I'll be writing about this for NR, but I will lay the Los Angeles situation out here flatly. Pratt didn't lose because of fraud. Pratt lost because, just like Chicago, it's an 80/20 Democratic city. In fact, he seems to have placed exactly where was in the final polls.
The real scandal is what's legal: with a 100% mail-in system, an endless window for ballot counting and legal mechanisms for unions and organizers to harvest (and later "cure") ballots, California's system is a purpose-built black box designed to fuel paranoia. And for no other purpose than that it allows Democratic intra-party battles to become a test of organizing strength for NGOs and unions.
People are right to be angry about the system. But even the way the votes are being counted now makes perfect (albeit disgusting) sense without recourse to claims of "fraud."
Trump tells @annmarie the idea of the gov't owning AI companies excites him, that the specific AI companies he's interested in the gov't owning are all of them, that his economic views aren't far from Bernie's, and that Bernie voters are Trump voters.
It’s not rocket science, but it’s also not necessary.
As a Turk, I find the whole campaign rather performative and a distraction that serves nobody except the Erdoğan regime. Languages have their own names for countries. In English, it’s Germany, not Deutschland; Greece, not Hellas; Japan, not Nippon. We Turks say Almanya, Yunanistan, and Japonya without losing any sleep over it.
The only somewhat comparable case I can think of is insisting that English speakers should say "Farsi" instead of "Persian," which, in my opinion, is equally ridiculous.
PICARD: Data, shields up
DATA: Brilliant! Shields can reduce damage we sustain. Not immunity. Not hubris. Just prudence. It's not precaution—it's strategy.
[camera shakes]
WORF: HULL BREACHES ON NINE DECKS
DATA: Here's what happened: you told me to raise shields, and I didn't
A thread on the 50 best fortifications to go and visit in the world according to me. They are all fun for at least one in the family. They are listed in reverse rank order as determined by how much fun, unique and awesome they are.
As other economists have shown, Gabriel Zucman's tax and inequality data is wildly misleading. He turns seemingly every methodological dial to claim that inequality has soared and high-earner taxes have collapsed.
In his own data, virtually the ENTIRE drop in high-income taxes come from Zucman's highly unorthodox assumptions about the incidence of the corporate tax - which he claims cost the top 1% of earners 29% (!) of their income in 1951, and yet now costs them 6%.
And this questionable data accounts for his ENTIRE claimed "drop" in higher-earner taxes.
You see - on the income tax side - Zucman's own data shows that the average individual income tax paid by the rich has RISEN - not fallen - since the 1950s.
See https://t.co/7MV77qBWUe then click on "Table 2: Distributional series," and navigate to tab TG2b, column T for income taxes (and column U for corporate taxes)
As much as Zucman builds up 1950s income tax rates, almost no one actually paid 91% tax rates - or even touched a tax bracket over 50%. And that's why actual income tax revenues - including income tax rates paid by the rich - were *lower* in the 1950s than today.
Zucman's rhetoric is peddling a "tax the rich" utopia of the 1940s-1960s that his own data shows did not exist.
We just finished a focus group of Trump voters in Louisiana and nearly the whole group preferred Rubio to JD Vance. I’ve been watching this phenomenon build for a while. We’ll discuss more on the next focus group pod. https://t.co/5Y86g4Iito
@baseballcrank Honestly a bit surprised to see this is still true. When I was a kid growing up in Utah in the 90s, yes, there was rampant jello consumption. These days I hardly see it. But I guess “hardly” is still 2x everywhere else.