Muda69

He very well may be behind bars before the 2023 election. The wheels of justice turn slowly. Would you vote for a convicted felon for POTUS? Why or why not?

Trump Is Disqualified from Being on Any Election Ballots https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/10/trump-is-disqualified-from-being-on-any-election-ballots/ Donald J. Trump in a nationally televised debate with President Biden refused to renounce the Proud Boys and said: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by." Trump then falsely denied that he had lost the 2020 presidential election, urged his followers to assemble at noon on January 6, 2021 on the Ellipse outside the White House, and he then whipped a mob of some extremists, and many naïve conservatives, into a frenzy urging them to march on the Capitol as Congress was certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump told his followers: "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," he said. Trump then watched the riot that he had had launched play out on national television without sending a Tweet or any other kind of similar message urging his supporters to behave peacefully. He did this even though one Tweet from him would have caused the insurrection he incited to stop—immediately ending, for example, the calls "to hang Mike Pence." This meets the constitutional definition of "insurrection" even though so far Trump has not been criminally charged with inciting an insurrection. Remember that an insurrection is: "A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens." The Fourteenth Amendment bans either inciting an insurrection or a rebellion. Trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection, even if he may not have meant to cause a rebellion. Some will no doubt say that the voters should be the judges of Trump's insurrection, but that it not what the Constitution says. The Constitution says that only Presidents who follow their oath of office, which includes taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, are eligible to be on the ballot and to run for re-election. The Constitution is undemocratic in preventing non-Native born Americans who are under the age of 35 on January 20, 2025 from being on the ballot for President next year. But, we live in a constitutional republic, not an Athenian democracy of mob rule. Chris Christie is legally injured by Donald Trump's name being on the ballot. They draw from some similar voters. Christie should sue, if necessary, to get Trump's name off the ballot. Then the Supreme Court can open the dictionary and tell us what we all already know—that Trump incited an insurrection and is disqualified from being on any primary or general election ballots next year. UPDATE: For much more detail on these matters, see Will Baude's & Michael Stokes Paulsen's The Sweep and Force of Section Three, forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Looks pretty cut and dried to me. It will be travesty, and a complete mockery of the U.S. Constitution, if the GOP and State Secretaries of State pub Mr. Trump on their presidential ballots in 2024.

What is that old football cliché again? "Jimmy's and Joe's beat X's and O's".

See if you can successfully emigrate to the United States of America: https://www.thegreencardgame.com/factor/welcome

Indiana Law Lets Cops Push Bystanders Back 25 Feet. A New Lawsuit Says It's Unconstitutional. https://reason.com/2023/08/09/indiana-law-lets-cops-push-bystanders-back-25-feet-a-new-lawsuit-says-its-unconstitutional/ Sounds like a good lawsuit to me.

WILO AM-1570 out of Frankfort broadcasts games of primarily Clinton County schools (Clinton Central, Clinton Prairie, Frankfort) throughout the football season, and IIRC they will sometimes broadcast a Carroll (Flora) game or two. But they don't include a broadcast schedule on their website: https://clintoncountydailynews.com/ Kaspar broadcasting also has a streaming video site, http://www.hoosierlandtv.com/, that will sometimes stream games as well. But like the radio station I can't find a schedule.

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/high-school/2023/08/09/indiana-high-school-football-coaches-want-ihsaa-tournament-seeded-playoffs-sectionals/70397423007/ (Note: story is behind a paywall) And the list goes on, subscribe to the Star to read all of them. Lots of calls for playoff seeding in these comments.

A good list. Thanks for posting it.

Benton Central @ Delphi Kankakee Valley @ Rensselaer Lapel @ Hamilton Heights Northwestern @ Twin Lakes Seeger @ Central Catholic South Adams vs Tipton West Lafayette @ Harrison Western @ Tri-West West Central @ Caston Frontier @ Clinton Prairie

Retribution, Deterrence, and the Case for Prosecuting Trump for Conspiring to Overturn the 2020 Election https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/02/retribution-deterrence-and-the-case-for-prosecuting-trump-for-conspiring-to-overturn-the-2020-election/ More specifically, Trump is charged with: It is important to recognize that Trump isn't being charged simply because he wrongly claimed he won the election. In and of itself, that is no crime. Rather, he went far beyond that and organized a wide-ranging conspiracy to overturn the result using fraud and deception, and by attempting to enlist state and federal officials to assist him. The indictment goes into the means he and his co-conspirators used, in great detail. It's worth taking a step back and asking why we punish crimes at all. The most widely accepted reasons are retribution and deterrence. In other words, we seek to punish criminals because they deserve it due to the heinous nature of their deeds, and because it's important to deter others from engaging in similar wrongdoing. If these are the justifications for punishment, there are many situations where inflicting it is unnecessary or unjust, even if the defendant has violated the law. That may happen if the law in question is itself unjust, or if the violation is insignificant and there is little value to deterring it. Trump's indictment by New York prosecutors earlier this year may well be an example of such a dubious case. The later federal indictment for taking and refusing to return classified documents is a much more defensible prosecution. Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election well deserves punishment from the standpoint of both retribution and deterrence. For the head of state in a democracy, there are few more serious crimes than using fraud to try to stay in power after losing an election. If successful, such action would transform the nation into a despotism, usually a deeply illiberal one to boot. Subversion of the republic by the very person who has a special duty to defend it is obviously deserving of severe retribution, given the extraordinarily serious nature of the crime. It is also important to deter future presidents and other high-ranking officials from similar misconduct in the future. Here too, there is a strong case for severe punishment, given the enormous magnitude of the harm this kind of crime can cause. Severe punishment is also justified by the need for sanctions great enough to outweigh the potential gains of this kind of criminal activity in the eyes of would-be perpetrators. Becoming dictator for life is a major prize for unscrupulous power-hungry politicians. To outweigh that temptation, we need an appropriately severe punishment, one that will strike fear in the hearts of even the kinds of ruthless risk-takers who too often reach high political office. Trump's most obvious defense to these charges is that he didn't engage in fraud and deception because he honestly believed he had won the election, and that the Democrats had "stolen" it from him. If so, one could argue he didn't deserve retribution, because he didn't know he was doing anything wrong. And, likewise, there is arguably no point to trying to deter people who don't know they are committing a crime. But the indictment recounts extensive evidence indicating that Trump in fact knew he had lost. Among other things, it notes numerous occasions when his own advisers, law enforcement officials, and election experts told him there was no fraud anywhere near large enough to change the election result. He also could have learned he lost from the numerous court decisions rejecting his legal challenges to the election results, including some issued by judges he himself had appointed. In addition, there are instances where Trump himself actually admitted he had lost. For example, the indictment notes an incident in which Trump berated Vice President Pence for being "too honest" after the latter noted there was no legal basis to overturn the results. The report of the January 6 Committee (pg. 20 of the executive summary) recounts how Trump told his chief of staff that "I don't want people to know we lost." That obviously implies Trump himself did know he lost, but was trying to hide that fact from the public. Even if Trump did manage to delude himself into believing he had actually won the election, his conduct was still culpable. If I steal your valuable ring because I have persuaded myself (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) that I am its true owner, I am still guilty of theft. The same logic applies here. Trump had every reason and opportunity to learn he had lost. If instead he chose to indulge in self-delusion, which he then used to justify his scheme to overturn the election, he is guilty for much the same reasons as the thief who—without any justification—imagines himself to be the rightful owner of the object he steals. Perhaps that reasoning doesn't apply to a defendant who is simply incapable of understanding the truth, as in the case of people suffering from some types of mental illness. But Trump is not sick, just evil. Still, the option of pursuing an insanity defense is open to him, and perhaps he can attempt it at trial. Some philosophers and legal theorists deny that either retribution or deterrence is a justifiable ground for punishment. If that's your view, I'm not going to suggest you make an exception for Trump. But if, like most people, you believe that prosecution and punishment are sometimes justified on one or both of these grounds, than this case is a particularly compelling one. Jack Smith is right to prosecute Trump over his schemes to overturn the 2020 election because the man deserves severe punishment, and because it is important to deter future leaders from following in his footsteps. In a previous post, I have addressed claims that prosecuting Trump is an example of "banana republic" behavior, and the idea that it is wrong to go after him when others, such as Biden, Pence, and Hillary Clinton may also be guilty of wrongdoing. The points made there also apply to claims that it is wrong to prosecute Trump because President Biden's son Hunter Biden apparently got off lightly for his own offenses. Even if it is true that Hunter Biden got an unjustified sweetheart deal, that in no way justifies letting Trump off the hook for vastly more serious crimes. I agree with Mr. Somin.

Doyel on the The Big Ten expansion: https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/columnists/gregg-doyel/2023/08/06/big-ten-adds-oregon-washington-tradition-is-no-match-for-tv-schedule/70527990007/ Not for me, Mr. Doyel. The Big Ten is dead. Love live The Monon Bell game.

It doesn't. And I think I'm pretty much done with D1 college football. I'll stick with D3 and NAIA schools like Wabash, DePauw, Hanover, Taylor. etc. They could use my meager contributions via game day ticket sales more than Purdue or IU.

https://www.visitindiana.com/basketball/locations/ https://www.visitindiana.com/basketball/locations/frankfort-high-school-everett-case-arena/

https://mises.org/power-market/united-states-vs-donald-j-trump Ultimately the charge against Trump comes down to an unwillingness to share the public opinion of advisers and various government officials. A refusal to respect the sanctity of the American political process. To share, or perhaps fuel, the rage of the majority of his base. This particular indictment of Trump embodies the irreconcilable divide within America today. On one side, Smith can be fairly viewed as a defender of longheld political norms, a champion for the belief that even presidents can be held liable for their actions, and a rare man of action in a time where most political rhetoric only serves as a means to grift off the passions of outraged voters. Trump weaponized his cult of personality against the hallowed grounds of the US capitol and sought to maintain a hold over political power after the people soundly rejected him in the ballot box. On the other, you have an America that views Smith as a mere agent of an evil regime, trying to destroy a man for the crime of awakening millions to an illusionary political reality that has captured American life. Any claims to “enforcing the rule of law” are made all the more absurd by the extensive immunities offered to the degenerate son of the sitting president who was responsible for being a key source of “the big guy’s” non-official income. While it is true that Sidney Powell found no Kraken, the powers at be did boast publicly about their “fortification” campaign to ensure Donald Trump’s electoral defeat in a once-important national publication. In the eyes of Washington, including many whose paychecks rely upon the approval of Trump voters, taking any of this seriously makes you an insurrectionist deserving of being crushed. The ever-growing list of legal indictments against the former president poses great risks to Donald Trump, the man; the continual legal escalation from Biden’s prosecutors and their state-level allies, however, has greater significance for the political realities of modern America. Given Trump’s lingering unpopularity with a large swath of the voting public, it is not unreasonable to view each new criminal charge as an in-kind donation to the former president’s current presidential campaign. Polling trends show indicate that nothing did more to stall the national aspirations of his leading rival, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, than the willingness of the feds to act against their boss’s predecessor. It is quite possible that the only candidate that could lose to Joe Biden is Donald Trump. While no doubt the same Democrat consultants that embraced the “pied piper” strategy in 2016 — and more successfully in 2022 — view this prospect as an additional win, the regime’s reaction should be viewed as sincere rather than cynical. As Rothbard illustrated in Anatomy of the State, any powerful state requires the perception of legitimacy by its populace. Ludwig von Mises defended the mechanism of democracy as a means to promote political stability by allowing for a clash of political visions to be heard via the electoral process. Trump’s attack on the integrity of the entire process, which resonates to this day with tens of millions of Americans, is a unique danger to the domestic power of the regime. This does not mean Washington is more impotent now in imposing its will on civilians than it was before Biden, however. An insecure regime is a dangerous one, which explains both the increasingly militant optics and radical language from the beltway, as well as the escalation in terms of domestic surveillance, censorship, financial warfare, and other measures by the feds and their corporate proxies. But the gradual erosion of legitimacy has resulted in declining rates of military enlistment, increased promotion of state’s rights from Republican governors, decreased confidence in federal authorities, and broadening recognition that America’s elites are capable of truly horrific evils. America is just over a year away from its next presidential election. Already, the political season has devolved into the sort of unserious political theater that has become normalized in national democracy. The noise and stupidity that will capture screen time of the declining corporate press and social media are likely to serve the dull the senses and create widespread political exhaustion for those who are serious about the real issues plaguing the nation. Politics in America, however, is no longer simply about electoral kayfabe. One side is really at war with the other. Only time will tell as to whether those opposed to the current regime are capable of doing anything meaningful about that fact.

Yuck. But if they are advertising this new product as "plant-based steak" and somebody want to drop $69 dollars on it, well you know what they say about suckers.................

How hideous are these uniforms? It looks like MSU is trying to be the Oregon of the Midwest.

That is good to know. Thanks for sharing.

One of the best ever:

Speaking of tackling: Not bad technique? m2-res_258p.mp4

You don't have to be a U.S. citizen to join the U.S. military. Don't really see that much of a difference here.

And my conscience will be clear. Will yours I wonder?

From a newsletter regarding the most recent Trump indictments: Sorry, I can never, ever support the mental machinations required to somehow justify the thought of voting for the lesser of two evils, in this case Trump vs. Biden. Both are evil, bad, choices. Therefore I will choose neither.

I never believed the Founding Fathers thought "serving your country" was a lifetime career choice, especially in the Legislative branch.