CSotD: Say what?
Skip to comments
Benson’s provokes a double-take, by positing the panic she says that Democrats are in because James Carville said they should stop fighting Voter ID laws. It raises the important question, “Who’s fighting Voter ID laws?”
I’m not crazy about requiring photo ID, because in rural areas, they can be hard to get. You vote in your community, but the nearest motor vehicle department where you can get a driver’s license or non-driving ID may be 40 or 50 miles away with no public transit to get there. But it’s kind of philosophical and I wouldn’t go to the mattresses over it. New Hampshire, one of the 36 states that requires ID at the polls, had record turnout in 2024, and I worked the polls. We didn’t have much idle time.
Laws vary from state to state, but I don’t think it’s a major issue.
Benson’s cartoon was all I’d seen about Carville’s statement, so I looked it up on Ground News and found out why: He said it on his own blog and it was only picked up by Fox and the NY Post, plus a brief pass-along on Mediaite, which skews left but isn’t exactly the DNC’s house organ.
Democrats are against the stringent ID laws of the Save Act, but that’s entirely different. A lot of Republicans are also against that.
We’re going to see a lot of baseless scare tactics between now and November. The actual important question is who is being fooled and who is purposefully lying?
But this is a non-controversy, for whatever reason it’s being promoted.
Juxtaposition of the Day
The Red Scare is a little different, because a good populist campaign could promise all these benefits without using the dreaded S-word. Granted, there are many countries in which “socialism” is understood and not feared, but this isn’t one of them. One of the socialists coasting into office on Mamdani’s coat-tails said some astonishingly stupid things, but I’m not going to say her name because I don’t think very many people more than 30 miles from NYC even knows who she is.
Still, adopting the term is a gift, as once again, we come up against Jonathan Swift’s dictum that “Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.”
Bok feels that only public utilities should be financed by the government, but doesn’t really explain why some things on that list already are or why some others ought not to be. Is it sane to complain about both taxes and potholes? Will the thousands tossed off health insurance or seeing their kids lose both SNAP benefits and school breakfasts be a significant voting factor, or don’t they have photo ID?
Campbell can point out the ways in which the president is not only making profits from trading with gen-you-wine Communists, and could also discuss our Central Government’s acquisition of interest in chip-makers, steel companies and other private industry.
But nobody who frets over the commies under their beds is going to have their opinion changed by reasoning.
And, by the way, Margulies is absolutely right that the computer foul-up in New Jersey is a jaw-dropping present to the obsessive election fraud nonsense being peddled by the Trump administration.
Arguing that none of the races would have been swayed by 400 illegal votes won’t make a difference, because (A) it shouldn’t have happened anyway and (B) math is just another kind of reasoning.
And you can bet that the new governor, Mikie Sherrill, is gonna take the hit despite it having happened on her predecessor’s watch, though the logical question is what other states’ registrations that computer company may have gotten wrong. They say they didn’t screw up at all. And that lettuce company wasn’t at fault either.
Does this mean we should demand women who changed their names at marriage provide both a birth certificate and a marriage license before we let them vote? Funny question to ask in a country where Navajo are being stopped on the street and green card holders are jailed, both accused of being “illegal aliens.”
Logic and documentation are whatever the authorities say they are.
Bok points out that we’re dropping bombs on Iran because they might have been possibly maybe developing nuclear weapons, but we were making a deal with Jared Cushner’s business partners that would allow them to do the same thing, just on the other side of the Persian Gulf.
That is, we were, until Dear Leader felt the blowback and changed terms to make sure his buddy with the bonesaw would back out of the deal, raising the important question, “What deal? I never said there was a deal!”
And then there was the re-imposition of tariffs, which are smashing china worldwide, an accusation coming here from New Zealand, though messing with tariffs will hurt everyone, and certainly American consumers more than others. Hold that thought a moment.
You might remember that the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s earlier Tariff-O-Rama by finding that the Constitution says that’s Congress’s role. However, Dear Leader has discovered a loophole and, as Rowe says, is putting tariffs back on countries through a law that allows him to do that for countries that use forced labor. Sort of. In a manner of speaking.
The thing about tariffs is that, while they will cost exporters some business — which even in justified applications is the point — they have a significant impact on anyone in this country purchasing imported goods. Despite the bafflegab being tossed around, it is the companies importing the products that pay the tariffs, then pass those increased costs on to the American consumer.
As Two Bulls notes, the SCOTUS decision against Trump’s first round of tariffs meant he had to refund $81 billion to the American companies that paid them. But even if they could track down every consumer who purchased a foreign-made clock radio during that period, they don’t seem inclined to pass the refunds along to the people who paid inflated prices.
And if you think the refunds will induce them to lower prices in the name of fairness, please pull the other leg.
Mike Peterson has posted his "Comic Strip of the Day" column every day since 2010. His opinions are his own, but we welcome comments either agreeing or in opposition.
Comments