I’m pretty sure based on the structure of the deal between the Onion and the Connecticut families this basically guarantees that the families (and any other creditors I guess) take home less money. Given the amount of money that they’re owed from the Connecticut judgement those families are basically 95% of the beneficiaries of this sale, and the original deal with the Onion had them giving up a huge chunk of what they could be entitled to in order to make sure that the Texas families (who were victimized in the same way but weren’t part of the same suit and got a much lower reward from a Texas court) got $100,000 more than they would have under the next-best offer. So in order for this to end up being a gain the next-best bid would need to either be so high that giving up $1.5 billion wouldn’t be enough to exceed what the Texas families would get, or else it gives the other bidder the ability to cut their bid to basically nothing and in turn reduce the amount that the Connecticut families forgo and the amount the Texas families take home by however much they want.

This is all amateur analysis, but short of rejecting the Connecticut/Onion bid outright for some reason I don’t think there’s any way that this doesn’t put the families in a worse spot. Instead whoever is behind the FUAS bid (widely believed to be Jones’s allies) may get to decide how much to screw the families over.

Edit to fix some numbers. What’s $1,498.5 billion between friends?

I mean, it sounds like they did ask how much it would cost, he just bulldozed through the question instead of seriously engaging with it and legacy media is too chickenshit to report it as “Trump apathetic about costs of deportation plan” or “Mass Deportation to Cost Billions Despite Trump’s Claims” because putting the things he says in context makes him sound like the madman he is and apparently truth is no longer sufficient defense from defamation.

I hadn’t thought about it in those terms, but this makes a lot of sense. Especially in a 2-party system the election is inevitably going to be a vibe check on the status quo as much as it is a specific election focusing on specific candidates and policies. I’d like to look more closely at the margins to get a feel for whether the Republicans could have run a ham sandwich and still been successful as opposed to the specific appeal of Trumpism.

Not that that changes how rough the next 4 years are going to get for a lot of people.

I would fucking love to throw that man in prison for one of his dozens of crimes, but I also recognize that I don’t have the power to do that. I do have some small amount of power over whether or not he goes into the fucking white house.

Yeah, though in his (incredibly lukewarm) defense he seemed more interested in the batshit crazy aliens-control-the-government theories than the more pedestrian conservative stuff, although the line between the two has greatly narrowed over the years.

Honestly I feel like trying to find the root of his bullshit and how specifically it’s so radically off-base is actually kind of an important part of the project Otherwise the follower crowd will just claim that he’s not being given a fair shake, when he was obviously talking about (insert a brief and misleading explanation of the circle thing that actually does try to make it make sense).

That’s what the whole narrative is built on, after al I’ll.

I mean, if you want to trace it back that far you’re talking about the bronze age Canaanites, and arguably through them the Phonecians and Carthaginians would be better successors than the Israelites. If that’s the case then the land should either be under Tunisian administration (for maximum cultural continuity after the fall of Carthage during the Punic wars) or either Turkey or Italy for political continuity through right of successive conquests. Or maybe we want to go with one of the theories about just how far afield the Phonecian diaspora went and consider the state of Utah their most direct modern descendent.

The ancient history of the levant is fascinating, but in the context of the current conflict over the nation of Israel it is relevant only in that it is a major part of Israeli nationalist mythmaking. If you want to actually trace who lived in the region thousands of years ago and where they ended up to determine who the “rightful” government should be you’re going to end up in some really goofy places unless you already know what answer you want to get and are seeking justification rather than illumination. Hell, nationalism as a concept only dates back a few hundred years, and before then you’re arguing about the competing claims of kings and empires through descent, conquest, oaths of fealty, and whatever else. Who ruled/owned/managed your land and who you were as a people were far less connected, and using that as a justification for modern government actions honestly sounds like they’re out of actual justifications. It’s just Putin ranting to Tucker Carlson about medieval maps for two hours while Russian troops shell Ukrainian cities.

How are you holding them accountable when one of them is still going to be in power? You’re just sacrificing one of the few concrete mechanisms you have to actually make things better. Yeah, a Harris victory doesn’t mean immediate victory in the fight against this atrocity, but a Trump election does mean defeat.

I’m sympathetic to the concept, but I think that the advantages that organized parties have in terms of coordination (e.g. people with broadly similar values and policy goals choosing one candidate to represent those goals to avoid splitting the vote and seeing someone antithetical to those shared goals elected) are sufficiently strong that you would just see the current primaries replaced immediately by a primary process run completely independent of government oversight and resources. I can’t imagine that being good from a perspective of electoral legitimacy or reducing the influence of money in politics.

A police report would mark a diversion from the usual pattern of these things where Trump surrogates talk a big game about the massive conspiriacies against them (and therefore against You, the hypothetical American voter) to the media, but if they ever end up in front of a court or a police report or something where lying may have actual consequences they back off hard. How many times did we hear about all the mountains of evidence they had of voter fraud in 2020, and how many of the resulting court cases include those same lawyers specifically saying “we do not allege voter fraud” when the judge asks about it.

Do you think he actively avoids those, or was this just the most convenient seat at the time?

Protesting and striking are valuable ways of organizing and fighting for change outside of the broken electoral system, but that isn’t incompatible with using the power afforded to us through the electoral system to avoid the additional damage of a Trump presidency.

Or would you prefer to continue protesting and striking while the president has openly laughed about illegally firing striking workers and backed the use of even more police violence against protestors? Have we really forgotten 2020 so quickly?