Saturday’s Forum
Comments
Categories
Tags
35 responses to “Saturday’s Forum”
-
From the substrack of a person who liked my furry art on BlueSky*, we have the story of the BIA (executive branch immigration “judges”) publishing opinions guiding their judges to explicitly ignore the 9th circuit.
https://samsramblingss.substack.com/p/call-it-what-you-will-its-not-good
They paid lip service to the Ninth’s authority:
We recognize and respect that we are generally required to follow circuit court precedent in the circuit in which a case arises.
But here’s what the Ninth Circuit said:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in whose jurisdiction this case arises, has held that in adjudicating a motion to reopen, Immigration Judges and the BIA must accept as true facts stated in an affidavit unless the Immigration Judge or the BIA finds those facts “inherently unbelievable.”
And here’s what the BIA said:
In reviewing affidavits, declarations, or written statements of fact in support of a motion to reopen, Immigration Judges and the BIA are not required to accept as true facts set forth by the respondent, even when those statements are not inherently unbelievable.
Let’s not sugarcoat this. The Executive Branch (BIA) agrees that there is a clear rule from Judicial Branch (Ninth Circuit). But it instructs its officials to ignore the rule.
A small part of the march towards fascism, decline in the rule of law, and the white nationalist deportation policy.
This is less teeing up a test case (they could appeal the 9th circuit decision to the Supreme Court), and more just open defiance.
——
*: he also does a lot of work with immigration, and has a substack explaining various cases and decisions in immigration law. -
I’ve pointed out that Trump’s bankruptcies, business collapses, etc follow a pattern, and the next to last stage is him turning on his partners while trying to tear everything down. I think the Miller appointment is the beginning of his process. The choice makes no sense if his goal is to work with Republicans, who despise Miller, but total sense if his goal is to show those backstabbing traitors who’s boss.
-
Robert Hubbell has thoughts:
Napoleon Bonaparte is credited with saying, “Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself.” Or it could have been Yogi Berra. Regardless of the maxim’s origin, there is wisdom in allowing your opponent to self-destruct. With the appointment of Stephen Miller as White House Chief of Staff, Trump took a decisive step toward self-destruction of the Republican Party—which may have been his goal all along.
Miller’s appointment encapsulates the Trump administration’s inability to comprehend the magnitude and meaning of the 2026 Blue Tsunami. At its core, the generational repudiation of Trump is directly traceable to policies promoted by Stephen Miller: mass deportations, ICE thuggery, deployment of the National Guard, xenophobic immigration policies, the illegal war against Iran, the extrajudicial killings of suspected drug smugglers in international waters, and the implementation of a foreign policy that asserts, “We have more planes and guns than you, so we’ll do whatever we want.” See generally, The Hill, Democrats denounce Donald Trump’s promotion of Stephen Miller
The only rational response by a political party interested in its survival would be to abandon the policies that have brought it to the brink of extinction. But Trump lacks the skills necessary to make adjustments. Instead, his one-trick playbook mandates that he double down on losing policies by attacking the very people needed to save the Republican Party. See WSJ, White House Warns Conservative Groups It Is ‘Monitoring’ Their Statements.
Never interfere with an opponent who is in the process of destroying himself.
The appointment of Stephen Miller to replace Susie Wiles sends an unmistakable message to Democrats that the second two years of Trump’s second term will be more of the same. Miller’s appointment spares Democrats the internal debate over how the new Democratic majority should approach the Trump administration. See WSJ, Trump Signals Combative Next Two Years With Elevation of Stephen Miller
Etc., etc.
-
The appointment of Stephen Miller to replace Susie Wiles sends an unmistakable message to Democrats
While I agree with Hubbell that Dems should take note, I don’t think they are the target of Trump’s message. It’s for Republicans. “You say I did something wrong?! That this is my fault?! F*ck you losers!!! I’m going to do twice as much of it.
I’m defeat Trump has always turned on his partners in a blind rage
-
Frankly the Miller appointment will make it easier for R’s to abandon the felon. If he had tacked to the center, R’s could point to that and continued to support him. But Miller shows that the admin policy will be more of the same that voters rejected giving R’s an excuse to abandon trump.
This will also hurt Rubio and Vance’s chances in 28 and boost DeSantis and other possibles.
-
-
-
Before the election, I wrote that I was interested in the polling vs prediction market debate.
Well, the NY Times put out an article yesterday and discussed this in depth.
How Accurate Were Prediction Markets at Picking Midterm Winners?
Some comments and conclusions:
An analysis by The New York Times, using statistical methods, found that for most of the midterm race, prediction markets performed no better than election forecasts, which produce odds using polling and other indicators instead of betting activity. But as Election Day neared, prediction markets performed better as forecasts and polling became stale.
Kalshi and Polymarket, being businesses, claim that they are more accurate.
Kalshi and Polymarket are now seeking to use the results from Election Day to prove that they offer public value as a reliable predictor.
“Polymarket was right,” the company crowed on social media on Wednesday.
“Over the last few months, the people showed up on Kalshi to tell the world what they were going to do,” Tarek Mansour, the chief executive of Kalshi, posted on Wednesday. “Last night, the megaphone was passed to them.”
The NYT believes otherwise:
The Times found, however, that the odds produced by prediction markets over the last three months before the midterms were no more accurate than those from prominent election forecasts produced by data wonks like Nate Silver, who created Silver Bulletin, an election forecast and newsletter.
While the odds on prediction markets became more accurate in the days before Election Day, earlier betting activity produced odds that were less confident about the winner than some forecasts and were frequently less accurate.
Others point out the interactive dependency from both sides.
“The markets are downstream of all those other signals,” said Flip Pidot, chief business officer at High Roller Technologies, an online gaming and prediction markets company. “All the polls, all the forecasters, all the commentary, all the early-vote data, all the real-time data coming out — that all gets fed into the market.”
…
Mr. Silver, the forecaster behind Silver Bulletin, said the accuracy of prediction markets was a direct result of work by pollsters and forecasters, who create the information that bettors have mostly relied on.“In a world where these models didn’t exist, or if the models kept their forecast private, I don’t think the prediction markets would be as accurate,” he said in an emailed statement. “The prices markets wound up with on Tuesday morning, we often had days to weeks sooner,” he added.
-
My completely unscientific belief as to why prediction markets were so accurate the last three weeks is that insiders used it to make bank; some probably at the expense of their own employers.
Example: If you were working on Paxton’s campaign and had access to internal polls three weeks out that showed him losing by more than 6-7 points and the poll trend wasn’t moving in your favor, why not drop $1000 on Kalshi when Talarico is trading at 53%. Damn easy way to double your money. And if you have that information, are you going to keep it quiet, or are you going to tell some close friends you trust?
We already know Trump administration officials were trading the stock market on information in regards to the war and tariffs. Why not on Kalshi and Polymarket?
I’m still amused that it’s called “trading” and not “betting”, cuz that’s what it is.
-
My completely unscientific belief as to why prediction markets were so accurate the last three weeks is that insiders used it to make bank; some probably at the expense of their own employers.
…….
We already know Trump administration officials were trading the stock market on information in regards to the war and tariffs. Why not on Kalshi and Polymarket?I think you’re exactly right.
Vegas sport betting lines are set by smart people, most of whom do the research, consider all available information (both public and insider), and set the odds. And those lines are usually on point. So, I expect outfits like Kalshi and Polymarket to get better and better with experience.
-
-
-
-
Replaced by whom?
These are internal machinations, and to my knowledge no one appears to be circling to topple him. There’s plenty of time between now and January, so I suppose it’s possible, but I wouldn’t bank on it–at least not as things currently stand.
And I say this as someone who does not care for Schumer as a leader. I think he’s a poor communicator and too insider-y. He continues to seem to think “oh, okay, now we’re back to normal” and then reverts to pre-Trump era behavior, which just. doesn’t. cut. it.
But I don’t see anyone laying the groundwork to challenge him, and that shouldn’t be surprising, the Senate in particular is an institution of relationships.
-
Schumer is really good at recruiting candidates, this blowout was largely the result of his ability to cajole the right people to run.
(Even though he did also recruit a few duds such as Maine and Michigan).
Bear in mind too that Trump is still Prez and the D’s have fewer than 67 senators. Getting anything done needs either Trump’s acceptance or veto overrides. So total confrontation is less than optimal.
-
Exactly. And it’s pretty much what I said Thursday morning when this came up.
I’ve had my head chewed off by friends who are INSISTING that both Schumer and Jeffries must go.
Barring something earth-shaking (illness, injury, etc.), I don’t see it happening. I’ve tried delicately pointing out that both have been in leadership for years, and have established relationships. I’ve noted that the new members coming in are unlikely to turn on those who got them there (with the exception of those who campaigned on not supporting them in leadership, but those are limited and with the current margins, a few–like the new Senator from Kansas–can afford to pull off). I’ve also noted that this isn’t the time to throw someone untested into leadership to see how effective they are at cat-herding and coalition building.
All of it is falling on deaf/enraged ears.
-
-
-
This leaves a leadership vacuum in the Democratic party which presidential hopefuls like Ossoff, Newsom, Pritzker, Beshear, Buttigieg and maybe AOC, will try to fill. Who will win the battle of the Sunday morning shows? Who will be the podcast darling?
Ossoff probably can’t go full 2028 because he just promised he wouldn’t do that. Newsom, Buttigieg and AOC are all good communicators, but Newsom has a very tough primary map, Buttigieg is loved by people who also love Rachel Maddow and AOC still reads as too young.
-
-
-
I didn’t mean an abstract “who could do this,” I mean literally, from the names in the Democratic Senate Caucus, who do you think has the desire and crucially–the support–and will challenge Schumer for the role?
Pontificating and abstract rumination are fine, that’s all a part of politics. However, unless someone in the Senate actually wants the job and has the support to upend Schumer’s backing, I think it’s unlikely.
-
-
-
I don’t see anyone challenging either. As @Jen @golem8eight point out no one is organizing against Schumer and the Dem margin in the House is so large that even if the far leftists moved against him, Jeffries could still reach 218.
The reality of a large majority is that it weakens the power of factions that comprise it, while at the same time allowing factions to oppose the majority, but not hinder the legislative plan.
-
-
-
I’m not sure that picking Miller had much policy intention behind it, I think he’s just the last man standing. Trump has scared off anyone competent, his inner circle is a semi-circle, and no one but a lunatic would join the administration at this point. There’s booking passage on the Titanic, then there’s boarding the Titanic after it’s hit the iceberg (Elon Musk and David Ellison) and now we’re at the point where the stern is in the air, the band is in the water and that bitch Rose has told Leo there’s no room for him on the plank. Anyone signing on at this point is either a bold grifter or a moron.
-
I think part of the Schumer/Jefferies hate is that people see them as King of the Senate and King of the House, setting policies and getting people to march forward in unison. That is not true in the Senate no matter who controls it, and is only true in this Republican House because of the legacy of Gingrich taking massive amounts of power upon himself. Despite that, Republican Speakers were routinely forced out until Johnson knelt down in front of Trump and said, “I will wield this power only in your service”.
I suspect their colleagues who are voting them into position view the whole thing quite differently
-
I don’t know what is real anymore…is the President trolling us, or is this real?
He’s asked the President/CEO of the UFC to be press secretary?
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mzqkkhztc22p
This is him trolling, right?
-
-
Why am I not surprised?
UFC’s Dana White says criticism for physical altercation with wife ‘100% warranted’
-
-
-
Of course, the whole thing is likely a mix-up. Trump immediately assumed “Dana White” was the UFC dude, and not the qualified Black woman who was apparently the one suggested.
-
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
