USA Politics (redux)

[Karl Henning]

Opinion: Merrick Garland has shown that he's taking Jan. 6 seriously. But the public's patience is limited.

By Jennifer Rubin
Columnist

Today at 7:45 a.m. EST

Attorney General Merrick Garland delivered a speech on Wednesday in part to allay fears that he is unwilling or unable to pursue all those responsible for the coup attempt. While he could have been more explicit regarding events leading up to the Jan. 6 insurrection, the speech succeeded in reassuring the public that no one will be given a free pass.

Several passages certainly should inspire confidence that he will investigate everyone involved in Jan. 6. The department, he insisted, "remains committed to holding all Jan. 6 perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law — whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy." By stressing that people need not have been physically present, he leaves open the possibility that, for example, the former president or his coup plotters at the Willard hotel might be charged.

Indeed, he declared: "Proceedings in both chambers [for the counting of electoral votes on Jan. 6] were disrupted for hours — interfering with a fundamental element of American democracy: the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. Those involved must be held accountable, and there is no higher priority for us at the Department of Justice." This seems to echo the legal theory advanced by Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) that Trump is guilty of "obstruction of Congress," which would not require proof that Trump is responsible for violence to succeed in court.

Garland also went into detail to explain the magnitude of the case — the hundred of arrests made, the thousand of hours of video reviewed, the size of the prosecutorial team. In so doing, he demonstrated that the Justice Department has not yet made its way through the lowest-level offenders. "The actions we have taken thus far will not be our last," he vowed, adding, "We follow the physical evidence. We follow the digital evidence. We follow the money. But most important, we follow the facts ― not an agenda or an assumption."

One could also take comfort in his thorough debunking of the notion that the insurrection was nonviolent. He detailed the injuries, the deaths and the weapons, drawing a line to the gradual normalization of violence and threats of violence in the last year. He recounted the increase in violence and threats made against public officials, from election workers to judges to members of Congress — and even airline attendants.

The prosecution of violent crimes is not, as some Republicans outlandishly claim, an effort to thwart parents from complaining about school boards. As Garland explained, "Peacefully expressing a view or ideology — no matter how extreme — is protected by the First Amendment. But illegally threatening to harm or kill another person is not. There is no First Amendment right to unlawfully threaten to harm or kill someone." Anyone who says otherwise is attempting to reset norms that insist on nonviolence as a necessary foundation for democracy.

He also spent time on voting rights, forcefully urging Congress to act to ensure that every eligible voter can cast a ballot that counts. He made clear that without new legislation, the department cannot uphold the sacred right to vote. But this must include not only reforms to guarantee access to voting but also to prevent the subversion of elections — including antics such as those leading up to Jan. 6 and state laws that Republicans are contemplating to displace impartial election workers.

Indeed, Garland could have been much more explicit about the nonviolent elements of the coup attempt that took place before Jan. 6. He did not talk about Donald Trump's attempts to strong-arm the Georgia secretary of state or to lean on Michigan election officials. He did not discuss the former president's unacceptable pressure on Justice Department officials to declare the election fraudulent. And he did not talk about schemes to have the vice president violate his oath and stop the electoral vote count, although he did make generic promises to "defend our democratic institutions from attack."

The proof will come as the investigation runs its course. Will the former president and his cronies suffer any price for the nonviolent aspects of the attempt to overthrow the election? If not, the next John Eastman memo might be more successful. That is, Trump or some other wannabe authoritarian might use obviously disingenuous readings of the Constitution and federal laws to allow a candidate to block a legitimate winner from assuming office.

Garland's speech should buy him some goodwill and time among defenders of democracy. But the public's indulgence is not unlimited. If the facts support prosecution of Trump and his immediate circle for obstruction of Congress, violent or nonviolent, Garland will be hard-pressed not to proceed.

[milk]

Opinion: Merrick Garland has shown that he's taking Jan. 6 seriously. But the public's patience is limited.

By Jennifer Rubin
Columnist

Today at 7:45 a.m. EST

Attorney General Merrick Garland delivered a speech on Wednesday in part to allay fears that he is unwilling or unable to pursue all those responsible for the coup attempt. While he could have been more explicit regarding events leading up to the Jan. 6 insurrection, the speech succeeded in reassuring the public that no one will be given a free pass.

Several passages certainly should inspire confidence that he will investigate everyone involved in Jan. 6. The department, he insisted, "remains committed to holding all Jan. 6 perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law — whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy." By stressing that people need not have been physically present, he leaves open the possibility that, for example, the former president or his coup plotters at the Willard hotel might be charged.

Indeed, he declared: "Proceedings in both chambers [for the counting of electoral votes on Jan. 6] were disrupted for hours — interfering with a fundamental element of American democracy: the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. Those involved must be held accountable, and there is no higher priority for us at the Department of Justice." This seems to echo the legal theory advanced by Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) that Trump is guilty of "obstruction of Congress," which would not require proof that Trump is responsible for violence to succeed in court.

Garland also went into detail to explain the magnitude of the case — the hundred of arrests made, the thousand of hours of video reviewed, the size of the prosecutorial team. In so doing, he demonstrated that the Justice Department has not yet made its way through the lowest-level offenders. "The actions we have taken thus far will not be our last," he vowed, adding, "We follow the physical evidence. We follow the digital evidence. We follow the money. But most important, we follow the facts ― not an agenda or an assumption."

One could also take comfort in his thorough debunking of the notion that the insurrection was nonviolent. He detailed the injuries, the deaths and the weapons, drawing a line to the gradual normalization of violence and threats of violence in the last year. He recounted the increase in violence and threats made against public officials, from election workers to judges to members of Congress — and even airline attendants.

The prosecution of violent crimes is not, as some Republicans outlandishly claim, an effort to thwart parents from complaining about school boards. As Garland explained, "Peacefully expressing a view or ideology — no matter how extreme — is protected by the First Amendment. But illegally threatening to harm or kill another person is not. There is no First Amendment right to unlawfully threaten to harm or kill someone." Anyone who says otherwise is attempting to reset norms that insist on nonviolence as a necessary foundation for democracy.

He also spent time on voting rights, forcefully urging Congress to act to ensure that every eligible voter can cast a ballot that counts. He made clear that without new legislation, the department cannot uphold the sacred right to vote. But this must include not only reforms to guarantee access to voting but also to prevent the subversion of elections — including antics such as those leading up to Jan. 6 and state laws that Republicans are contemplating to displace impartial election workers.

Indeed, Garland could have been much more explicit about the nonviolent elements of the coup attempt that took place before Jan. 6. He did not talk about Donald Trump's attempts to strong-arm the Georgia secretary of state or to lean on Michigan election officials. He did not discuss the former president's unacceptable pressure on Justice Department officials to declare the election fraudulent. And he did not talk about schemes to have the vice president violate his oath and stop the electoral vote count, although he did make generic promises to "defend our democratic institutions from attack."

The proof will come as the investigation runs its course. Will the former president and his cronies suffer any price for the nonviolent aspects of the attempt to overthrow the election? If not, the next John Eastman memo might be more successful. That is, Trump or some other wannabe authoritarian might use obviously disingenuous readings of the Constitution and federal laws to allow a candidate to block a legitimate winner from assuming office.

Garland's speech should buy him some goodwill and time among defenders of democracy. But the public's indulgence is not unlimited. If the facts support prosecution of Trump and his immediate circle for obstruction of Congress, violent or nonviolent, Garland will be hard-pressed not to proceed.

It feels like the damage is done and can't be undone - not as long as Dems fall behind. Everyone seems to say they'll lose ground next year. They have the justice dept., but there's so much pressure from the other side. They need some smoking guns that can't be explained away. If trump gets near the presidency again we're doomed. But there could be someone even worse around the corner.

[Karl Henning]

It feels like the damage is done and can't be undone - not as long as Dems fall behind. Everyone seems to say they'll lose ground next year. They have the justice dept., but there's so much pressure from the other side. They need some smoking guns that can't be explained away. If trump gets near the presidency again we're doomed. But there could be someone even worse around the corner.

Wish I could say you're wrong, but I cannot.

[Karl Henning]

The only way to keep Trump out of the White House, is to immure him in the Big House. This would also be a deterrent to the the lesser autocrat wannabes. But dare one hope for it?

Opinion: Garland's caution is an asset when it comes to holding Trump accountable

By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Columnist

Yesterday at 9:00 a.m. EST

Two speeches last week, one from President Biden, the other from Attorney General Merrick Garland, should be reassuring to those who want justice and accountability for the violent events of Jan. 6, 2021 — and Donald Trump's efforts to stage a coup.

But the remarks were reassuring in different ways. And not everyone who welcomed Biden's direct and eloquent indictment of Trump and his apologists within the Republican Party felt as warmly about Garland's studiously restrained promise to "follow the facts — not an agenda or an assumption."

The stark differences in tone and content can be explained straightforwardly: Biden's tasks are, by the broadest definition, political. Garland's task is precisely to keep politics out of prosecutorial decisions.

Biden's bracing speech from the site of the attack showed he understands that he had no alternative but to confront, publicly and forcefully, the metastasizing anti-democratic movement ignited by Trump's lies about the 2020 election.

And this week in Atlanta, both Biden and Vice President Harris will speak out for federal legislation to counter one of the dangerous outgrowths of that movement: the attack on voting rights in many Republican-led states.

Garland's responsibilities are structurally more complicated because he has both a policy role and a prosecutorial function.

In his speech, Garland was forceful on policy. He detailed the ongoing attacks on the right to vote and how Supreme Court decisions had "drastically weakened" the Justice Department's ability to contain them. It was "essential," Garland argued, "that Congress act to give the department the powers we need to ensure that every eligible voter can cast a vote that counts."

But when it comes to the possibility of prosecuting Trump, we should welcome the fact that Garland is not talking about what, if anything, he is doing. Recall that progressives and Democrats were rightly enraged in 2019 when then-Attorney General William P. Barr publicly distorted the findings of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's inquiry and quickly dismissed the prospect of prosecuting Trump.

They were also angry when then-FBI Director James B. Comey, in announcing his 2016 decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton in connection with her use of a private email server, also (inappropriately) chose to go on and on about the case. He criticized Clinton, during the presidential campaign, for being "extremely careless" and called her use of a private server "especially concerning."

Comey's job in the Clinton case was in law enforcement, not commentary. The same is true of Garland where Trump is concerned. Yes, the attorney general could announce that he is investigating Trump — if he is. But given how extraordinary indicting a former president would be, are we not better off with the standard Garland articulated? "We will and we must speak," he said, "through our work."

Nonetheless, Garland does have to take seriously not only that Trump clearly abused his power but also that he might have done so in a criminal way. Writing in The Post last August, legal scholars Laurence H. Tribe, Barbara McQuade and Joyce White Vance itemized potential crimes Trump may have committed in the course of his efforts to overturn the election.

They included defrauding the United States by interfering with governmental functions, obstruction of an official proceeding, racketeering, inciting insurrection and seditious conspiracy. Trump might also have violated the federal voter fraud statute and coerced federal employees to violate the Hatch Act, which limits the political activities of civil servants.

In deciding what to do about Trump's offenses, Garland confronts two concerns that are legitimate — and in tension. There is genuine worry about what it would mean for the U.S. democratic system if a former president were indicted by the administration of his successor — a successor who had defeated him at the polls. But ex-presidents, like everyone else, need to be held accountable for crimes.

In a balancing test, accountability should prevail, and we should remember that it's Republicans who, in opposing Trump's impeachment, argued that he could face criminal indictment after he left office.

"We have a criminal justice system in this country," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said last February. "We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one."

My hope is that Garland takes the words of the man who unfairly blocked his way to the Supreme Court seriously and investigates whether Trump violated the law. Similarly, the House investigators into the events of Jan. 6 should make criminal referrals to the Justice Department if they find evidence that Trump broke federal statutes.

But if Trump is to be indicted, we are better off with an attorney general who is widely seen as cautious, not reckless. Garland is committed to the idea that "there cannot be different rules depending on one's political party or affiliation ... different rules for friends and foes ... different rules for the powerful and the powerless." When you think about it, that's the antithesis of Trumpism.

[BasilValentine]

In addition to the Justice Dept and the AG of NY, the AG of Georgia could and should put him away for crimes we've all heard recordings of him committing.

[Karl Henning]

In addition to the Justice Dept and the AG of NY, the AG of Georgia could and should put him away for crimes we've all heard recordings of him committing.

True, too.

[Herman]

Opinion: The smoking gun that Liz Cheney is looking for on Trump comes into view


Some comments from Cheney herself — and clarification I've now obtained from a Cheney spokesman — shed new light on where this is going. The short version: It's likely the committee will explore recommending changes to federal law to further clarify that obstructing the electoral count in Congress is a crime subject to stiff penalties.

This is an idea worth considering. It would be another step toward securing our political system against a future Jan. 6. It would raise the question of whether Republicans would support such a move.

The answer to this question is pretty clear, way in advance.
If Trump were to be barred from political office the J6 crowd would be furious and political violence would be a feature of American life for many years to come.
Many of these people are armed to the gills and they are addicted to this notion that Trump will lead them (back) to an all-white America.
By and large this is a matter of mental issues, many of these people are constitutionally aggrieved and nothing will satisfy them. It's what Goebbels termed Totale Krieg. An endless war against perceived wrongs, so as never having to face that ugly mirror.
I suspect this is what has been giving Merrick Garland and Biden paws thus far.

[Fëanor]

The answer to this question is pretty clear, way in advance.
If Trump were to be barred from political office the J6 crowd would be furious and political violence would be a feature of American life for many years to come.
Many of these people are armed to the gills and they are addicted to this notion that Trump will lead them (back) to an all-white America.
By and large this is a matter of mental issues, many of these people are constitutionally aggrieved and nothing will satisfy them. It's what Goebbels termed Totale Krieg. An endless war against perceived wrongs, so as never having to face that ugly mirror.
I suspect this is what has been giving Merrick Garland and Biden paws thus far.

I think the House investigation will be stretched out past the '22 election after which, with Republicans almost certainly regaining control of House and Senate, it will be shut down as a "witch hunt".  There is no chance such new legislation could be passed.

Speaking of new laws, as I hear state legislatures are busy passing them to restrict voting options and penalizing election officials who don't enforce the new measures.  Also, honest Republicans such as the Georgia State Secretary who refused overturn valid '02 election results are being forced from office.  Who watched CNN's Special Report by Fareed Zakaria last Sunday?

Americans need wake up to the fact that their Federal Government is simply not democratic, neither in effect nor by intent of the US Constitution.  It's been a long time since Republicans actually had a nation-wide popular majority.  Constitutional defects include the Senate by state rather than population, the Electoral College given winner-take all in most stated, but most all partisan State control of the Districts, voter registration, and the election process.  Major Constitutional changes would be necessary but that is effectively impossible:  this means the American democracy is buggered.  Sorry, guys.

[T. D.]

I think the House investigation will be stretched out past the '22 election after which, with Republicans almost certainly regaining control of House and Senate, it will be shut down as a "witch hunt".  There is no chance such new legislation could be passed.

Speaking of new laws, as I hear state legislatures are busy passing them to restrict voting options and penalizing election officials who don't enforce the new measures.  Also, honest Republicans such as the Georgia State Secretary who refused overturn valid '02 election results are being forced from office.  Who watched CNN's Special Report by Fareed Zakaria last Sunday?

Americans need wake up to the fact that their Federal Government is simply not democratic, neither in effect nor by intent of the US Constitution.  It's been a long time since Republicans actually had a nation-wide popular majority.  Constitutional defects include the Senate by state rather than population, the Electoral College given winner-take all in most stated, but most all partisan State control of the Districts, voter registration, and the election process.  Major Constitutional changes would be necessary but that is effectively impossible:  this means the American democracy is buggered.  Sorry, guys.

You're pretty much spot on.

And the Democrats' silly bickering and infighting continues:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/biden-calls-on-senate-to-change-rules-to-pass-voting-rights-bill

Biden Demands Voting-Rights Action as Allies Rip 'Empty Gesture'

President Joe Biden called on the U.S. Senate to change its rules to allow a simple majority to pass voting rights legislation, saying in Atlanta that GOP-backed state laws threaten democracy.

"The threat to our democracy so grave, we must find a way to pass these voting rights bill, debate them, vote," Biden said Tuesday at Morehouse College, after visiting the crypt of Martin Luther King Jr. and the church where he was a pastor, Ebenezer Baptist. "Let the majority prevail."

His visit came amid a growing backlash from voting-rights advocates who accused the president of leaving the issue on the back burner until now to focus on his economic agenda. Some activists released an open letter dismissing his appearance as "an empty gesture, without concrete action," while the Democratic Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams skipped events Tuesday with Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.
...

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

Americans need wake up to the fact that their Federal Government is simply not democratic, neither in effect nor by intent of the US Constitution.  It's been a long time since Republicans actually had a nation-wide popular majority.  Constitutional defects include the Senate by state rather than population, the Electoral College given winner-take all in most stated, but most all partisan State control of the Districts, voter registration, and the election process.  Major Constitutional changes would be necessary but that is effectively impossible:  this means the American democracy is buggered.  Sorry, guys.

It is not quite simple like that.
Also, upper legislative chambers in a majority of federal  nations are represented by regional units.

[Fëanor]

...
Americans need wake up to the fact that their Federal Government is simply not democratic, neither in effect nor by intent of the US Constitution.  It's been a long time since Republicans actually had a nation-wide popular majority.  Constitutional defects include the Senate by state rather than population, the Electoral College given winner-take all in most stated, but most all partisan State control of the Districts, voter registration, and the election process.  Major Constitutional changes would be necessary but that is effectively impossible:  this means the American democracy is buggered.  Sorry, guys.

It is not quite simple like that.
Also, upper legislative chambers in a majority of federal  nations are represented by regional units.

Well close enough, but I understand why many Americans would be taken aback given the chauvinistic public education they received and likely continue to receive.

To say "the United States is a republic not a democracy", as I heard hundreds of time is true but not self-justifying.  It was a mistake not to make the Federal government reflect nation-wide popular choice.  Granted, there were historical reasons for this when the Constitution was framed.

One reason was that things like education, health care, and infrastructure were not then as important as they are today.  You will note that the USA within just a 2-3 decades got into Federal-state disputes regarding banking and roads.

But the large reason for the Constitutional flaw was American colonies had be separately and haphazardly found, and were for a long time internally self-governing.  Each colony had developed its own elites and powers-that-be that were jealous of their independent powers, and self-interestedly unwilling to give up their power to a central government.

Regarding upper chambers, yes, some places have them based on regional representation.  Canada is nominally like this, but the size of regional representations in our case is roughly proportional to population size.  As for the USA, it's grotesque that Wyoming has the two Senate seats the same as California with 65x the population.

[Karl Henning]

Head of Oath Keepers militia group charged with seditious conspiracy in Jan. 6 Capitol attack

[Karl Henning]

Opinion: Distinguished pol of the week: Merrick Garland's boldest move yet

By Jennifer Rubin
Columnist

Today at 7:45 a.m. EST

Attorney General Merrick Garland has faced tough criticism over his perceived timidity. Those concerns were wrong as he made clear this past week.

The Justice Department revealed massive indictments of members of the Oath Keepers, a far-right extremist group, for their participation in the Jan. 6 insurrection. A total of 19 individuals have been charged with "corruptly obstructing an official proceeding," referring to Congress's tabulation of electoral votes. Eleven of them also face charges of seditious conspiracy, which can carry a penalty of up to 20 years in prison, as well as other charges, such as preventing an officer from performing his duties and tampering with official documents.

Both the seditious conspiracy and the obstruction charges dramatically ratchet up of the investigation. It also poses a serious threat to former president Donald Trump and his top cronies.

The seditious conspiracy charge alleges that Oath Keeper founder and leader Elmer Stewart Rhodes III "conspired with his co-defendants and others to oppose by force the execution of the laws governing the transfer of presidential power by Jan. 20, 2021." The purpose of the conspiracy, the indictment alleges, was to prevent by force "the lawful transfer of presidential power. ... in an effort to prevent, hinder and delay the certification of the electoral college vote."

The complaint enumerates a long list of actions that bolster the conspiracy charges, including encrypted communications, gathering and transporting weapons, recruiting and training teams, and using social media to communicate with co-conspirators. Its description of the group's accumulated arsenal and paramilitary attack removes any doubt this was some nonviolent protest.

Most of the Oath Keepers have pleaded not guilty to the obstruction charges. Two have pleaded guilty and are cooperating with investigators. Rhodes has repeatedly denied wrongdoing.

The seriousness of the crimes alleged and the substantial criminal penalties involved would be news enough. But there are four other reasons they matter, especially for Trump, his cronies and any members of Congress who may have been implicated in the plot to prevent Joe Biden from assuming the presidency.

First, and most importantly, this is the first time the Justice Department has identified the assault on the Capitol as sedition. Trump apologists had long argued that this was not a "coup" or effort to upset the government. The indictment argues otherwise. Seeking to disrupt the counting of the electoral votes is, if the indictment holds, sedition. And conspiracy to commit that crime is a serious offense entailing long prison terms. By invoking that charge against coup plotters, Garland makes clear he is following up the chain and will look at actions preceding Jan. 6.

Second, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies elected officials from holding federal office if they "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." Federal law also states that "whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

The facts alleged in the seditious conspiracy charge — the attempt to prevent the lawful transfer of power — certainly relate to Section 3. While the mechanism for enforcing this is uncertain, the Justice Department has moved into territory in which Trump and congressional allies could be disqualified from office. One can imagine a flood of lawsuits and proposals for Congress to disqualify those shown to be part of the conspiracy.

Third, the indictment plainly lays out a legal avenue for indicting Trump and his cronies should the facts warrant. Trump's involvement in the plot to storm the Capitol — including his incitement, his failure to halt it once underway and any attempts by aides to coordinate with the Oath Keepers — could implicate him in the seditious conspiracy. Prosecutors would need to show he made an agreement with at least some conspirators, although it would not be necessary to prove he conspired directly with the Oath Keepers.

Fourth, even more threatening to Trump is the indictment's charge of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, which does not require prosecutors to prove use of force or violence. The law applies to anyone whoever "corruptly . . . otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so." The interference with the counting of the electoral college votes, in the eyes of the Justice Department, amounts to corruptly obstructing an official proceeding. This might include nonviolent acts such as propounding the "big lie," pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject electoral votes, cajoling the Justice Department to discredit the election and implicitly threatening Brad Raffensperger, Georgia's secretary of state, if he did not "find" enough votes to hand the state to Trump.

The indictment is an aggressive and bold step forward that, based on already available evidence, might snare Trump. Of course, a prosecutor would have to prove all elements beyond a reasonable doubt. With such serious charges pending against the Oath Keepers, the chance to "flip" them and reveal higher-ups involved in the plot increases substantially.

For staying true to his word to follow the facts and elevating the seriousness of the charges, we can say, well done Mr. Attorney General.

[greg]

Fascinating data for anyone who might be interested.
(15k men and 3k women surveyed)





https://knowingless.com/2021/10/26/political-compass-fetishes/amp/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaEHL3LPaf8



edit:
Also of note:

Surprisingly, I found basically no correlation with age and location on the graph (except for maybe liblefts being younger if you squint). This makes me feel slightly unsettled, as I had a lot of weight on "political orientation is stratified by age."

[Karl Henning]

House Jan. 6 committee subpoenas Giuliani, Sidney Powell

[Herman]

That fetish graph scores pretty high on the list of most trivial and yet disgusting things posted by the usual suspect.

[greg]

That fetish graph scores pretty high on the list of most trivial and yet disgusting things posted by the usual suspect.

Of course most of them are disgusting.
But I see you have no curiosity about the connection between psychology and politics.
It's a strong inner driving force underneath, guiding the directions taken by people in politics.
What's trivial are the insignificant daily news of random politicians that people will forget about a month from now.
But both are fine.

[Daverz]

That fetish graph scores pretty high on the list of most trivial and yet disgusting things posted by the usual suspect.

Of course the graph is complete bullshit.

[Herman]

Of course the graph is complete bullshit.

that was my main objection, which is why I said 'trivial'.

[SimonNZ]

Wait...choking and asphyxiation isn't a famously politically and economically centrist desire?

Women don't really have a fetish for "creepy crawlies"?


Greg: your credulousness for this utterly made up  infantile rubbish betrays a complete lack of exposure to the real world and real people. Displaying that ignorance should embarrass you.