<Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) is getting roasted on Twitter (now known as X) after posting a Yom Kippur message featuring an image of a Hanukkah menorah. She swiftly deleted the post without an apology and reposted the original text of the message on her page without the image. “Menorah? Wrong holiday, you anti-Semitic POS,” Brett Meiselas, co-founder of the SuperPac MeidasTouch tweeted. David Weissman commented on the post asking if Greene’s account had been hacked. “Everyone’s making fun of Marjorie Taylor Greene for putting a menorah on her Yom Kippur message, but in her defense she thought it was an eight-pronged Jewish space laser,” Frank Lessner, a former writer for Stephen Colbert, joked on Twitter in response to the post.>

<Donald Trump has portrayed every campaign of his short political career in one of two ways: He either won, or the election was stolen.

Now, he is framing the next election, for which he is the front-runner among Republicans, the same way.

“The Democrats must stop interfering with our upcoming 2024 presidential election,” Trump wrote on Truth Social this month, using all capital letters. “The weaponization & cheating must stop.”

Trump and his campaign say a series of criminal indictments against him are part of a scheme by Democrats to thwart him in next year’s vote. After Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith had Trump indicted in August for trying to subvert the will of the American voters, the Trump campaign said it was an attempt by President Biden “to interfere with the 2024 Presidential Election.” Similar complaints followed indictments by prosecutors from New York and Georgia.

Accusations of vote-rigging and election interference have been central features of the political playbook Trump and his allies have used for the eight years he has been in national politics. His “stop the steal” leitmotif has served both to discount past defeats and pre-empt any prospect of one ahead.

Democrats weren’t the original focus of Trump’s voter-fraud allegations, in 2016; then they were aimed at fellow Republicans. Trump’s longtime ally Roger Stone launched the Stop the Steal activist movement that year amid allegations that GOP leaders were conspiring to wrest the Republican nomination away from Trump as he emerged as the party’s front-runner.

Four years later, the Stop the Steal movement and efforts by other pro-Trump protest groups to reverse the election results culminated in thousands of Trump supporters gathering in Washington and breaching the Capitol as Congress met on Jan. 6, 2021, to certify Biden’s victory.

The August indictment by a federal grand jury in Washington charges Trump with four crimes connected to his effort to cling to power after losing the 2020 election, including conspiring to defraud the U.S., obstructing an official proceeding and conspiring against the rights of voters by his actions. In Georgia, a grand jury charged Trump, his lawyer Rudy Giuliani and 17 other Trump allies with operating a criminal enterprise to overturn Biden’s electoral victory in the state. All have pleaded not guilty.

Stone hasn’t been charged for his role in the wide-ranging effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election. But few members of Trump’s inner circle have been as closely affiliated with the former president’s electoral skepticism for as long as the flamboyant longtime Republican operative with a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back.

“Every American citizen has an absolute First Amendment right to question the anomalies and irregularities in any local, state or federal election,” Stone told The Wall Street Journal. There is no corroborated evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Stone, 71, said he has no plans to revive his Stop the Steal efforts in 2024.

Trump’s election denial was on display in February 2016, after he lost the Iowa caucuses to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Cruz “didn’t win Iowa, he stole it,” Trump said then on Twitter, now known as X. There is no evidence of voting irregularities in those caucuses.

Trump went on to win the New Hampshire primary and soon became the GOP front-runner.

But that status didn’t quell his concerns that Republican Party leaders were conspiring to take away his victory at the party’s national convention in Cleveland.

Trump warned of violence if he didn’t win the GOP mantle. In a March 2016 interview on CNN, the candidate said if he wasn’t the clear winner by the time of the convention in July, “I think you’d have riots.”

Stone, who had briefly joined Trump’s campaign in 2015, expressed similar concerns. He warned of “days of rage” ahead of the Cleveland gathering, with his Stop the Steal group calling for Trump supporters to “own the streets.”

After securing the GOP nomination, Trump shifted voter-fraud allegations to the coming general election against Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. “The only way we can lose, in my opinion…is if cheating goes on,” he said in an August 2016 rally in Pennsylvania. “I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged,” he said in Ohio.

Stone’s Stop the Steal group vowed to conduct Election Day exit polls to provide evidence of a rigged election, saying, without evidence, that Democrats planned to “flood the polls with illegals.” ....>

<.....While Trump’s 2016 electoral victory put a temporary end to such concerns, the president returned to his warnings about a fraudulent election in 2020 well before the country voted on his re-election in November 2020. In May of that year, he wrote on Twitter, “Don’t allow RIGGED ELECTIONS!” Later that month he tweeted: “The Democrats are trying to Rig the 2020 Election, plain and simple!”

At least 46 of Trump’s Twitter posts contained the phrase “rigged election” or “stolen election,” and nearly all were reposted more than 10,000 times, according to a Journal review of his messages since he took office. Most posts were made in the seven months leading up to Election Day in 2020.

In November 2020, after Trump’s loss, right-wing political operative Ali Alexander established a Stop the Steal LLC entity in Alabama with a bank account and websites, according to the Jan. 6 House select committee’s final report. Alexander, who was involved in organizing the Jan. 6, 2021, protests in Washington but had no personal ties to Trump, couldn’t be reached for comment, and a person who has represented him didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Stone, meanwhile, had been convicted in a federal court in 2019 for making false statements, witness tampering and trying to impede a congressional investigation into Russian election interference. In July 2020, Trump commuted Stone’s 40-month prison sentence. “Roger Stone was targeted by an illegal Witch Hunt,” Trump tweeted. In December, after losing the election, Trump pardoned Stone for the charges.

In the days leading up to the election, Stone predicted that the vote results would be “up in the air” after Election Day. “When that happens, the key thing to do is to claim victory,” he said, according to footage from a documentary film, “A Storm Foretold,” obtained by the House Jan. 6 select committee.

“ ‘Stop the Steal’ events and other protests throughout 2020 helped build the momentum for January 6th,” the House committee said in its final report.

After Biden won the November election, a scheme to enlist false slates of electors to shift the election to Trump took shape. Stone, Trump’s former Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Donald Trump Jr. and others close to the president promoted the idea that legislatures in certain states won by Biden could send alternative slates of electors to Congress.

The plan was taken up by several attorneys advising Trump, including John Eastman, a former constitutional law professor, and Kenneth Chesebro, believed to be one of the original architects of the fake-elector plot. Eastman also advocated the theory that Vice President Mike Pence could reject state electors on Jan. 6 in an effort to reverse the election results.

Eastman and Chesebro were both named as co-defendants by the Fulton County grand jury in Georgia that charged Trump and 18 allies with operating a criminal enterprise to overturn the 2020 presidential election in the state. Both pleaded not guilty. The two lawyers are also believed to be unindicted co-conspirators in the federal case brought by Smith.

Trump and his allies soon began pressuring officials in states he had lost, including in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona. Trump and his inner circle engaged in at least 200 attempts in public or private to target state legislators and state or local administrators to overturn election results, according to the House select committee’s final report.

On Dec. 19, plans coalesced for a so-called Stop the Steal rally on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump tweeted, “Be there, will be wild.”

Around noon on Jan. 6, Trump took the stage at the Ellipse near the White House. “We must stop the steal,” he said, echoing the phrase first launched by Stone in 2016.

He then encouraged his supporters to march to the Capitol.>

<Buoyed by rising poll numbers and a declining Joe Biden, conservative groups are preparing for a potential Donald Trump return to the White House in 2025. The America First Policy Institute, a think tank created to promote Trump’s agenda, and the conservative Heritage Foundation have launched a series of programs designed to help the next Republican president transition into office.

According to today’s Washington Post/ABC News poll, 48% of voters now say they approve of Trump’s performance while he was in office, while only 37% approve of Joe Biden’s current job performance - a seismic 11% gap.

The America First Policy Institute is working on assembling instructional manuals for future presidential staffers based on suggestions from ex-Trump White House personnel. These transition guides are being compiled with help from nine previous cabinet members, 20 senior presidential advisers, and 400 other officials who served under the Trump administration.

Next week, former top Trump administration officials, including Ex-Small Business Administrator Linda McMahon, Ex-Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, and Ex-Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf will speak at a Washington event detailing the America First Policy Institute’s transition plans.

Other participants from Trump’s inner circle include Russell Vought, former Director of the Office of Management and Budget; John McEntee, a key Trump advisor; Rick Dearborn, Trump’s former Deputy Chief of Staff; and Eric Ueland, Trump’s ex-Director of Legislative Affairs.

The Heritage Foundation, meanwhile, has partnered with more than 70 conservative organizations along with former Trump administration staffers to develop policy proposals for the next Republican presidency. The effort has already resulted in a 1,000-page book detailing conservative initiatives, ranging from work requirements for nutritional aid programs to downscaling of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The right-leaning think tank also established an online database - described as a “conservative LinkedIn” - to recruit political nominees for presidential appointments across the federal government.

These initiatives are further indications of the strength of the Trump campaign, who seems all but certain to be the GOP’s 2024 nominee. While the Heritage and America First insist their plans are available to any of the Republican presidential candidates, their efforts have been designed with Trump’s agenda, policies and people in mind.

Trump, who left many high-level political appointments unfilled during his first term in office, deeming them “unnecessary,” could return for a second White House term as one of the most administratively prepared presidents in history.>

<Donald Trump called on the Republican National Committee to drop its focus on presidential debates and focus on preemptive 2024 election challenges.

The former president attacked Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro for implementing automatic voter registration, joining 23 other states with varying models of streamlined processes for adding voters to the rolls, and warned the move was intended to hurt Republican candidates -- especially him.

"Pennsylvania is at it again!" Trump posted on his Truth Social website. "The Radical Left Governor, Josh Shapiro, has just announced a switch to Automatic Voter Registration, a disaster for the Election of Republicans, including your favorite President, ME!"

"This is a totally Unconstitutional Act, and must be met harshly by Republican Leadership in Washington and Pennsylvania," Trump added. "Likewise, the RNC, and Ronna McDaniel, must spend their time working on this, instead of meaningless Debates where I am up by more than 50 points. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and others, are far more important than 'Aida,' Sloppy Chris, Lyin’ Mike Pence, Nikki 'Birdbrain' Haley, Ron ('Dead Campaign') DeSanctimonious, and the others. Start suing now, & get the right lawyers this time! The Pennsylvania Republican Party must likewise not let this happen. It will be a disaster for our Nation, which is being destroyed by these Lunatics, Marxists, & Fascists, whose only real ability is to CHEAT on Elections. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!">

The Orange Pimpernel is quite right: AVR spells ruination to GOP hopes wherever it is applied.

<Late Saturday night Donald Trump took to his Truth Social platform to attack anti-abortion activists who are still supporting Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and warned them to fall in line behind his re-election bid.

The former president raised the ire of anti-choice activists during a speech in Washington D.C. over a week ago where he suggested he would not make the continuing assault on a woman's right to choose a central part of his re-election bid.

On Truth Social Saturday night, the former president doubled down.

"Pro lifers had absolutely zero status on the subject of abortion until I came along. For 52 years everyone 'talked,' but got nothing. I GOT IT DONE! There would be no talk of a six week ban, or anything else, without me. Roe v. Wade allowed the killing of a baby at any time, including the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th month, and even after birth. They, therefore, are the RADICALS, not us, and now, because of our Supreme Court victory, the power has shifted and, for the first time, those fighting for the Pro Life movement have been given tremendous Power on this issue. Before our victory, they had nothing, and they will have nothing again if we don’t win ELECTIONS," he wrote.

In a passage that will likley [sic] inflame the activists, he added, "Like Ronald Reagan, I believe in the three Exceptions for Rape, Incest, and the Life of the Mother. You have to follow your HEART, but without the Exceptions, it will be very hard to win Elections. The six week ban on abortion, among other things, like his fight against Social Security & MediCare, killed the DeSanctus Campaign!">

<I recently sat down with three professors at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, but this time, it was I who was doing the teaching. We discussed the fundamental rights enshrined in the First Amendment that protect every American’s freedom to share her personal beliefs, without fear of government punishment, and the important role universities play in protecting those freedoms. The professors were required to attend the free speech training as part of the agreement we reached with SIUE officials to settle a lawsuit brought by my client, Maggie DeJong.

While a graduate student in SIUE’s Art Therapy program, Maggie, like many other students, posted materials to her social media accounts, sent messages to fellow students, and engaged in class discussions on an array of topics, including religion, politics, critical race theory, COVID-19 regulations, and censorship. But because Maggie’s views, which are informed by her Christian faith and political stance, often differed from those of other students in the art therapy program, several of her fellow students reported her speech to university officials.

Then, with no notice, those officials issued no-contact orders against Maggie, prohibiting her from having “any contact” or even “indirect communication” with three fellow graduate students who complained that her expression of religious and political viewpoints constituted “harassment” and “discrimination.”

We filed suit on Maggie’s behalf in May 2022 against university officials for violating her constitutional rights simply because she held views that differed from her fellow students.

But Maggie isn’t the only one to get slapped with an unlawful restriction of speech because university officials didn’t care for her opinions.....>

<.....At the University of Idaho, three Christian law students and their faculty adviser filed suit last year against university officials for violating their First Amendment rights by punishing them because of the religious content and viewpoint of their speech. University officials similarly issued no-contact orders against Peter Perlot, Mark Miller, and Ryan Alexander, members of the Christian Legal Society chapter at the law school, and Professor Richard Seamon, CLS’s faculty advisor. The reason for such aggressive action? The students and their adviser had engaged in respectful exchanges with another law student about the biblical teaching on marriage and sexuality.

To make matters worse, when university officials issued the gag orders against the Christian students and professors, they did not even give them an opportunity to review the allegations against them or defend themselves.

Far too often, college administrators feel the need to “correct” protected speech they deem offensive by using disproportionate, not to mention unlawful, measures. That censorship has an immense chilling effect. Maggie, Peter, Mark, and Ryan did not know what behavior or speech caused the order to be issued, so they naturally refrained from expressing any idea some might subjectively find controversial.

Furthermore, when universities respond to student complaints by immediately slapping on no-contact orders — regardless of whether the situation actually justifies such an action — they teach college students to behave like children. Rather than sorting out any issues with fellow classmates, students can just run to college administrators who will apply strong (and unconstitutional) medicine in an attempt to fix interpersonal disagreements. Indeed, universities are sending a clear message to students: If you hear someone say something you don’t like or that offends you, just come to the administration; we’ll take care of it.

At the risk of aging myself, I miss the good ol’-fashioned days of simply unfollowing a person on Instagram or — gasp! — actually going to her directly to share how her opinion affected you. You know, dealing with conflict and disagreements like grown-ups, which is what these students will have to do for the rest of their lives with their own families, friends, and colleagues.

As a result of Maggie’s courage in filing suit, SIUE agreed to take critical steps to comply with the U.S. Constitution and move closer to accepting and embracing true diversity of thought and speech. We also successfully settled the case on behalf of Peter, Mark, Ryan, and Professor Seamon, and University of Idaho officials agreed to drop the no-contact orders against them.

But it shouldn’t take a lawsuit for universities to respect students’ First Amendment rights and want to foster a truly diverse learning environment. After all, it completely defeats the purpose of a university for administrators to pick and choose the winners and losers in campus debate.

Public universities should put their Title IX offices to good use — proper use — and ensure every student’s civil and constitutional rights are protected, whether or not the administration agrees with the viewpoint and content of the student’s speech.>

<In the first collegiate class I ever taught on my own, freshman writing at a big state school in the fall of 2010, my students averaged in the C range at the beginning of the semester and in the B range by the end. I held them to the same standards that my own high school teachers and college professors had set for me: They had to write with substantive content, logical argument, and correct grammar. Most of them fell short of that bar, both when the class commenced and when it concluded.

But, through the rigor of correction and repetition, many of them were closer to proficient, as thinkers and as writers, after our 14 weeks together than they had been before.

By the time I taught my last collegiate course, academic writing at a Catholic college in the fall of 2022, the days of “no late assignments, no exceptions” and C averages that I had taken for granted a mere decade before felt like relics of another century.

In part, universities’ lowered grading standards were about the (wholly unnecessary) measures taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: Sudden implementation of universal pass/fail and online coursework in the spring of 2020 led to an inevitable decline in both academic rigor and collegiate mores that many, myself included, assumed would be temporary.

Tragically, we assumed wrong.

By 2020, what remained of academic rigor on college campuses was hanging by a thread, suffered to persist mostly due to inertia. In disrupting the status quo, the pandemic merely gave explicit voice to the broad denigration of academic excellence that was already implicit within the so-called higher education sector.

The energy on college campuses in the 2010s was centered on two worthy, if non-academic, causes: First, the plight of disproportionately minority first-generation college students, who often suffered from a dearth of both academic and cultural capital; and second, the mental health crisis that impacted ever greater numbers of college students, which was often linked to both academic pressure and social media, and seemed particularly detrimental to young women.

Each of these problems deserves attention, and could perhaps be effectively addressed by professors and administrators prepared to: (1) Offer first-generation students counsel about the acquisition of required academic skills and institute programs for the further development of those skills, and (2) collectively resist the temptation of grade inflation and thereby reduce the psychic impact of less than perfect grades on high-performing, anxious youths.

But, in the early 2010s, ideologically motivated college professors and administrators began to do exactly the opposite: Reduce rigor and inflate grades.

These measures are supposed to eliminate educational achievement gaps between socioeconomic and racial groups of students, and to curb anxiety among all students. Instead, they deprive the very students who need it most of opportunities to learn, the ostensible raison d’etre for higher education, while simultaneously depriving these educational institutions themselves of various important fields of knowledge.

Eliminating classics departments from colleges, for example, may reduce the Western-centrism that the Left claims is exclusionary to students and scholars of color. But it does so by ensuring that fewer students overall, and by extension fewer students of color, learn foundational ancient ideas, languages, and history.

Likewise, eliminating high-stakes tests, both from admissions processes and from collegiate course work, may increase the admissions rate and appear to increase the academic performance of socioeconomically disadvantaged, disproportionately minority students. But it does so by leaving those very students comparatively underprepared to compete for and in desirable jobs.

Allowing students endless grace on assignment content and due dates may reduce some students’ anxiety. But it does so by fostering a profound fragility that renders them unfit for a harsh world with professional and personal realities and deadlines that can’t be massaged through emails to well-meaning teaching assistants.

The way to truly help students who are academically behind or prone to anxiety is to help them help themselves. Like the body grows strong through exercise, the mind grows strong by striving toward rigorous academic standards and thereby achieving them, and the spirit grows strong by persisting through anxiety and thereby defanging it.

<Former President Donald Trump called for Congressional Republicans to shut down the federal government “UNLESS YOU GET EVERYTHING” in a social media post late Sunday evening.

Trump is, of course, the leader of the Republican party and enjoys a significant lead over Republican rivals vying for the nomination in 2024. His previous threats to “primary” Republican members of Congress proved to effectively rally his own party members in support of his political efforts. However, it’s unclear if he still enjoys the same powerful sway as he did five years ago.

Nonetheless, Trump blasted President Joe Biden for what he calls “systematically” destroying the country with the help of “Radical Left Marxists, Fascists and Thugs – THE DEMOCRATS.” He then directed members of the House GOP, “UNLESS YOU GET EVERYTHING, SHUT IT DOWN! Close the Border, stop the Weaponization of “Justice,” and End Election Interference – WE MUST HAVE HONEST ELECTIONS. It’s time Republicans learned how to fight!”

Trump wrote:

The Republicans lost big on Debt Ceiling, got NOTHING, and now are worried that they will be BLAMED for the Budget Shutdown. Wrong!!! Whoever is President will be blamed, in this case, Crooked (as Hell!) Joe Biden! Our Country is being systematically destroyed by the Radical Left Marxists, Fascists and Thugs – THE DEMOCRATS. UNLESS YOU GET EVERYTHING, SHUT IT DOWN! Close the Border, stop the Weaponization of “Justice,” and End Election Interference – WE MUST HAVE HONEST ELECTIONS. It’s time Republicans learned how to fight! Are you listening Mitch McConnell, the weakest, dumbest, and most conflicted “Leader” in U.S. Senate history? HE’S ALREADY GIVEN THE DEMOCRATS EVERYTHING, THEY CAN’T BELIEVE HOW LUCKY THEY GOT. WE NEED NEW, & REAL, REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, NOT A CLONE OF MITCH, & WE NEED IT NOW!!!

The following week will surely be filled with news reports of fighting within the House Republican caucus and their ability to get on the same page to keep the government open or not.>

<The Justice Department has shown such a clear bias against conservatives that in the last month, they have indicated both a sitting Democratic senator and the son of the Democratic president.

A Look at the Facts

The argument has been made over and over again in the last couple of years: There is a “two-tiered system of justice” in the United States, one that excuses the crimes of liberals and Democrats and punishes conservatives like Donald Truimp [sic] and Republicans.

This argument has been regularly marshaled in favor of Donald Trump, the January 6 defendants, and any other Republican or Trump supporter ever accused of any wrongdoing. It’s also the reason, according to this thinking, that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama never got indicted for anything, while Donald Trump did.

A couple of things have happened in recent weeks, however, that proves just how wrong that argument is.

Earlier this month, Hunter Biden, the son of the president, was indicted on federal charges, on three counts related to his purchase of a gun in 2018. And then, on Friday, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) was indicted, along with his wife, of taking “hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes.” The government alleges that Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, accepted bribes from the Egyptian government. Menendez, due to caucus rules, will have to step down as chairman of the committee, at least temporarily.

The indictment, from the Southern District of New York, includes such colorful details as hundreds of thousands of cash and gold bars being found in the senator’s home.

This is not to be confused with the other time Menendez was indicted, in 2015, also for bribery as well as conspiracy and honest services fraud. That case ended in a hung jury and mistrial in 2017, and Menendez was easily re-elected in 2018. It was known previously that Menendez was under investigation once again, and he has not announced whether he plans to run again in 2024.

The Menendez charges, in particular, undermine the talk that Democrats are always working behind the scenes to manipulate the justice system for political gain. After all, the Justice Department has indicted a Democratic senator. And when Menendez was indicted the first time, it was during the Obama presidency, although the senator went on trial when Trump was president.

The Biden-era Justice Department, after all, has not indicted any Republican U.S. senators. Two House members, Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) were both indicted in separate cases during the Trump Administration; both were early endorsers of Donald Trump and both were pardoned by Trump before he left office.

Earlier this week, House Judiciary Committee Republicans grilled Attorney General Merrick Garland, with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) repeatedly declaring that “the fix is in.” Garland, for his part, swore that he had not interfered with the Hunter Biden case.

The phrase “two-tiered system of justice” is not new, and has even been used in the past by Democratic politicians like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and others who are supportive of criminal justice reform. More commonly, it’s referred to the very true fact that people who are poor have a very different experience with the justice system than those who are richer and can afford better attorneys.

“Low-income individuals end up with criminal records or jail time because they can't afford bail or hefty fines and fees. Young people who commit low-level, nonviolent crimes spend too many years behind bars,” Sen. Warren wrote in a 2019 op-ed. “Struggling parents, domestic violence survivors, opioid users, and individuals with mental illness are hauled off to jail without treatment or assistance. And after they return to their communities, too many former inmates are locked out of jobs, housing, and any chance to rebuild their lives and support their families.”

That is correct. But the idea that there is one criminal justice system for Democrats and another for Republicans is just plain nonsense.>

<Gen Z workers are already getting flack from businesses for lacking the basic skills needed to navigate the working world—and now, the boss of a major British TV channel has added to the mounting criticism.

Channel 4’s CEO, Alex Mahon, complained that the youngest generation to enter the workforce don't have the skills to debate, disagree, or work alongside people with different opinions.

‌“What we are seeing with young people who come into the workplace, Gen Z, particularly post-pandemic and with this concentration of short-form content, is that they haven’t got the skills to debate things,” Mahon said at the Royal Television Society conference in Cambridge according to multiple outlets, including the Telegraph.

‌“They haven’t got the skills to discuss things, they haven’t got the skills to disagree.”

But Gen Zers (those born between 1997 and 2012) aren’t entirely to blame: She pointed to social media and the pandemic’s disruption to education as the main cause of the workplace challenge.

On the likes of TikTok and Instagram, videos under a minute long are fed straight into viewers' feeds based on content they have previously enjoyed, possibly creating an echo chamber among youngsters and impacting their ability to consider opposing ideas.

Meanwhile, as Gen Zers were forced to study alone and limited to interactions on Zoom during the pandemic, the broadcasting boss cited “being out of colleges” and away from “people with a difference of opinion” as the reason lockdown-era students can’t hold down a heated discussion.

“That is a really dangerous step-change that we are seeing,” she added.>

<Jeff Tiedrich @itsJeffTiedrich the "you lost, get over it" crowd from 2016 is now obsessively checking ballots for imaginary bamboo particles because they lost and they can't get over it>

<According to former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, the judge in Donald Trump's classified documents case appears to be running out the clock for the former president by not issuing a key ruling.

Reacting to a blockbuster report from ABC that a former Donald Trump aide accused him of using the backs of sensitive government documents to take notes on as a scratch pad, Vance noted on her Substack platform that the Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon has been silent about addressing the Department of Justice's request for a hearing on lawyer conflict of interest issues.

The so-called Garcia hearing is related to attorney Stanley Woodward, Jr. representing Trump aide Walt Nauta after previously representing the person identified in the special counsel Jack Smith's indictment as “Trump Employee 4,” now named as Mar-a-Lago IT director Yucil Taveras.

Trump would 'constantly jot down notes': Fmr. WH aide on classified documents case According to Vance, the new revelations from ABC are a reminder that Cannon has yet to move the case forward and raises questions over whether she will allow the DOJ to "put all of its evidence in front of a jury."

Vance wrote, "The only real issue in this case is whether the Judge will proceed promptly to trial without entertaining unreasonable delays from Trump," before she took a shot at Cannon with, "We’re still waiting to see if she will ever respond to the government’s request for a Garcia hearing to resolve issues about potential conflicts of interest between Trump’s co-defendants and their lawyers, which the judge continues to sit on.">

Good girl: you pay off for your boss and all will be well--but he has many other charges to beat, even if you manage to fix this result by directing a not guilty verdict like a good little arse-licker.

<Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia has a plan to stop Joe Biden’s politically motivated Department of Defense and its lead special prosecutor, Jack Smith, who has been tasked with taking down former President Donald Trump.

To stop the weaponized DOJ, Greene has a constitutional method to stop Smith, which includes two parts:

• First, it’s necessary to move control of special counsel funding from the Department of Justice to Congress. The DOJ currently controls the slush fund to pay Smith.

• Second, Congress can defund Smith and effectively stop the political witch hunts against Trump.

“To fund a special counsel right now … the people that [sic] have control of that is [sic] the Department of Justice itself,” Greene said.

“You hear people yell, ‘Defund Jack Smith,’ and I’ve said it before myself. But we are unable to do it because the Department of Justice controls that slush fund.”

“My legislation would give Congress the authority and the power to fund special counsels every single year, just like all of our other appropriation bills,” she continued.

“This is actually the constitutional way, because Congress is in charge of the checkbook, not the Department of Justice itself,” Greene said.

“I had talked about it with President Trump because I wanted him to understand that this is actually not political, to move it back to Congress. Because the Democrat-controlled Congress would have control of that just as much as a Republican-controlled Congress would have.”

“I will not vote to fund the government if Congress doesn’t do this: – Impeachment Inquiry vote on Joe Biden – Defund Biden’s weaponization of government – Eliminate all COVID vaccine and mandates – No funding for the war in Ukraine,” she wrote.>

<It's time for another scintillating Republican presidential primary debate in which a group of people with no chance to win the nomination will face off against each other. On Wednesday, the GOP alsorans will meet at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. The Republican front-runner, Donald Trump, won't lower himself to attend such an event with the lesser candidates but he's rejecting this particular one for other reasons as well. The former president is reportedly fit to be tied at the library for hosting "A Time for Choosing," a two-year-long speaker's series, envisioning a "fresh look — through reasoned, intellectual discussion — at the issues, ideas and policies that will define the Republican Party for decades to come." Probably the most widely disseminated of these talks were those from Trump nemesis Liz Cheney and Reagan Foundation board member Paul Ryan, the former speaker of the House, who said it was "horrifying to see a presidency come to such a dishonorable and disgraceful end." Apparently, the entire board of the Reagan Foundation agrees.

This is not surprising.

The legacy of Ronald Reagan was once the crowning glory of the conservative movement, a movement that has now been displaced by Trump's MAGA cult. Reagan no longer has any cachet among the GOP rank and file, most of whom are uninterested in the ideology that once ruled the Republican Party. That ideology was best described by Reagan himself, who saw the conservative movement coalition as a three-legged stool with one leg representing traditional family values, another representing small government and the third representing a strong national defense; the idea being that the coalition could not stand without all three legs of the stool.

Trump never much liked Reagan. He thought he was too soft. Under the tutelage of sleaze monger Roger Stone, Trump took out a full-page ad back in 1987 to complain about Reagan's foreign policy, making the case that other countries weren't paying their fair share. No, Trump has not had a new idea in 40 years. Today, when asked what he would do about the Ukraine war he says he'd end it but won't say how and then inevitably goes into his usual rant about how Europe is taking the U.S. to the cleaners, just as he did for four years as president when he whined non-stop about NATO failing to pay up. He told Fox News, "The money is number one. I'd tell Europe – you're about $100 billion plus short. Okay? You gotta pay. Because Europe is smiling all the way to the bank" It is literally the only foreign policy he has ever had. On everything else, he just winged it.

Once he became president, he became hostile to the military because they weren't like the heroes he'd seen in the movies, he was baffled by diplomacy as a tool to retain power and influence, he had no interest in the rest of the world except as a source of financial gain, and saw all threats, domestically and internationally as potentially subject to military violence if he didn't get his way. People around him had to work night and day to keep him from making a catastrophic mistake from either ignorance or impulse....>

<.....If Trump were the only Republican with such a shallow understanding of national security and foreign policy perhaps we could all just hold our breath and do everything we can to ensure he stays a retired president dealing with his legal and financial problems as a private citizen. But he's not. The Republican Party is now full of elected officials who are equally incoherent and it seems to be getting worse.

For instance, there is freshman Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville, who is holding up hundreds of military promotions in order to force the Pentagon to change a rule that allows service members to take paid leave to travel to a state that provides abortion services. It's an absurd issue that only someone with an advanced case of Fox News brain rot would even think of but he's managed to completely alienate the military brass and frustrate the entire Senate for months now. This would have been unthinkable for a Republican to do just a few years ago. The military was the one sacred institution in the U.S. government and funding it or following its guidelines was always an untouchable GOP priority. Not anymore.

But why would Tuberville think any differently? After all, we have the former president calling the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff guilty of treason and declaring that he should be subject to the death penalty so it's not as if there's any requirement that Republicans be respectful of the military.

Last week the Speaker of the House, locked in a death struggle with his right flank, decided it was in his best interest to snub Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy to demonstrate that he's sympathetic with the pro-Russia faction in the House GOP. Again, just a few years ago the idea that we would be talking about a pro-Russia Republican faction would have been ludicrous. That they would be essentially backing a Russian invasion of its neighbor is beyond belief. But the movement among Republicans to withdraw funding from Ukraine, stop all assistance to the war-torn country and force a surrender on Russian terms is growing in the US Congress.

Over the weekend, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy backed off the commitment he made to Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene to stop all support for Ukraine in the Pentagon spending bill saying that some arcane rules make it too difficult to do but it's not the last we will hear of it. Greene and her cohort are determined to stop the funding so they can bring the war home to the U.S. southern border.

Yes, their argument is that we should not be helping Ukraine defend its border when we aren't defending ours. And yes, it's a colossally fatuous argument to compare an armed invasion by the Russian military with migrants seeking asylum, but that's just how they think. So Republicans are talking about a literal war with Mexico ostensibly to stop drug traffickers and Trump is right there with them having thrown out the idea of bombing the cartels and then lying to the Mexican government and saying "no one would know it was us," and that he'd be willing to lie publicly about it. This is rapidly becoming GOP policy.

The conservative movement led by bomb throwers like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, hate talk radio king Rush Limbaugh and Fox News' Roger Ailes ushered in much of the obnoxious, vulgar smashmouth politics that Trump leads today and the party's descent into ideological incoherence has been well documented. But I have to admit that I never thought I'd see the day that we'd see the Republican Party supporting Russia, denigrating the U.S. military and drawing up plans to start a war on the North American continent. Reagan's three-legged stool is now nothing more than firewood to burn down the Republican Party and take the country with it.>

<Former federal prosecutors are worried about the "extremely dangerous" risks to the United States justice system and principle of prosecutorial independence posed by attacks on Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and other prosecutors by ex-President Donald Trump, U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and other House GOP allies, The Guardian reports.

"Historically, congressional committees have assiduously honored the bedrock independence necessary for the execution of the criminal prosecutorial function," ex-United States Department of Justice fraud section acting chief Paul Pelletier told the news outlet. "It's particularly rich here where Congressman Jordan, who callously refused to honor a lawful congressional subpoena, now seeks to investigate the motives of a duly elected prosecutor."

The Guardian notes Jordan not only announced a probe on Willis, who indicted Trump and 18 others on racketeering charges for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election, in a letter last month, but he also "launched attacks and an investigation in April of Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney who charged Trump in a 34-count indictment with falsifying business records to hide $130,000 in payments he made in 2016 to an adult film star who alleged she had an affair with Trump."

The Guardian adds:

*For months, Trump has vilified Willis and Bragg, both of whom are Black, as 'racist' prosecutors. Trump attacked Smith as 'deranged' after his four-count indictment of Trump for his aggressive efforts to block [President Joe] Biden's win included charges of defrauding the US government, and of obstructing an official proceeding, as the Capitol attack by Trump allies occurred as Congress certified Biden's win on January 6.

"Trump's attacks on the federal and local prosecutors who have brought cases against him are unprecedented and extremely dangerous," ex-DOJ inspector general Michael Bromwich told the Guardian. "Because Trump never took seriously his oath to protect and defend the constitution, he cannot fathom that prosecutors and law enforcement personnel do take it seriously and conduct investigations and bring charges based on the evidence and the law rather than to pursue enemies. The GOP historical advocacy of states' rights, which includes the need for local prosecutors to have autonomy from the federal government, has given way to the need to use the Congress to support Trump and attack his law enforcement enemies."

Blasting the "'inaccurate information and misleading statements' in Jordan's letter," as well as his attempt to "advance outrageous partisan misrepresentations," the news outlet notes Willis fired back "in a scathing nine-page rebuttal" to the Ohio lawmaker earlier this month saying, "there is no justification in the constitution for Congress to interfere with a state criminal matter, as you attempt to do.">

<Attorneys for former President Donald Trump argue that an attempt to bar him from the 2024 ballot under a rarely used “insurrection” clause of the Constitution should be dismissed as a violation of his freedom of speech.

The lawyers made the argument in a filing posted Monday by a Colorado court in one of the most significant of a series of challenges to Trump's candidacy under the Civil War-era clause in the 14th Amendment. The challenges rest on Trump's attempts to overturn his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden and his role leading up to the violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“At no time do Petitioners argue that President Trump did anything other than engage in either speaking or refusing to speak for their argument that he engaged in the purported insurrection,” wrote attorney Geoffrey Blue.

Trump also will argue that the clause doesn't apply to him because “the Fourteenth Amendment applies to one who ‘engaged in insurrection or rebellion,’ not one who only ‘instigated’ any action,” Blue wrote.

The former president's lawyers also said the challenge should be dismissed because he is not yet a candidate under the meaning of Colorado election law, which they contend isn't intended to settle constitutional disputes.

Denver District Judge Sarah B. Wallace has scheduled a hearing on the motion for Oct. 13. A hearing on the constitutional issues will come on Oct. 30.

Whatever Wallace rules, the issue is likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never heard a case on the provision of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, three years after the Civil War ended. The clause has only been used a handful of times.

The Colorado challenge stands out because it was the first filed by an organization with significant legal resources, in this case a liberal group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. A second liberal group, Free Speech For The People, has also filed a challenge to Trump's candidacy in Minnesota that is scheduled to be heard by that state's high court on Nov. 2.

Section Three of the amendment bars from office anyone who once took an oath to uphold the Constitution but then “engaged” in “insurrection or rebellion” against it. Its initial intent was to prevent former Confederate officials from becoming members of Congress and taking over the government.

Trump's contention that he is protected by freedom of speech mirrors his defense in criminal cases charging him for his role in the Jan. 6 attack. There, too, he argues he was simply trying to bring attention to what he believed was an improper election — even though dozens of lawsuits challenging the results had already been rejected.

Prosecutors in those cases and some legal experts have noted that Trump's offenses go beyond speech, to acts such as trying to organize slates of fake electors that Congress could have recognized to make him president again.

The criminal cases have already bled into the 14th Amendment challenge in Colorado. On Friday, Wallace issued an order barring threats and intimidation in the case after the plaintiffs noted that Trump has targeted lawyers and witnesses in the criminal proceedings against him.>

<Former President Donald Trump took to social media on Monday to plead to the highest courts or the federal system to take action amid New York State Attorney General Letitia James' civil fraud suit against him.

James filed the suit last year against the Trump Organization, the former president and three of his adult children, accusing them of misrepresenting business assets to obtain favorable loans and tax benefits. His daughter, Ivanka Trump, was removed from the list of defendants following an appeals court ruling in June.

The trial, scheduled to begin October 2, was temporarily paused last week after Trump sued James and New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, who is presiding over the case, according to the New York Times.

On Monday, Trump took to his social media platform Truth Social to voice frustration with James, saying in part: "I have been unfairly sued by the Trump Hating Democrat Attorney General of New York State, Letitia James, over the false fact that I inflated my Financial Statements in order to borrow money from Banks, etc.

"The Judge in the case, Arthur F. Engoron, refused to allow this case to go to the 'Commercial Division,' where it belongs, because he is a Trump Hater beyond even A.G. James, who campaigned against me spewing horrible inflammatory statements which are False & Defamatory."

Trump then asked for help from the courts saying: "It is a great company that has been slandered and maligned by this politically motivated Witch Hunt. It is very unfair, and I call for help from the highest Courts in New York State, or the Federal System, to intercede. This is not America!"

As part of the Trump's lawsuit, his lawyers said that the June ruling on Ivanka Trump should effectively toss out the claims against him. James' team has argued that it has little effect on the accusation at the heart of her case, that Trump overstated his net worth by billions of dollars in his annual financial statements.

James' office called Trump's lawsuit brazen and meritless, saying in court papers that it reflected a complete misunderstanding of the June appeals court decision.

Engoron is expected to issue his ruling by Tuesday regarding which of James' claims can proceed to trial. Following his ruling, the appeals court is expected to rule on Trump's lawsuit by Thursday, a spokesman for the New York State Court system told the New York Times.

Jonathan Turley, a criminal defense attorney and legal analyst, told Newsweek on Monday, that even if the appeal delays this trial, Trump has other pending legal battles to think about.

"The appeal could delay the trial. The problem is that Trump has a rather full dance card with prosecutors and civil litigants. The movement of the trial date could collide with other pending matters," Turley said.

In addition to the lawsuit from James and other civil court matters, the ex-president faces 91 felony criminal charges across four separate indictments.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges while claiming that all of his legal woes are part of an orchestrated "witch hunt" by his political enemies.>

<The White House is mocking a Fox News host who appeared stunned as the former President of Ukraine destroyed House Republicans’ impeachment case against President Joe Biden on live-air in real time.

Fox News host Brian Kilmeade, a supporter of Donald Trump, on Monday interviewed former President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, who served from 2014-2019. Kilmeade previously had interviewed Viktor Shokin, the former Prosecutor General of Ukraine, who was fired in 2016 for not prosecuting corruption cases.

“I had a chance to talk to Viktor Shokin, a man who says he was friends of yours, who you asked to come back and help out during the transition after the previous regime,” Kilmeade told Poroshenko. “Here’s what he said on why he was fired by you. Listen.”

On previously recorded video, Shokin says: “Poroshenko fired me at the insistence of the then Vice President Biden, because I was investigating Burisma… There were no complaints whatsoever, no problems with how I was performing at my job, but because pressure was repeatedly put on President Poroshenko that is, what ended up in him firing me.”

Kilmeade then asks the former Ukrainian President, “Is that why he got fired, because of the billion dollars and the former vice president now President?”

“First of all, this is the completely crazy person,” Poroshenko says of Shokin, as Kilmeade grows increasingly stunned. “This is something wrong with him. Second, there is no one single word of truth. And third, I hate the idea to come to make any commands and to make any intervention in an American election. We have very much enjoyed the bipartisan support. And please do not use the such person like Shokin to undermine the trust between bipartisan support in Ukraine.” Surprised, Kilmeade asks, “What do you mean, he’s not your friend?”

“I don’t see him maybe for years or something, at all,” Poroshenko tells Kilmeade, before getting a bit heated. “And I hate to have him, because [he] keep playing very dirty game, unfortunately.”

“Okay,” the surprised Fox News host says, before asking again. “So that is not true. You didn’t, you didn’t, he didn’t get fired because of Joe Biden?”

“He was fired,” Poroshenko replied. “But because of his own statement, and if you do not do that next day, Ukrainian parliament will fire him.”

HuffPost’s political reporter Arthur Delaney, responding to the video, writes: “This is the centerpiece of the Republicans’ corruption allegation against Joe Biden.”

While debunked numerous times during Trump’s presidency, Republicans have resurfaced the false claim that then-Vice President Biden forced then-president Poroshenko to fire Shokin in an effort to protect Burisma. Shokin was not investigating Burisma, according to a CNN fact check.

“Poroshenko is absolutely right here and good for him for stating clearly how dangerous it is that his false story is being used to play political games with n the US. Shokin’s claims have no basis in reality. He was fired for incompetence and failing to crack down on corruption,” writes the Financial Times’ Ukraine correspondent Christopher Miller.

U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) mocked Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer, writing on social media, “Ummm @RepJamesComer call your office.”

White House spokesperson Ian Sams went further, while pointing out the allegation just evaporated.

“Not only does he play a leading role in the conspiracy theories promoted by Fox News personalities – he is central to the conspiracy theories animating extreme House Republicans’ baseless, fact-free impeachment stunt against President Biden,” Sams wrote. “Yet another allegation goes *poof*”>

Suck scum, GOP!!!!

<A small but significant number of moderate GOP lawmakers are plotting a path toward potentially working with Democrats to fund the government past Sept. 30 and combat a shutdown.

At least three Republicans — Reps. Mike Lawler (N.Y.), Don Bacon (Neb.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) — have expressed an openness to joining Democrats in signing a discharge petition, a mechanism to force a vote on a measure against the wishes of the Speaker.

Four members of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus introduced a bill Friday that reflects the group’s framework for a short-term stopgap funding measure. Fitzpatrick suggested Sunday that lawmakers could use a discharge petition to compel a vote on that legislation.

Five Republicans would need to join their party’s leaders in order to force action with Democrats.

Members of two other centrist blocs — the Republican Governance Group and New Democrat Coalition — have also been in touch about other ways to keep the government open, including through a continuing resolution, according to a source familiar with the discussions.

Signing an opposing party’s discharge petition would be an act of political mutiny, so the increased public conversation — and support — surrounding the break-the-glass option underscores the pressure lawmakers are under as they race to prevent an end-of-month shutdown after the House GOP flailed on multiple spending fronts last week.

“We’re going to do whatever it takes to get that bill on the floor,” Fitzpatrick said of his bipartisan bill on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday. “And we have multiple options. A discharge petition is one, one of several options. And a group of us met with the parliamentarian this past week to discuss all the options we have to force a vote on our bill.”

The talk of working with Democrats also reflects the struggle Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has had in quelling turmoil within his fractious conference.

But triggering the last-ditch option could spell trouble for the Speaker as hard-liners heighten their threats to confiscate his gavel if he works with Democrats to keep the lights on in Washington.

“If Speaker McCarthy relies on Democrats to pass a continuing resolution, I would call the Capitol moving truck to his office pretty soon, because my expectation would be he’d be out of the Speaker’s office quite promptly,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) told reporters last week.

Gaetz, who has said he will never support a continuing resolution, also aired a warning to centrist Republicans mulling a discharge petition.

“If Republican moderates want to go team up with Democrats and sign a discharge petition to take over the floor with Democrats, well, they’ll be signing their own political death warrant, and they’ll be handing it to their executioner,” Gaetz said.

While a discharge petition would not be able to avert a shutdown at this juncture, it could help end one.

The blueprint moderates are eyeing would fund the government at current spending levels until Jan. 11, 2024. It also includes $24 billion for Ukraine and $16 billion for disaster relief and would give the Biden administration the ability to expel migrants who enter the country illegally. Additionally, the legislation calls for a commission to address and stabilize the federal debt....>

<.....Bacon told The Hill last week that he would sign a discharge petition if it is to force a vote on the bipartisan legislation, and Fitzpatrick told CNN over the weekend that “all options are on the table” to get the bill to the floor.

Lawler — who along with Fitzpatrick and Bacon represent districts President Biden won in 2020 — said he believes “at least five” Republicans would be willing to join the effort.

“I’ve sat through hours of meetings and negotiations with these folks over the last 72 hours, and they continually move the goalposts,” Lawler told Hugh Hewitt’s radio show last week of Republicans refusing to support a stopgap bill.

“As I’ve said, they don’t know how to take yes for an answer, they don’t know how to define a win, they don’t know how to work as a team, and so ultimately we’re left in a position where responsible people need to be the adults in the room.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) last week said he did not have “an opportunity to fully evaluate the framework” from the bipartisan group, and would not comment on the terms.

Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio), another moderate, would not explicitly throw his support behind the undertaking Friday but also did not close the door on the prospect.

“There’s a lot of good, potential remedies to next Friday or Saturday short of a shutdown, and we’ll be looking at those more closely when we get closer to the date,” Joyce said.

To be sure, using a discharge petition to force a vote on a bipartisan stopgap bill is a long-shot option. Republicans, as a whole, have been weary to endorse the procedural maneuver.

And it has strict requirements and time constraints.

All House Democrats — 213 members — signed on to a discharge petition in May, which leaders circulated as a way to force a vote on legislation to raise the debt limit and avoid an economic default. The escape hatch, however, was never used, meaning lawmakers can use the same petition — and all its signatures — to advance a government funding bill.

Even the signature of former Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who resigned from his post in June to lead the Rhode Island Foundation, is still viable.

But the petition is not ripe just yet.

At least five Republicans have to sign the petition, which would bring the number of signatures to the required number of 218. Once that happens, the petition would be referred to the discharge calendar. After seven legislative days, a member can call a motion to consider the discharge petition, which must take place on the House floor within two legislative days.

“We’re ready to go,” Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) told reporters last week of a discharge petition. “We need five Republicans, and we’re ready to go.”

The last successful discharge petition was in 2015, when lawmakers forced a vote on a bill to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. Before that, a discharge petition hadn’t allowed a bill to hit the floor since 2002, when the House voted on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

McCarthy — for now — is denying that he has any concerns about his members teaming up with Democrats.

“I believe we have a majority here and we can work together to solve this,” McCarthy told reporters Friday. “This is the same place you were all asking me during the debt ceiling. So you know what, it might take us a little longer, but this is important.”>

<<diceman> Just to clarify that we're not talking at cross-purposes, my issue is with professional gamblers per se, specifically professional poker players.

The issue is not one of cheating, but of occupation.

A plumber might cheat his customer, but plumbing is an occupation that contributes to the good of society.

A professional poker player might play honestly, but his occupation contributes nought to society, and might be argued, is even detrimental.

You talk about skill, intelligence, discipline, emotional control, and so on, but to what end are these attributes being applied?

Are these attributes being applied by a surgeon to save the life of a patient, or are they being applied by a full-time professional poker player to win money from card games?

In one instance, there is a great benefit to society. In the other, it is only the card shark who benefits to the detriment of others.

The medical profession is a win-win proposition whereby both the surgeon and patient benefit.

The gambling profession is a win-lose proposition. It is a zero-sum game.

You can try to pretend card sharks are entertainers if they appear on TV in a World Series of Poker competition, but that's just a pathetic attempt to try to justify a dishonourable occupation by dressing it up for amusement.

Poker does not build wealth for the community. It redistributes wealth earned elsewhere amongst card sharks who use those gains to benefit from those in society who actually produce goods and services.