’t perceived poorly by Chuck Schumer’s imaginary friends. They must show they dutifully adhere to the old norms. However, these are difficult times so they may insist on some modifications to the funding bills to keep the government open. [Note that they may withhold votes to fund DHS unless “metro surge” is ended except ICE is enforcement is already mostly funded through the next few years.] Because it’s important to get concessions from a party that does not feel they need to honor any deals.

Gavin Newsom? Great haircut, but he is begging for money from the same people Trump is tithing. He talks a good talk, but no corporate dollars are really in danger at the end of the day. Does he have a “social media game?” Sure, maybe. But he’s the smart money bet by the Ineffectual establishment. Chances are he’ll flop like many of their other darling candidates. You know, the same political establishment that tried to foist Andrew Cuomo on the city of New York. A discredited sex pest. Of course they got Madmani … Mandady … Mamdani. Who seems like a nice enough guy but may be in over his head. And if it weren’t for the fact the establishment ran the worst candidate shy of Anthony Wiener, would still be enjoying his seat on the assembly.

It’s fucking dismal. It’s beginning to feel like the remaining Republicans don’t give a fuck, want to keep their heads down, and get through the next election. Although quite a few won’t. Or shouldn’t, given a reasonable election. I would say the possibility of Trump trying to cancel that next election is small. But I think they issue is we haven’t figured out how he challenges it. Trying to stop vote counting on January 6, 2021 to stay in power was a truly shit idea, but it wasn’t predicted. I think we just haven’t figure out what he’s going to do. And how the Ineffectuals will bumble and fumble the ball. Using a football analogy, we’ll see how far they get into the red zone before inevitably turning it over.

I would say, had we a real opposition, an attempt to subvert in election in 2026 should lead to a nationwide shutdown. Or at least a blue state/blue enclave shutdown. But more likely two or three hours of, middle aged people standing by the road, not blocking traffic, and waving signs, as honking cars drive by. Of course, that depends on how cold it is. But the Autocrats will dutifully line up behind imaginary election fraud, sacrificing our future as a democratic republic to try to maybe hold the Senate? Or maybe try to seat only some of the newly elected Ineffectuals? They don’t care about the future because the rapture is apparently right around the corner. And the Ineffectuals might send yet another strongly worded letter. Maybe Chuck Shumer’s imaginary friends have some insight on how to handle that crisis, should it come to pass?

Comply or Die [Kind of a Rant]

Tim Miller at the Bulwark said it best on a pod cast. The “Don’t Tread on Me,” Gadsden flag waving, concealed carry crowd has become the Comply or Die crowd. Right now people are hot and the longer the occupation of Minneapolis continues, the hotter they’ll get. And in a country that has more guns than people, where all 50 states have laws that allow people to carry concealed firearms, it’s almost guaranteed that ICE and CBP agents will come across armed people. It’s also possible someone just throws on some fatigues and and a mask and pretends to be ICE to do god knows what. (CBP appear to have more regular uniforms but some ICE members look like they showed up in their personal gear).

It’s a little over nine months until the next election. Although it seems impossible now, as a country we have the ability to forget the scenes of yet another extra-judicial killing by armed paramilitaries. After January 6, 2021, it seemed that Donald Trump was un-electable in the United States. And yet, here we are. I don’t think the pressure for mass deportations is going away and I don’t think the administration will let of the pedal for very long. I strongly suspect Steven Miller, that fucking ghoul, will be back demanding more arrests. That angry little fascist cosplayer, Bovino, is likely going to pop up some place else with some other gig. And I’m sure it will be just as cruel. He’s too “central casting” for this administration.

Friedman suggested we play a game “ICE or Hamas.” Try to figure out if the masked paramilitary is a terrorist or a US Federal employee. The truth is, they’re both terrorists. They’re both trying to terrorize populations into submission. This is clearly evident as the Federal Government makes demands in exchange for “letting up.” They both try to use brutality to try to instill that fear. Maybe they’ll go smaller and in more cities. Maybe they’ll just go to blue enclaves in red states. Maybe they’ll start raiding farms. Who knows? But to further the fascist state, you need to have thugs do intimidate the masses.

This is exactly the second amendment crowd’s wet dream. Masked federal gunmen coming in to take peoples’ rights. But the second amendment crowd has never been about all citizens’ rights to have firearms. Or about all citizens’ need to defend their rights. They wanted to show up at a protest, armed to the teeth, to try to intimidate the other side. This is yet one more example of the lying through their teeth we’ve seen from many of these rights absolutists. Just like the thinnest skins on freedom of speech are with people who demand you don’t censor their racist comments. They are liars.

The Estimate of the Floor on Trump’s Support Is Wrong

An AP-NORC poll found that Trump’s support doesn’t seem to fall below 40%. Individual issues or slight re-framing of specific issues may be higher or lower, but the approval rating doesn’t drop below 40%. I don’t know what it would take to break the lower floor at this point. It’s not the poor job people believe he’s done for the economy. Certainly, it’s not tyranny and overreach by a corrupt president. I also suspect that invoking the insurrection act in Minneapolis won’t do be that bridge too far. And there may be additional stops along the way, such as just above 35% where his die hard supporters truly wouldn’t abandon him for shooting someone on 5th avenue.

It’s pointless to talk about what the Republican party was even twenty years ago. Right now it is a vehicle for Trump through which Trump exercises his power, some wealthy people see a chance to line their pockets or reshape the world according to their egos, and for many Americans to vent their anger at a changing world. I think the break down of the polling data by race and gender illuminates some of what motivates that support. Of course it’s not a perfect alignment, and sometimes it just pushes against that 40% floor, but there is a difference between the way white Americans view this president and all other races view the president. Even among Hispanics, about a third still approve of the president. And a difference between the way women and men view the president.

I have long maintained that 40% support is more than sufficient for keeping an autocrat in power. When Gaddafi fell, it was because his support fell to near zero. When Nikolai Ceausescu fell, his support had cratered near zero. There just weren’t enough people willing to go into the street for them and plenty of people out to get them. Same with Mussolini, or Czar Nickolas, or Assad, Ferdinand Marcos, Louis XVI, or any one of a number of autocrats. Maybe some supporters saw the writing on the wall and realized it would only make it worse, but not change the outcome, if they died rallying around the dictator. Maybe some didn’t want to be torn apart in the bloody aftermath, and hoped their spurt of “good will” would cover up a lifetime of sins. Some of the autocrats even tried to stem the tide by giving in on some demands to gain some support, but at best that only delayed the inevitable. Maybe some genuinely lost faith. But at the end of the day, almost no one was willing to run to their aid.

Right now, Trump stands around 40%. A lot of things have to go bad before that drops to near zero. Maybe the economy is too good and their bellies are too full. The fallout from destroying the American system hasn’t hit them. And in some cases a lot will have to go wrong before it does. Regardless, there are plenty of people who would still rally and defend the president. We saw it recently as the war power resolution died in the Senate. A move congress would normally support to maintain their own influence on foreign policy. This defeat means we are even less likely to see restraint in moving against (and I can’t believe I’m writing this) Greenland. (Something the perfume guy thinks he turn into a few more dollars in his personal wealth).

I also think that, at least in the present moment, that 40% number is artificially low. I think it’s more like a 45% or even 50% approval when it comes time to vote. For many reasons, ranging from the fact our monkey brains love a big, angry, chest-thumping primate to lead the herd, to our need for security in a world made less secure by Trump. But mostly because I think a large number of people are not comfortable with their racist and chauvinistic attitudes. When they think “welfare,” they don’t think of the white family down their own road, but the people of color in ungrateful “Democrat” cities leaching off their hard work. Or people who ascribe their economic insecurity to the deterioration of cultural norms that centered men. Despite the statistics, despite the fact the deepest red states are the biggest beneficiaries of federal spending, despite the fact men are just not showing up, they see white America and male America as providing while much of non-white America and women as selfishly taking advantage. They may say they “disapprove,” but when are forced to choose, they choose Trump.

Trump also has a working patronage system. That helps bring the monied interests in line. He has a friendly Supreme Court, and is able to pressure any Republicans (either through threats to their continued re-election or threats to their families) to toe the line. The goal is to keep pushing so any particular act is only outrageous for a short time. Most people fail to understand that if you shoot one woman at a protest, that’s a lead story. If you shoot people on a regular cadence, eventually we just track the totals. Much like mass shooting are now almost part of the background static of our lives. He realizes his best defense is not to cross the line until he needs to back off. It’s to cross the line by just the right amount and keep on crossing it. It will take months for a court to stop him, if ever. Among the uneducated it appears he did have the right. And among the educated, he’s secured the right in practice. His opponents are pushed back, defending the new line.

I don’t know how we got here. I’m not even sure where “here” is. I do believe the single most important thing we can do is to vote in the upcoming midterm elections. Not because it will usher in a group of leaders who will turn a tied against the president, but because it will reduce the avenues he has for action. He wants to boost military spending by 45% and the ICE budget has exploded to insane levels. Cutting either of those will make the democrats look weak to some voters, something they would rather not risk for the 2028 general election. But it would at least restrain those impulses. And like all authoritarians, the current crop knows growing the military and law enforcement is a means of being able to exercise internal control. Adding more boots to the Army will be just as much about holding a large territory in martial law, as it will be to counter China. (Which I think will largely be allowed to do what it wants in a little while). The best thing we could do is deny him to tools to occupy more than a handful of mid-sized cities.

I say the estimate of his support is wrong because it allows us to come to the wrong conclusions. Like if support drops below that magic number, it’s a sign it’s slipping and the end of Trump is coming. That’s a completely incorrect assumption. It could be that it needs to drop below 20% or 10%. Maybe with 5% die-hard supporters, concentrated in law-enforcement and the military, an autocrat survives. But also, at the end of the day, it’s not 40%. If people were forced to choose between Trump and a Kamala Harris they choose Trump because he’s the right race and the right gender. They don’t consciously scream “white power” as they vote. It is their unconscious bias, a lack of education, and disinterest in the norms and laws that are violated. He is backed by the recipients of a patronage system that provides resources to promote him, his policies, and his candidates. Patrons who have no obvious interests beyond their egos and their money. And that’s why he’s not weak at all at this point. I wouldn’t even say he’s cornered. I think his supporters and backers realize any discussion of Trump being on the ropes is a full dose of hopeium. And that’s why I don’t see too many of them doing anything to hedge their bets.

Rebuilding the Agencies

When the next administration is sworn in, January 2029, they are going to have some major challenges. Every time you read about another career prosecutor leaving the DoJ over some prosecution they refuse to file, it’s another person that put their agency and their profession above politics. Everyone that stays, and is willing to file those charges, is someone who caves. It’s likely that a number of senior people being promoted, who will promote other people underneath them, at best put their career above their ethics. At worst, they put their politics above their ethics. Perhaps so much so that they will undermine a Democrat administration.

Some of these folks will see the writing on the wall and will leave to start a podcast, “telling all” about the failed Democrat justice department. And with no sense of irony, will talk about how they were pushed toward political prosecutions. They will join a long line of other former federal law enforcement that quit to specially crap on Democrats. That’s nothing new. I would be surprised if the bulk of federal law enforcement didn’t lean Republican. And they’re not above the tribal fighting that the current administration is promoting. What’s happening is the ones who may vote Republican, but put their professional ethics and their agency above politics, are being pushed out. The saving grace, if there is one, is craven people are usually less competent.

But what does the next administration do? Does it start to go through the agencies, with a wire brush, making it clear they want the nakedly partisan people gone? Pam Bondi and Cash Patel will be gone the moment a Democrat president’s hand comes off the bible, January 2029. There will be, and should be, no discussion of keeping those unqualified political hacks in place one minute longer than necessary. Along with many of their deputies and assistants, who would normally be held over into a new administration, at least for a time. I don’t think it will take long for them to see that some people are the result of four years of intentionally injecting politics into prosecutions. And those people have to go.

In a sentence, the next administration will be accused of exactly what this administration is doing. Even if their goal is to simply get rid of the lackeys and hacks.

In the same way the Supreme Court is giving the administration a free hand on even long stand precedent regarding independent agencies, they will try to curtail the new administration. If the Democrat fires commissioners at the FCC, for example, I’m sure they’ll suddenly rediscover the error of their previous decisions. And I’m sure when it comes to suits by civil servants being pushed out because they are brazenly political, they will be horrified that a Democrat would politicize the justice department.

I have no illusions about the Federal Courts any more. I think they mostly follow the law, and some cases depend on how you see the world in interpreting the law, but the result of the Trump appointments (and the failure of Obama and then Biden to fill those appointments) is a more political judiciary. One that will impede the return back to a professional, ethical Federal law enforcement bureaucracy.