Patterico's Pontifications

4/12/2021

Another Dumb Piece by Sohrab Ahmari

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am



Sohrab “Against Frenchism” Ahmari and Matthew Schmitz have a piece at the New York Post titled: Never Trump conservatives are complicit with Team Biden’s moral outrages and norm-breaking:

Again, judging by the standard they themselves set during the Trump era, the Never Trumpers are enablers of the Biden presidency. By their own lights, they must share in the guilt of every bad act committed by Biden and his administration.

Start with “norms.” One of Never Trump’s most common complaints was that Trump broke the norms associated with his office, thus imperiling the ­republic. It’s true that Trump did some uncouth things like getting into Twitter spats with random citizens. Yet counter to the dark warnings, Trump didn’t change our political structure. Compare that with Biden and the newly empowered Democrats, who are pushing to create two new states, end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court.

Will Never Trump be held ­accountable for these attacks on settled norms?

Apparently I dreamed the bit about Trump trying to steal the election and inciting an insurrection. Turns out the worst thing he did was get into Twitter spats.

Go figure.

The notion that someone who voted for a candidate “owns” every bad thing that candidate does (or every bad thing some of supporters propose, which is even further afield) is stupid. If you are a Trump supporter and you think I “own” the bad stuff Biden is doing — like racial demagoguery over the Georgia law, an irresponsible lack of preparedness at the border, or frighteningly huge spending proposals — then great. By that logic, you own an attempt to steal an election, the death of cops at the Capitol, an endless stream of financial chicanery and exploitation, and about 10,000 other Really Bad Things I have been discussing here for five years.

It’s a dumb argument and a dumb road to go down. But hyperpartisans gonna hyperpartisan.

115 Responses to “Another Dumb Piece by Sohrab Ahmari”

  1. Very well said, Patterico. As a reluctant Biden voter, I never expected his presidency to be a particularly good one, only that it would be better than Trump, and I never believed that I forfeited my right to criticize it. If I “own” Biden, then the Trumpists “own” every reprehensible thing Trump did–and is doing (like the ongoing grifting of his supporters).

    Roger (e34354)

  2. I don’t like playing that hyperpartisan game either.

    I just disagree that the Trump era is worse than the Biden era. If you think what’s happening now under Biden, it’s going to get much worse.

    We can agree to disagree and also not hang every flaw/faults at the foot of voters. If anything, it’s a shared burden no matter whom you vote for.

    whembly (446c04)

  3. Maybe mention his group to pack the Supreme Court.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  4. Reuters/Ipsos: Trump’s Coattails
    ……[S]upport for Trump among his Republican base remains strong as 55% of Republicans believe his 2020 election loss resulted from illegal voting or election rigging. Paradoxically, 35% of Republicans agreed with both of the following theories: that the people who gathered at the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6th were peaceful, law-abiding Americans and that it was actually led by violent left-wing protestors trying to make Trump look bad. To that end, 81% of Republicans still view Trump favorably…….
    ………

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  5. Trump also basically abandoned the idea that high level government officials should be confirmed in their positions by the Senate.

    I don’t understand how admitting new states, which has been done on dozens of occasions, breaks our political structure.

    And honestly Puerto Rico statehood is something i’ve suported for more than thirty years; there are almost as many people living in Puerto Rico, subject to our laws but unable to have a voice in their creation, as there were *living in the country at the time of the adoption of the US constitution* (3.1 million in puerto rico now, 3.9 million in the 1790 census).

    aphrael (4c4719)

  6. Well I agree with most of what Biden is doing so I’m not the target audience. For example he’s suggesting that running a highway through a mostly black neighborhood in Texas may need consideration of civil rights issues and suggests tearing down a highway that was built through a mostly black neighborhood in New Orleans might be a good idea.

    https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/04/the-racist-history-of-highways-revisited

    Trump wouldn’t do that. What Trump would do is spend an hour or so haranguing Rich Republican donors that he was robbed and Mitch was a jerk and then spend his time grifting off gullible Republican voters.

    As for the filibuster? Settled norm or plaything up for grabs whenever a majority of the Senate realizes it might actually want to get something (judicial nomination, budget bill, civil rights legislation) passed?

    Victor (4959fb)

  7. supporters own what they could reasonably expect their candidate would do

    tell us how biden’s actions and policies are surprising

    JF (6fcdbe)

  8. @7, Am I as supporter if I voted for him as the less bad alternative? Biden doesn’t have any notable accomplishments that I like. I doubt that he will in 4 years because I’m not a dem and don’t really support many of their policy outcomes.

    I do like what I think he’s doing on court packing. A blue ribbon panel that will create a report that no one will care about should buy time for people to cool off. When we have the report we can continue to not screw the SC up. A career pol is great for consuming paper while accomplishing nothing.

    Time123 (b87ded)

  9. Nice try.

    “You bought him; you own him.”

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  10. @4 Trump may still be seen favorably by his base, but Republican leaders are becoming increasingly annoyed by his antics. His RNC speech was not well received.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/11/republicans-trump-mar-a-lago-speech-480856

    Couple that with the fact that wealthy donors and corporations are lessening, if not withholding, donations to Trumpublican candidates, and it appears Trump’s grip on the GOP will loosen before and during the midterms.

    That’s not to say he won’t have influence in the primaries. He will, by contributing to and campaigning for candidates running against perceived enemies or less than loyal Republicans, the question is how well his candidates will do in the election. Or how much his endorsement will play in the general electorate.

    The problem is that Trump is a huge motivator for Democrats. How else do you think Biden beat beat him by 8 million votes in 2020? I mean, Biden did not win a single primary is his first two candidacies, yet got more votes than any presidential candidate in history in the election. I guess, the third time is the charm, but really it was because he was running against Trump.

    I can’t say that I agree with many of Biden’s policy proposals, but some of them have strong bipartisan support in the electorate.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  11. Ha, ha, ha! If the things that are important to Trumpkins were important to me, I would have voted for Trump too.

    Lo siento, compadres, pero no, gracias! Go ahead and keep all the Anusol for yourselves. You may be butt-hurt but I’m not.

    nk (1d9030)

  12. OT- Tip of the cap to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 40 years ago today, STS-1, -the orbiter Columbia– was successfully launched from Cape Canaveral, FL, crewed Bob Crippen and the late John Young, opening up the space shuttle era for the United States.

    And, by coincidence…

    60 years ago today, April 12, 1961, Vostok 1 was successfully launched from Baikonur in the then Soviet Union carrying Yuri Gagarin, making him the first man in space to orbit Earth– and opening up the age of human spaceflight.

    Glorious. What a time to be alive. A personal note- among my small treasures is a fragment of insulation, framed up in the den, from that same Vostok 1 spacecraft which carried Gagarin on that one orbit flight — a gift from a NASA contact who had access to it, currently on display in Moscow, while working on the shuttle-Mir project back in the day.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  13. Calling it ‘stupid’ is just a word ploy by conservative anti-Trumpers who opposed him from the beginning- be it n moralor policy grounds- and wanted him out at any price– even the cost of enduring President Plagiarist– a swamp creature they’d never have voted for under any other circumstances– and now want elbow room to mud-pie him and position a conservative to replace him in 2024. It’s an expected pivot but given the strength and hold Trump still has on the GOP base– futile.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  14. Trump needs validation (and no amount will ever be enough to the Freudian case). #NeverTrump doesn’t, it is its own justification.

    nk (1d9030)

  15. The problem is that Trump is a huge motivator for Democrats. How else do you think Biden beat beat him by 8 million votes in 2020? I mean, Biden did not win a single primary is his first two candidacies, yet got more votes than any presidential candidate in history in the election. I guess, the third time is the charm, but really it was because he was running against Trump.

    I sure as hell didn’t vote *for* Biden. I voted against Trump. I know 2 people who told me the went in, voted Biden, and turned in the ballot with the rest blank.

    Time123 (b87ded)

  16. Senate Republicans Create New ‘Annual’ Award, Give It to Trump

    On Saturday night, Donald Trump embarrassed Republican donors by delivering a rambling, grievance-laden speech that attacked Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell as a “dumb son of a bitch.” This morning, by an odd coincidence, the National Republican Senatorial Committee announced it was creating a new annual prize: the Champion for Freedom Award. And the inaugural winner is … Donald J. Trump!
    …….
    ….[T]he silver bowl seems to have been awarded on the basis of four criteria:
    1) Conservative leader
    2) Work tirelessly
    3) Protect values that make our country great
    4) Stop the Democrats’ socialist agenda

    Trump’s strongest claims are No. 1 and No. 3. He is definitely a conservative leader (indeed, some would describe him as outright authoritarian bordering on fascistic). And while the “values that make our country great” are highly subjective, the NRSC and Trump clearly share those values, and it couldn’t have hurt Trump’s application that “make our country great” is very close to his campaign slogan.
    …….
    The biggest shortcoming on his résumé is No. 4. If you want to “stop the Democrats’ socialist agenda,” at minimum you need to prevent them from gaining control of at least one of the presidency, the House, or the Senate. Republicans controlled all three when Trump took office. Now, they have none.
    …….
    …….[T]he committee created a list of attributes for which Trump’s claim is extremely shaky and then awarded it to him anyway despite a clear lack of qualifications.
    …….
    Who wants to bet that: 1) Trump wins the next award; or 2) There is no next award.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  17. It was so kind of you to come!
    And you are very nice!’
    The Carpenter said nothing but
    Cut us another slice:
    I wish you were not quite so deaf —
    I’ve had to ask you twice!’

    It seems a shame,’ the Walrus said,
    To play them such a trick,
    After we’ve brought them out so far,
    And made them trot so quick!’
    The Carpenter said nothing but:
    The butter’s spread too thick!’

    nk (1d9030)

  18. Still, there’s a bit of “I told you so” that’s valid.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  19. Backing ‘Little Marco’ was stupid.
    Backing “Jeb!” was stupid.
    Backing Ted Cruz was stupid.
    Backing John Kasich was stupid.
    Backing Ben Carson was stupid.
    Backing Chris Christie was stupid.
    Backing Carly Fiorina was stupid.
    Backing Rick Santorum was stupid.
    Backing Rand Paul was stupid.
    Backing Mick Huckabee was stupid.
    Backing George Pataki was stupid.
    Backing Bobby Jindal was stupid.
    Backing Scott Walker was stupid.
    Backing Lindsey Graham was stupid.
    Backing Rick Perry was…oops; stupid.
    Backing Jim Gilmore was incredibly stupid.
    … and backing Hillary Clinton was both dumb and stupid.

    “Stupid is as stupid does.” – Forrest Gump [Tom Hanks] ‘Forest Gump’ 1994

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  20. The last two elections have had terrible choices, in part because Trump was half of both of them. But Biden’s “moderation” was clearly a lie the moment he picked an immoderate VP and refused to oppose the crazier notions of his own party. He was given several Sister Souljah moments and he punted every time.

    I am quite happy to say that I did not vote for either major party in the last two elections, since I believed that both choices were terrible. Maybe sometimes you have to vote for the lesser evil, but voting for the not-quite-as-great evil doesn’t work for me.

    So, tho those that DID vote for Biden and are unhappy with the fallout, well, my sympathy is muted.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  21. Since when do new states change our political structure? At least in a way it hasn’t changed, oh 37 or so times before?

    Victor (4959fb)

  22. since 1820

    JF (6fcdbe)

  23. I just disagree that the Trump era is worse than the Biden era. If you think what’s happening now under Biden, it’s going to get much worse.

    That depends. The Senate is still a stumbling block for Biden, and the 51-50 situation is unstable. The midterms will make him or break him and either house can flip (and he needs to keep both).

    The Supreme Court remains firmly right-of-center and likely to defend its own precedents while continuing to whittle down excess Statism. I see that it was recently accused here of “Lochnerism”; from Victor’s mouth to God’s ear, starting with Uber and such. I doubt that they will allow the Court to be packed, though, and it won’t pass this Senate (and no nominee would be confirmed if it did).

    Of course, Biden’s plan is to buy the electorate with debt-driven largess. Might work.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  24. Since when do new states change our political structure? At least in a way it hasn’t changed, oh 37 or so times before?

    So, you’d have no problem spitting TX into 3 or 4 states, CA into 4 or 5 and NY & IL into 2 apiece?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  25. @16:

    I repeat my accusation that Trump is a Democrat plant, inserted into the GOP primaries in 2016 to rip the party apart at the seams. He has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams (although beating Hillary was probably not on plan).

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  26. I am increasingly of the opinion that the Biden administration is run by a politburo, not by Biden (who may not even be a member of the politburo).

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  27. I repeat my accusation that Trump is a Democrat plant, inserted into the GOP primaries in 2016 to rip the party apart at the seams. He has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams (although beating Hillary was probably not on plan).

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 4/12/2021 @ 12:19 pm

    I almost wish this were so. That an organized conspiracy was in control of this mess, instead of the country just making a really really really stupid decision, would make me more confident about the country’s future.

    I’m sure most here know Bill Clinton told Trump to run. I think it’s more like the South Park scenario, where Trump was building his brand and because of the spectacle of Trump, he got so much free press from an incompetent media that his campaign became a force of nature, harnessing generations of resentment about a sneering elite. And … without even really wanting it, Trump won, so he had to keep it up.

    We’ll know soon. He won’t run again if I’m right.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  28. I repeat my accusation that Trump is a Democrat plant…

    Cannabis or poppies?

    But then, former GOP House Speaker John Boehner is now an investor and lobbyist for legalized-marijuana businesses.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  29. Kevin,

    So, you’d have no problem spitting TX into 3 or 4 states, CA into 4 or 5 and NY & IL into 2 apiece?

    Article IV. Sec. 3 says it would need the ok of the states involved, as well as Congress, so I suspect it might be hard to manage.

    I’m more for spitting Texas than California or Illinois, but if the legislatures of the states wanted to, and Congress agreed, I’m not sure why not. It’d be a step towards making the Senate, and the Electoral College, a bit more reasonable. Of course at the same time I think a good political deal would include combining the Dakotas, and joining Idaho, Wyoming and Montana.

    Victor (4959fb)

  30. Kevin,

    I realize your larger point is that splitting those states would probably mean a net gain of Republican senators, at least as things stand now, though that would depend on how gerrymandered the split was I suppose. But you know, in the end I am for making this country more democratic, small d, and breaking up the super states is one way of doing it.

    I forgot to mention, the Virgin Islands, Guam and whatever other stray bits of territory we’ve accumulated over the years should also either be states or lumped in with some other state.

    Victor (4959fb)

  31. Kevin M, at 24:

    (a) splitting an existing state into several states isn’t the same thing as admitting a new state.

    (b) in particular, the argument that “there are almost as many people subject to our laws and unable to be represented in their creation as there were people in the country at the time of the first census, and that is a profound betrayal of democratic values” doesn’t imply any particular view on subdividing existing states.

    (c) If the people of TX, CA, NY, or IL wish to seperate into multiple states, I have no problem with them doing so.

    (d) As a citizen of CA, I would have voted against the Draper plan, because the boundaries it provided were profoundly irrational (putting LA and Orange county into different states, for example, is simply unworkable. nobody knows where the border between the two counties is, in practice; it’s an arbitrary line drawn across the middle of a megalopolis, without a clear natural barrier like the hudson to delineate it). I’m not in favor of the *concept*, but neither am I broadly opposed; bring me a proposal and i’ll consider it on the merits of the details.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  32. > would probably mean a net gain of Republican senators,

    The funniest thing about the most recent proposal to split California was that it would have produced two deep blue states and one purple-blue state; Hillary would have won in all three states, for example, and the likeliest outcome would have been a net gain in Democratic Senators.

    A more rational plan, particularly one which was willing to breach the integrity of San Bernardino county and put the inland empire and the high desert in different counties, would at least have had a *balanced* outcome with no net change.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  33. Victor, your question is a bit odd. States entering as free states was one of the things that kicked off the civil war.

    Time123 (d1bf33)

  34. > the Virgin Islands, Guam

    population of the USVI is ~105K. population of Guam is ~170K. population of American Samoa is ~46K.

    these are all less than 5% the population of puerto rico. even if you combine them it doesn’t even hit 10%.

    so while on the one hand i agree, i think it’s also true that the case isn’t as compelling as it is for puerto rico, that there’s a reasonable case to be made that in modern times they’re too small to be individuated states, and that there’s no per se commonality between them such that it would make sense to lump them together in a state.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  35. As a citizen of CA, I would have voted against the Draper plan, because the boundaries it provided were profoundly irrational

    Draper’s plan was so terrible I think it was an R-F of the whole idea. It was, if anything, a gerrymander intending to create 3 Democrat states from one when the state as a whole is about 60-40 (not counting elections involving Donald Trump).

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  36. I realize your larger point is that splitting those states would probably mean a net gain of Republican senators, at least as things stand now, though that would depend on how gerrymandered the split was I suppose. But you know, in the end I am for making this country more democratic, small d, and breaking up the super states is one way of doing it.

    Victor, my map is here, creating 5 states of clear natural affinity. 2 Red, two blue, one purple, none so large as to be ungovernable (as CA is now).

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  37. I am increasingly of the opinion that the Biden administration is run by a politburo, not by Biden (who may not even be a member of the politburo).

    John Cronyn agrees.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  38. Personally, I think that a federation of the Caribbean, including Puerto Rico, Cuba, Hispaniola and the Antilles — and independent of the USA — would be a viable thing, depending on the details. The cultural gulf between Puerto Rico and the US is much less than that between Puerto Rico and the other island nations. Might even include the Central American states. As it stands, all these microstates are unable to succeed independently and either get gobbled up or get a visit every so often from the US Marines.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  39. putting LA and Orange county into different states, for example, is simply unworkable. nobody knows where the border between the two counties is

    Odd, I do. Seal Beach, Buena Park, Cypress, La Habra are all in OC and border LA.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  40. Kevin, I have some quibbles with that map (the biggest one being that Sacramento and San Joaquin counties should go with the bay area), but it’s much, much better than Draper’s was.

    That said, the LA/Orange border is a real problem. There is no natural border and no easy way for people to tell which state they are in. I think it’s a better solution to break county lines and have a state which is ventura + la + orange + that portion of san bernardino which is south and west of the mountains (eg, the urbanized areas) + the urbanized area of riverside and to the west of riverside.

    This allows san diego + the low desert to be a state, and lets us lump the high desert with the southern central valley / eastern desert state, and it avoids the problem of borders that are hard for anyone to recognize or discern.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  41. I realize your larger point is that splitting those states would probably mean a net gain of Republican senators

    Actually, not so much that as split electoral votes that are not gimmes. Especially a fairly spit CA which would still be +1 or +2 Dem in the Senate but 40-20 Dem in the EC.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  42. *not = NOW

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  43. Our constitution assumes bad behavior in governing hence checks and balances. Minority rights to protect the slave holders so the south would join the constitution. (which led to civil war) Now a minority controls power in congress and the courts and most recently the presidency. Example 18% of the population contols 52 senate seats. The house is better ;but even here the minority of the population controls more seats then they should with gerrymandering making it worse. Example in a pennsylvania congressional election the democrats received almost 200,000 more votes then republicans ;but thanks to gerrymandering took 11 house seats to democrat 5 (minority districts) The dred scott decision show what can happen when the minority controls the supreme court. Never trumpers supported corporate establishment joe biden for protection aganist the AOC/sanders wing of the democratic party. Black democrats still control power in democrat party ;but AOC and latinx vote will soon out vote them. Biden and the dnc establishment ask for cheese with their whine. AOC “By any means necessary!” to quote malcolm X. The majority had just about had it with the minority controlling amreica’s future. Last time this issue was settled at cemetery ridge july 3 1863.

    asset (7832ab)

  44. States entering as free states was one of the things that kicked off the civil war.

    With all due respect, that’s as ridiculous as saying that building skyscrapers caused 9/11.

    The Civil War was caused by the slavers’ refusal to accept the outcome of free and fair elections.

    The admission of free states is what gradually made election outcomes less and less agreeable to the slave-holders, but there was nothing, per se, about the entirely constitutional process of free states entering that justified the South’s treason.

    In fact, by the Civil War, the South had essentially won the battle over slavery in the territories, and were free to create slave states anywhere that enough people were prepared to take slaves.

    Dave (1bb933)

  45. > Odd, I do. Seal Beach, Buena Park, Cypress, La Habra are all in OC and border LA.

    none of them border LA. 🙂 Seal Beach borders Long Beach. Buena Park borders Norwalk. Cypress borders Cerritos.

    But in many of these cases, the border simply runs along a road with indistinguishable-from-one-another city on either side of the road. Everywhere else in the country where an urban agglomeration contains an internal state border, that border is clearly delineated by a river. This border would be much harder for people to detect.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  46. Sacramento and San Joaquin counties should go with the bay area

    Why? Sacramento is a San Joaquin county and most of SJ is utterly and completely unlike the Bay area culturally.

    To get a plan that PASSES, you have to give people what they want. Not having to deal with “those people” in either case is a win. Same with Jefferson. Only LA and the rest of Southern Cal have similar cultures, but 1) it would be too big, and 2) LA county would dominate. I am trying in this to prevent domination, which is one of CA’s big big issues.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  47. Kevin M, the federal government does to have the authority or the power to break up existing states to form new states. It doesn’t work that way.

    The 13 colonies that fought and won the Revolution became the original 13 states. They were all on the East coast. Subsequent to that, as migration and settlement expanded to the West and South, the developed territories had to apply to Congress for statehood. This is true of 36 of the 37 granted statehood. The one exception is Texas, which is why it is known as the Lone Star state.

    Texas was an Independent Republic, with its own Constitution, before it joined the Union. However, it did not apply to Congress for statehood, rather it agreed to an Annexation Treaty in 1845.

    Texas is unique. All the other states along the East and West Coast, around the Gulf, have territorial boundaries that extend 3 miles off shore. The territorial boundary of Texas extends 30 miles off shore, into the Gulf. It’s explicitly stated in the Annexation Treaty Congress agreed to.

    This was a source of some contention when oil was discovered in the Gulf of Mexico. The federal government tried to seize control of the revenues from oil production, but Texas, no, that’s our oil, because it’s within our territorial boundary. John Hightower took that case to the Supreme Court and won. It’s in the Annexation Treaty. Congress cannot violate an agreement it agreed to. Texas then used the revenues from oil production to set up the Permanent University Fund, which provided for the establishment of the University of Texas and Texas A&M systems.

    Also explicitly stated in the Annexation Treaty is that Texas can reform the Independent Republic at any time, and divide itself into five states–north, east, south, west, and central–under the Texas constitution. None of the other 36 states can do that, including California, because they all applied for and were granted statehood by Congress.

    It is said that the Civil War was fought over a verb–the United States ‘are’ vs. The United States ‘is’. The outcome resulted in the determination that once granted applied for statehood by Congress, membership in the Union, a state cannot secede. In other words, a state cannot violate the terms of an agreement it not only applied for but agreed to.

    So all this talk about secession is just that, talk. Once granted statehood and membership in the Union, a state cannot just suddenly, decades later, change its mind.

    That’s California’s problem. It applied for statehood and was granted it. Now, there’s no way out of their applied for, agreed upon and approved contract with the Union.

    Texas does not have that problem. Unlike the other 36, Texas does not have to secede. It reserves the right to reform the Independent Republic at any time. Just like our territorial boundary extends 20 miles into the Gulf, our right to reform the Independent Republic is explicitly stated in the Annexation Treaty, which Congress agreed to.

    Any competent attorney could make that case before the Supreme Court, and win. It’s right there, in black and white, clear letter law, Congress agreed that Texas could reform an Independent Republic, at any time.

    No other state has that option.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  48. none of them border LA. 🙂 Seal Beach borders Long Beach. Buena Park borders Norwalk. Cypress borders Cerritos.

    LA COUNTY

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  49. > Why? Sacramento is a San Joaquin county and most of SJ is utterly and completely unlike the Bay area culturally.

    San Joaquin county twenty years ago did not match the Bay Area culturally. Today, though, it is in many ways a commuter bedroom community for the bay area, just as the inland empire was to LA two decades ago. Long-term, they are growing together economically and politically, which is why (for example) Josh Harder is now the congressman for the area rather than Jeff Denham.

    Sacramento is, if anything, *more* aligned culturally and politically with the Bay Area than San Joaquin is, and is not really in any way aligned with the southern central valley.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  50. This border would be much harder for people to detect. As opposed to the Indiana-Illinois line? Or MA-RI-CT-NY-etc

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  51. San Joaquin county

    Oh. Country, not region. Well, maybe. Not enough to argue about. It works better geographically, but whatever. It still beats the doors off of Draper’s crap.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  52. Apparently I dreamed the bit about Trump trying to steal the election and inciting an insurrection. Turns out the worst thing he did was get into Twitter spats.

    He wasn’t counting anything that happened after November 3, or that did not involve the powers of the presidency.

    NJRob (eb56c3) — 4/12/2021 @ 9:38 am

    Maybe mention his group to pack the Supreme Court.

    That’s not news. He promised that before the election. And it’s bait and switch. At most, they’ll propose adding only two seats, thus cancelling out the appointment of ACB but probably not even that, if Justice Breyer retires, as he hopes. His replacement will be Merrick Garland.

    Time123 (b87ded) — 4/12/2021 @ 10:20 am

    A blue ribbon panel that will create a report that no one will care about should buy time for people to cool off. When we have the report we can continue to not screw the SC up. A career pol is great for consuming paper while accomplishing nothing.

    I think that’s what he’s really after (besides making some other changes – maybe including more federal judges, or an extra layer of appeals)

    And what he’s really after is putting Merrick Garland on the court, maybe thinking that will put thew whole thing to rest. That’s probably why he got the job as Attorney General.

    Biden is not doing so good at finessing some other issues.

    Sammy Finkelman (6975b4)

  53. *County

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  54. Apparently I dreamed the bit about Trump trying to steal the election and inciting an insurrection. Turns out the worst thing he did was get into Twitter spats.

    Nobody voted on the basis of that. I hope.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  55. Bold is mine:

    …but AOC and latinx vote will soon out vote them….
    asset (7832ab) — 4/12/2021 @ 1:54 pm

    Asset! Please, stop using this term – I and my people find it offensive. Are you tone-deaf?

    felipe (484255)

  56. Kevin M – fair point about the Indiana/Illinois line. I withdraw that particular claim. 🙂

    aphrael (4c4719)

  57. At most, they’ll propose adding only two seats

    “only”

    I remember when comic books went from 12 cents to 15 cents. “Only 3 cents more.” Now they are, what, $3.95?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  58. > It still beats the doors off of Draper’s crap.

    I absolutely and unquestioningly agree with that. Draper’s lines — both sets! — were ridiculous.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  59. latinx is a neutral term like blacks. Only conservatives are offended by latinx.

    asset (7832ab)

  60. Gawain’s Ghost:

    Article IV, Section 3:

    > New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

    If Congress and the legislature of a state agree to split that state into two or more states, Article IV Section 3 *explicitly* allows it. Similarly, if the UP wishes to withdraw from Michigan and join Wisconsin, and all three of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Congress agree, the constitution allows it.

    I would argue that *particularly in the case of regions of states which wish to disassociate with their current state and join with a different state*, as long as both states agree, Congress should go along with it.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  61. Asset – the issue with latinx is that it doesn’t follow spanish grammar rules *at all* and so many people of hispanic descent feel like it is an inappropriate word to use to describe them.

    This is one of those social cultural issues where I feel like both sides on the argument have valid points.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  62. I’ve never heard anyone refer to themselves as latinex in real life.

    Time123 (b87ded)

  63. Kevin @36, Affinity is fine, but how are the resources for those states? Looks like you’re making 3 wealthy and 2 poor states. My analysis was done by looking at your map and looking at this one.

    https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/2016/countyemploymentandwages_california_20160727.htm

    Time123 (b87ded)

  64. Splitting up states seems dumb to me.

    Better to make the senate less socialist and more proportional.

    Here’s what it would look like (based on 2010 census numbers):

    California 10

    Texas 7

    New York, Florida 5

    Illinois, Pennsylvania 4

    Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio 3

    Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin 2

    Everybody else 1

    Under this system, the biggest discrepancy in people per seat is 8.5 to 1.

    Under the present system, it’s 66 to 1.

    Dave (1bb933)

  65. Dave, it’s not *just* about the electoral college or the Senate, though. Or, honestly, even primarily about it.

    People who want to split NY, for example, want to do so because they’re tired of politicians responsive to the voters in NYC making decisions that govern life in the very, very different world of Rochester.

    People who want to split CA want to do so because the voters of LA and the Bay support politicians who don’t understand life in Redding and make decisions that are economically catastrophic for Fresno.

    The issue is that the borders were drawn a long time ago and that as things have evolved the states no longer represent communities of interest. How much of life in Washington state could be improved if the areas east of the Cascades and west of the Cascades could go their seperate ways and make decisions for themselves without those decisions being enforced on each other?

    aphrael (4c4719)

  66. if all 31 states in mexico and 10 canadian provinces desired to join our union, democrats would rationalize why it should happen

    we know why puerto rico seeks statehood and why democrats are for it

    so cut the crap

    JF (6fcdbe)

  67. Texas does not have that problem. Unlike the other 36, Texas does not have to secede. It reserves the right to reform the Independent Republic at any time. Just like our territorial boundary extends 20 miles into the Gulf, our right to reform the Independent Republic is explicitly stated in the Annexation Treaty, which Congress agreed to.

    No it isn’t.

    Every time you’ve made this false claim in the past, I have pointed you to the original documents, which refute it utterly.

    In particular, there was no “Annexation Treaty” ever ratified between the US and Texas. In fact it was rejected, overwhelmingly, by the Senate. Like all treaties, it required a 2/3’s vote to pass, but 2/3’s of the Senate voted *against* it.

    Texas was admitted by a accepting an offer made in a joint Congressional resolution. That resolution said explicitly that Texas would the identical rights and privileges as every other state. Texas passed a resolution repeating what congressional resolution said, together with “we accept”. Congress then noted that Texas had accepted the previous resolution and admitted them as stipulated therein.

    None of the documents that actually effected the admission of Texas as a state (the two congressional resolutions, or the Texas ordinance agreeing to them) say anything about “reforming the independent republic”.

    I wish you stop spreading false information after I have pointed out your error multiple times.

    Dave (1bb933)

  68. I repeat my accusation that Trump is a Democrat plant, inserted into the GOP primaries in 2016 to rip the party apart at the seams. He has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams (although beating Hillary was probably not on plan).

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 4/12/2021 @ 12:19 pm

    Dustin (4237e0) — 4/12/2021 @ 12:47 pm

    I almost wish this were so. That an organized conspiracy was in control of this mess,…I’m sure most here know Bill Clinton told Trump to run.

    The person who could have planned this was Bill Clinton, by inveigling Donald Trump into running for president, possibly with the help of one or two other people, (Trump had wanted to run for president since 1988 when he tried to become GHWB’s pick for vice president) and the main goal was not to split the Republican party but to have him hopefully, win the Republican nomination and then to have Hillary win. If so, his conspiracy didn’t work out right, and neither did the one in 2008, where he promoted Barack Obama, figuring he was a perfect sparring partner for Hillary, sucking up political oxygen but guaranteed to lose in the end.

    Only about 50% or less of Bill Clinton’s devious plans worked out. But he kept on trying.

    In 1974, he ran for the House, capitalizing on Watergate, and I would guess hoping to succeed Senator Fulbright in 1980. But lost the Democratic primary to Dale Bumpers, closing off that line of advancement. Then he aimed to make his career in the House of Representatives, organizing the freshman class, of which he would be the leader, only he didn’t get elected. Then it was become Attorney General of Arkansas in the 1976 election, which succeeded, and then Governor in 1978.

    But, of all things, he lost his bid for re-election in 1980. He was offered the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee but he didn’t want it because he still wanted a career in elective office. In 1982, he managed to have Jim Guy Ticker come in third in the Democratic primary – I won’t say here what he might have been responsible for. With Tucker missing the runoff. he won the primary.

    In 1984 it was bringing back Orval Faubus – that Orval Faubus – as his chief opponent in the primary. I think he engineered that.

    In 1986 he succeeded in getting a constitutional amendment extending the governor’s term to 4 years from two.

    He then set up the first Super Tuesday with the goal of replicating Jimmy Carter’s winning of the nomination in 1976, but it depended on his being the only candidate from the south and he couldn’t achieve that. Al Gore dropped back in. He had forced out Gary Hart and Biden before giving up. Clinton got behind Dukakis, reasoning that a Massachusetts Democrat was most likely to lose the general election, and he succeeded in that.

    He ran for re-election in 1990 promising he would serve out his term.

    In 1992 he succeeded in winning the Democratic nomination for president because few candidates were running and because he understood what George Bush’s high poll numbers really meant, and because he claimed (falsely) to have supported the Gulf War, while making a big thing of being against negative campaigning and because he borrowed money illegally from the Worthen National Bank, partially owned by BCCI frontmen.

    I think he got Perot to drop out, by convincing him that Bush wanted to spoil his daughter’s wedding. I have some ideas as how he helped that happen. Perot never recovered even when he dropped back in. Then there was his budget, which he thought would convince people the Republicans were partisan but convinced people the Democratic members of Congress were. Then in 1995 the government shutdown

    Sammy Finkelman (6975b4)

  69. 60. aphrael (4c4719) — 4/12/2021 @ 2:13 pm

    If Congress and the legislature of a state agree to split that state into two or more states, Article IV Section 3 *explicitly* allows it.

    It happened in 1820, when Maine was detached from Massachusetts.

    It didn’t really happen in 1863, but I guess Virginia was presumed to have consented by seceding from the Union. Or maybe something else justified the admission of West Virgnia.

    Sammy Finkelman (6975b4)

  70. It didn’t really happen in 1863, but I guess Virginia was presumed to have consented by seceding from the Union.

    Almost immediately after Virginia ratified its ordinance of secession, the loyal counties declared their representatives the legitimate government of ALL of Virginia, by virtue of the secessionists having vacated their offices.

    The feds recognized them as the state government, and (acting in that capacity) they later agreed to the formation of West Virginia.

    Dave (1bb933)

  71. Only conservatives are offended by latinx.

    Also some Latinos and Latinas.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  72. The feds recognized them as the state government, and (acting in that capacity) they later agreed to the formation of West Virginia.

    The Virginia secessionists could hard claim that the counties had no right to secede.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  73. *hardly

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  74. @67: And, having rejoined the union after the War, any earlier agreement was superseded.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  75. JF, at 66: I don’t claim to speak for all Democrats, only for myself.

    The idea that three million people could be subject to our laws, with their self-government regularly interfered with by acts of both the Congress and the Executive, is anathema to our founding traditions.

    If they are going to be answerable to our laws and their institutions subject to upending at our whims, then they must be allowed a voice in the formation of our laws and representation in the government we share with them.

    I could give a rat’s *** who they vote for. Their territorial status is a disgrace and a defiance of our national principles, and they have the same rights to self government and representation in the national legislature that I and my neighbors have.

    This has been a consistent position of mine throughout my adult life, including back in the day when it was generally assumed that hispanics would support Reaganite conservatism because of Catholic social values.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  76. Kevin @36, Affinity is fine, but how are the resources for those states? Looks like you’re making 3 wealthy and 2 poor states. My analysis was done by looking at your map and looking at this one.

    Were I writing an initiative, I would be creating one or more commissions to propose formal maps, along with several multi-state compacts for water, debt and such. I’d be doing this because 1) it’s complicated and 2) because the CA initiative rules do not allow wholesale revisions of the state constitution or even more than one topic in an initiative.

    A water compact among the states, and agreement on debt and pensions and other debt would be required. Something Draper also ignores. Any such compacts/agreement would also have to be approved by Congress, so they should be ready to go.

    As for “Jefferson” and “San Joaquin” being poor states, they would be OK wrt population. Jefferson has incredible natural resources. San Joaquin has some of the best farmland in the nation, plus the Sierra, they’ll be OK. Right now both are controlled to their great disadvantage, by the urban coast.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  77. *Were I writing an initiative, I would be creating one or more commissions (as opposed to trying to do the whole thing at one go). The commission would then propose one or more items to the Legislature and/or the People before anything went to Congress.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  78. And, having rejoined the union after the War, any earlier agreement was superseded.

    No state ever left, or rejoined.

    Legitimate state governments ceased to exist for a time, and were later re-established.

    Dave (1bb933)

  79. Their territorial status is a disgrace and a defiance of our national principles, and they have the same rights to self government and representation in the national legislature that I and my neighbors have.

    Well, they also do not pay federal income tax. There’s that, so saying they are subject to our laws has exceptions. I’m sure there are more.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  80. > There’s that, so saying they are subject to our laws has exceptions.

    Yes and no, because *we* determine which of our laws they are subject to, and they have no actual say in the matter.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  81. Legitimate state governments ceased to exist for a time, and were later re-established.

    Not an argument that can be made by a state trying to secede a second time.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  82. >As for “Jefferson” and “San Joaquin” being poor states, they would be OK wrt population.

    Plus, it’s *quite* clear that the people of “Jefferson” would *much* prefer to disassociate with the Bay Area and with Los Angeles, even if the end result is that they had fewer economic resources at their disposal.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  83. I am not sure whether CA would opt for statehood if the alternative was “no federal income tax”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  84. But all this brings up an interesting question: suppose California wanted to secede. Would the US use force to prevent it? If not, how about they take OR and WA with them? What then?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  85. Would the US use force to prevent it?

    I would hope so, if necessary.

    Alternatively, if the Constitution were amended to allow separation, it would be OK if the process (whatever it turns out to be) is followed.

    Dave (1bb933)

  86. If I were dividing up CA, I definitely would not put Sacto and San Joaquin in with SF. Sacramento has a much firmer connection to Placer and Eldorado counties than it does to the Bay Area and I would put those three counties in the same state, because where they connect makes up a single metro-area.

    Nic (896fdf)

  87. Fascist pom-pom girl and weathervane Nikki Haley says she’ll back Trump if he runs in 2024.

    Dave (1bb933)

  88. Only conservatives are offended by latinx.

    So you are Perry after all, asset? Latinx was coined by a non-heteronormative, non-binary West Coast segment some twenty years back, but even they had abandoned it by the time Fred Zuckerberg established the 57 flavors … err, genders that is.

    nk (1d9030)

  89. Now … are they all from the city of Latina proper or more broadly the province of Latium?

    nk (1d9030)

  90. “Latinx” is the linguistic equivalent of New Coke.

    norcal (01e272)

  91. Don’t knock New Coke, it was the marketing coup of the century.

    Old Coke was sweetened with sugar, which cost several cents extra per can. They wanted to switch to HFCS — many millions to the bottom line. But if they had done that and nothing else there would have been a lot of pushback and they’d lose market share.

    So, what they did was, with great fanfare, ushered in New Coke, with a different formula and HFCS, and let it take the heat. Then, after a while they relented and introduced “Classic Coke”, now with HFCS.

    Mission accomplished, lots of free advertising, and the villagers put down their torches and pitchforks and happily swilled the changed drink. At least until they tasted Coca-Cola from Mexico which had never changed.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  92. Sacramento has a much firmer connection to Placer and Eldorado counties than it does to the Bay Area and I would put those three counties in the same state

    I went round and round on that. It’s a place to start.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  93. Now … are they all from the city of Latina proper or more broadly the province of Latium

    The use Latinum for money.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  94. Fascist pom-pom girl

    The actual fascist pom-pom girl is serving as VP these days. Or maybe it’s the hard-left AOC-allied Congresswoman from Irvine.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  95. Still, it’s sad to see credible candidates acquiescing to a Trump re-run.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  96. I would hope so, if necessary.

    If Trump were to win another term with a strong GOP showing in Congress, you might change your mind. I heard a number of left-leaning Californians saying they’d want to secede if Trump had won in 2020.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  97. I’ve never heard that about New Coke, Kevin.

    Was it a serendipitous turn of events for Coca-Cola, or was it the master plan from the get-go?

    norcal (01e272)

  98. 74,000,000 republican populists voted for trump. 7,000,000 never trumpers at best ;but they do have more money to buy influence.

    asset (3d42a5)

  99. asset,

    You have no way of knowing how many of those 74,000,000 were populists.

    norcal (01e272)

  100. I’ve never heard that about New Coke, Kevin.

    It’s not true, of course.

    An interesting little claim sprang up in the wake of the introduction of Classic Coke, one having to do with its sweetener. People swore they detected a change in the flavor between Classic Coke and the original. This gave rise to the rumor that the product had been reformulated, dropping cane sugar in favor of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Depending upon whom you listened to, either the demand for the return of original Coca-Cola afforded the company the opportunity to switch from cane sugar to corn syrup or the whole fiasco of taking original Coca-Cola off the shelves and reintroducing it three months later as Classic Coke was all a brilliant scheme to mask the change in sweetener. According to whispered wisdom, the company had hoped to slip the modification past consumers by having it take place during the original beverage’s absence from the shelves. People would be so darned glad to have Classic Coke back that they wouldn’t notice it didn’t taste the same as original Coca-Cola. (Another twist to this rumor had it that New Coke had deliberately been formulated to taste awful in order to facilitate the switch — this supposedly gave Coca-Cola an excuse for pulling the original formula and then putting it back on the market after a brief absence, making it look all along as if they were simply responding to consumer demands.)

    The change in sweetener wasn’t anything that diabolical. Corn syrup was cheaper than cane sugar; that’s what it came down to. In 1980, five years before the introduction of New Coke, Coca-Cola had begun to allow bottlers to replace half the cane sugar in Coca-Cola with HFCS. By six months prior to New Coke’s knocking the original Coca-Cola off the shelves, American Coca-Cola bottlers were allowed to use 100% HFCS. Whether they knew it or not, many consumers were already drinking Coke that was 100% sweetened by HFCS.

    Dave (1bb933)

  101. If Trump were to win another term with a strong GOP showing in Congress, you might change your mind.

    If that happens, it will be California’s sacred duty to liberate the other 49 states, not abandon them.

    If worse came to worst, my current plan would be to seek refugee status in the UK.

    Dave (1bb933)

  102. Fascist pom-pom girl and weathervane Nikki Haley says she’ll back Trump if he runs in 2024.

    Dave (1bb933) — 4/12/2021 @ 4:38 pm

    Garry Kasparov’s reaction to Haley’s announcement:

    “I am appalled and humbled by the number of Republicans I thought well of who have sold their souls to a vile would-be autocrat who attacked the pillars of this great nation. Trumpism corrupts absolutely.”

    lurker (59504c)

  103. You and me both, Garry.

    Dave (1bb933)

  104. There you go again, Dave, letting truth get in the way of a good story.

    Kidding!

    Thanks for the enlightenment.

    norcal (01e272)

  105. … and Tom Nichols’ response to Senate Republicans awarding Donald Trump its inaugural Champion for Freedom Award:

    “What a sad, pathetic end for the Party of Lincoln.”

    Needless to say I co-sign both Kasparov’s and Nichols’ reactions.

    lurker (59504c)

  106. “What a sad, pathetic end for the Party of Lincoln.”

    I hope they award it to him every year, in perpetuity.

    Failure to do so would be rightly seen as a grave insult. Who else could ever be as deserving?

    Dave (1bb933)

  107. A literal grave insult!

    norcal (01e272)

  108. I encountered Ahmari’s idiocy with liberals back when GW Bush was POTUS, that, because I voted for him I must agree and endorse everything he said and did. It’s funny how so many Trumpists reason like hard Left progressives of yore.

    Paul Montagu (26e0d1)

  109. 88. nk (1d9030) — 4/12/2021 @ 5:23 pm

    Fred Zuckerberg established the 57 flavors … err, genders that is.

    Mark Zuckerberg and 57 varieties.

    57 varieties was a lie. And if you included pre-packaged things besides ketch-up, like pickles,
    vinegar and horseradish there were more tan 57 separate products sold.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/there-never-were-57-varieties-heinz-ketchup-180965158

    “He spied an advertising placard in the train car promoting ‘21 styles’ of shoes; struck by the concept, and recognizing that catchiness and resonance were far more important qualities for a company slogan than literal accuracy, Heinz cast about for the perfect number to use for his own version of the phrase,” Mikkelson writes.

    According to Alice Rawsthorn writing for The New York Times, Heinz picked 5, his lucky number, and 7, his wife’s lucky number. It was a poignant remembrance: Heinz and Sarah Young married in 1869 and she had been an important part of building his business, but she died of pneumonia in 1894. In 1915, Heinz also built Sarah Heinz House, a social welfare house in Pittsburgh, in her memory.

    Heinz’s new slogan had the desired effect. It’s stuck around for more than 120 years.

    Sammy Finkelman (6975b4)

  110. 108. Paul Montagu (26e0d1) — 4/13/2021 @ 6:56 am

    because I voted for him I must agree and endorse everything he said and did. It’s funny how so many Trumpists reason like hard Left progressives of yore.

    I think it was Bill Clinton who said in 1992 that if you voted for Jerry Brown for president in a presidential primary, then you had to endorse his choice of Jesse Jackson as vice president, and if you didn’t you shouldn’t vote for Jerry Brown.

    Sammy Finkelman (6975b4)

  111. because I voted for him I must agree and endorse everything he said and did. It’s funny how so many Trumpists reason like hard Left progressives of yore.

    Trumpers do the opposite when they try to explain why people must vote for Trump. “We know he’s flawed, but … binary choice!”

    So a lot of people made their binary choice and decided that Biden was marginally less flawed.

    Now the Trumper party line is that every Trump voter absolutely reveres him without reservation, while everyone who didn’t vote for him is fully on board with everything Biden does, and isn’t a real American.

    Radegunda (aea52f)

  112. 70. Dave (1bb933) — 4/12/2021 @ 3:06 pm

    Almost immediately after Virginia ratified its ordinance of secession, the loyal counties declared their representatives the legitimate government of ALL of Virginia, by virtue of the secessionists having vacated their offices.

    The feds recognized them as the state government, and (acting in that capacity) they later agreed to the formation of West Virginia.

    Thanks for clarifying how that happened. It makes sense.

    Sammy Finkelman (6975b4)

  113. “By that logic, you own an attempt to steal an election, the death of cops at the Capitol, an endless stream of financial chicanery and exploitation, and about 10,000 other Really Bad Things I have been discussing here for five years.”

    I am not aware of any cops dying as a result of the events at the Capitol on January 6th. Can you provide the names of the cops you’ve referenced? Note that Brian Sicknick’s death was ruled to be from natural causes: two strokes from acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis. His death occurred the night of January 7th. He had called his parents on the night of the 6th and said he was OK after possibly inhaling bear spray, although that hasn’t been proven and is not fatal in any case. Regardless, the infarcts obviously weren’t caused by the events that day.

    Does this blog make corrections?

    Tom Martin (0764ec)

  114. A good number of Capitol Hill policemen tested positive for Covid-19 shortly after January 6, (by Jan. 22) but few or none of them had gotten the vaccine (which was only Pfizer or Moderna at the time)

    https://wtop.com/dc/2021/02/covid-19-vaccines-obtained-for-capitol-police-employees

    Last month, CBS News reported that at least 38 members of the U.S. Capitol Police and about 150 National Guard members tested positive for COVID-19 since responding to the deadly attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6.

    https://wtop.com/national/2021/01/38-capitol-officers-and-150-national-guardsmen-test-positive-for-covid-19

    Gus Papathanasiou, the chairman of the union that represents Capitol police, told CBS News that cases have “spiked” since the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol that brought the police in close quarters with the rioters.

    However Covid-19 itself can cause clots and that’s probably why some vaccines can. (same antigens)

    https://www.stroke.org.uk/news/does-coronavirus-cause-stroke-look-current-research

    Published date:

    Wednesday, 2 December, 2020

    ,,,,These research studies have also found that compared to stroke patients without the virus, coronavirus patients that had stroke:

    Were on average six years younger. But overall, it was older coronavirus patients that were more likely to have stroke than younger people with coronavirus.

    Have more severe effects of stroke.
    Right now, we don’t know:

    How much coronavirus may increase the risk of stroke and in which groups of patient.

    How coronavirus can increase the chance of someone having a stroke. This is important to find the best way to treat patients with coronavirus that may have a high risk of stroke.

    Researchers have suggested a few ways that coronavirus could increase the risk of stroke in some people. It is likely that the virus can cause blood clotting. There are treatments that can stop the blood from clotting and break up blood clots to stop damage to the brain caused by stroke.

    But more research is urgently needed to understand if these treatments could help coronavirus patients at risk of stroke, and who would benefit from them.

    The lower age of stroke victims with coronovirus means that Covid-19 increases the risk of stroke.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  115. It s possible for Brian Sickmick”s death to be related the assault (in some other way than getting Covid-19, where inn any case. the fatal clots materialized too fast) but it would be a rare situation and also could have been noticed during the autopsy (also maybe there would be only one clot?)

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/19/us/politics/brian-sicknick-death.html

    …The artery that supplies the brainstem — the master controller of the body’s functions like breathing and heart rate — was blocked by a clot, and the blood flow to the cerebellum at the back of the brain was blocked.

    Strokes that involve the brainstem are devastating and usually fatal, said Dr. Lee Schwamm, a stroke expert at Harvard. They typically are caused by atherosclerosis in the artery that feeds the brainstem or by a big clot that originates in the heart and lodges in that artery….

    ….If Officer Sicknick’s strokes had been caused by the attacks, the most likely explanation would be a tear in the artery that feeds the base of the brain. Clots can form when that happens and travel into a large artery that feeds the brain and block it.

    Such cases are unusual, Dr. Schwamm said, but can occur when people violently twist and turn. A dissection would have been seen on an autopsy or imaging if the medical examiner looked at the entire vertebral artery, from its bottom at the back of the neck to where it enters the brain at the base of the skull.

    I would think the best bet for the underlying cause of the clots could be a Covid-19 infection that started a few days earlier.

    Of course you can say a previously existing clot that might have dissolved or been treated successfully was dislodged.on January 6.

    Gina Kolata contributed reporting.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4808 secs.