in New Zealand, where these deaths occurred, I do know there is pretty clear adverse event recording for vaccines. So...if there was some kind of direct causal link, I believe it would probably have come up in this or adverse event analyses elsewhere. but I remain open-minded about it.

One other I knew well, the other was a bit more of a distant relative but my mum knew her.

they were all women in their 90s and all in rest homes. My grandmother had been essentially nonresponsive and noncommunicative for _years_ due to Parkinson's, and I can't imagine the suffering she was going through internally. she'd probably have been better off going even sooner.

I do not really think they died because of the vaccine but knowing 3 people (even in their 90s!) who died w/i 2 weeks seems so improbable that I hesitate to dismiss it as pure coincidence. perhaps there are behavioral mediators involved, idk.

yeah. and first, I'm sorry to have generated some trouble, and I knew it might provoke someone, but it's been something i've been trying to think through!

This despite the health worker (in Eugene!) saying they "personally" believed the evidence did not strongly favor giving it to young kids. The CDC info sheet they gave me supported it, and I thought, if the CDC has not stopped recommending even with RFK's thumb on the scale, it's probably good 🤣

I'm definitely not anti-vax! I got my 2yo a covid vaccine just last week

I have a joke about AI, and it's not that it's artificially intelligent--it's that AI _itself_ wrote it

I also had 3 elderly relatives who died within two weeks of getting a Pfizer jab. For one it was a mercy, the other two not necessarily so.

Oh one now I think about it, and it was severe. I feel pretty bad for her.

0.

USA needs an alternative minimum billionaires tax: 1% wealth tax on wealth over $1B. Wealth well-invested returns in excess of 5% in the long run, so 1% tax on wealth is equivalent to a roughly 20% tax on gains. The wealth tax simplifies tax and and puts a floor on the minimum people can pay.

The experts overplayed their hands and are not neutral players. It is still disappointing to see TN preventing children getting care even if they, their psychiatrists, and their parents are all on board. TN is replacing one dogmatism with another. What about freedom and personal choice?

Some people say the worst part of cosplaying Nazi salutes is the cosplaying, but I think the worst part is the Nazi salutes

So what's the legal deal with this? I thought the law only requires Apple and Google to take tiktok out of the app stores

But if you had somehow got Congress to agree to all that plan, it would probably be easier and much less provocative to exercise 14AS3 just to bar him from running again while not removing from the current term

It is very risky because whether or not SCOTUS would even allow it under 14AS3 would be an open question--so the country would perhaps be uncertain about who their leader is for an extended period while SCOTUS rule on it.

But your question was "at what point should he be removed from office"? Maybe if there's a bipartisan consensus based on a concerted attempt to manipulate the electoral process after finding a way to run again, it would be best for Congress to disqualify him and allow the VP to take his place...

There has never not been a time in this country when people have been legally disenfranchised, not only children and convicts but also ex-cons and all sorts of qualifications. So any move in that direction would have to disenfranchise a substantial number in swing states to really ring alarm bells

But I don't see any meaningful way past the presidential term limit so all the other stuff is moot. SCOTUS could buy the "not self executing" argument again but it would be a new argument because 22A doesn't have an equivalent to S5 of 14A which was instrumental to their opinion on 14A S3.

if I saw he had some plausible path past the Constitutional presidential term limit I would think he might try it. That wouldn't be undemocratic in itself but I'd expect he'd use every means he could to subvert democracy. Depending on how well he'd managed to manipulate the process I'd be worried

The only billionaire who is an _existential_ threat to our future is Sam Altman

Trump himself doesn't respect liberal democratic institutions. So I see the complexity. If I thought democratic institutions would not survive his next 4 years I'd see things differently. But I don't see signs of that and I am confident 2028 election will be about as fair as 2024 and 2020 were.

I value the protection of liberal democracy alongside other values. Preventing a fairly elected individual from taking office is contrary to liberal democracy, both intrinsically, and because it will undermine trust in the electoral system in the future....

I have a sense of engaging in something analogous to Stockholm syndrome here, but although I agree, I think yanking him out of office would be more destabilizing than whatever he is likely to do in the next four years. Maybe that's ultimately the crux between you and I, I'm not sure

Considering wider consequences: S3 prevented slaves states from reasserting white supremacist social orders. That seems higher priority than stopping whatever Trump. even then, after ~4 years, Congress saw fit to pass an amnesty that mostly nullified s3 even in those abominable circumstances!

No, TX is 1/10 of the population, 51% or TX is not nearly as objectionable as 51% of the whole country. Most importantly it is not nearly as destabilizing to the peace, order, and political legitimacy of the federal government.

"for all offices of import" not sure

Imagine someone wins governor of CA or TX and was afterwards invalidated on the grounds they supported their states secession

Those are important offices governing major states but invalidating their elections seems much more ok

...for a normatively acceptable bar I'd look for:
- unambiguous violation of the insurrection clause rather than a contested one that closely divides the electorate
- probably a less senior position where invalidating the result won't lead to ~51% of the electorate losing faith in democracy

Not essentially nullifying, because without s3 it's unclear to me whether they even have the power to bar candidates that the Constitution otherwise permits...