Rottcodd

None.

I think that the exact measure of whether or not a war is justified is whether or not people are willing to fight it.

It's very rare for a war to be a direct threat to the people. That's generally only the case in a situation like Gaza, in which the invaders explicitly intend to not only take control of the land, but to kill or drive off the current inhabitants.

As a general rule, the goal is simply to assume control over the government, as is the case in Ukraine.

So the war is generally not fought to protect and/or serve the interests of the people directly, but to protect and/or serve the interests of the ruling class. And rather obviously, the ruling class has a vested interest in the people fighting to protect them and/or serve their interests. But the thing is that the people do not necessarily share that interest.

And that, IMO, is exactly why conscription is always wrong. If the people do not feel a need to protect and/or serve the interests of the rulers, then that's just the way it is. That choice rightly belongs to the people - not to the rulers.

I pessimistically expected that.

If he bowed out and the Dems nominated a halfway decent candidate (which they likely wouldn't do, but that's a different subject), they'd demolish Trump. He'd lose so badly he couldn't even pretend it was fraudulent (though of course he'd claim that anyway, since he has the emotional maturity of a spoiled five-year-old). The race would instantly go from a terrifying risk to a complete rout.

But between Biden's ego and the DNC's determination to stick with a wholly-owned establishment neoliberal hack at all costs - even if it means losing - I expected that they wouldn't take this golden opportunity.

Transparent astroturfing.

The staff is laying a foundation so that when Trump - an arrogant, oblivious nitwit with the attention span of a five-year-old - inevitably comes out of it the obvious loser - they will already have the base primed to believe that that somehow reflects poorly on... Biden.

I don't see any possible way it couldn't. Every official is going to expect a "gratuity" in exchange for approving a contract, and every contractor who expects to succeed is going to go into every deal with the understanding that they're going to be expected to pay a "gratuity" after the deal is finalized.

The upshot of it all can only be wholly institutionalized pay-to-play, with only the ultimately entirely meaningless requirement that the payment has to be deferred instead of up front.

Right. Go back and reread it - that's what I said.

I'm fully aware that the DNC is under no legal mandate to operate legitimately or honestly.

And that's rather obviously entirely irrelevant.

In point of fact, if the legal standing of their actions is the only thing that matters, as you imply, then the entire notion that Russia willfully acted to harm them collapses. How could Russia harm them by leaking details of things that are not illegal and therefore (purportedly) entirely acceptable?

If, on the other hand, we stick with the way that things have been presented by the DNC itself - that Russia willfully acted to bring them harm - then rather obviously even they are taking the position that the legal status of their actions is irrelevant.

Go ahead and pick either one - I don't care. Either there was nothing wrong with their actions, in which case they could not be harmed by having the details of their actions leaked, or they were harmed by the the leak of the details of their actions, in which case their actions were self-evidently judged to be wrong, and the legal standing of them is irrelevant.

Yes - it's pretty much a given, cynically, that a corrupt court is going to rule that corruption is legal.

As I often do, I wonder if this is going to be one of the things that future historians will point to as a notable event in the days leading up to the collapse of the US.

They called it a gratuity to try to divert attention from the bludgeoningly obvious fact that it's just a postdated bribe.

This is what this country has come to. In the face of an ever-growing failure of the government to represent the will of the people because their influence has been bought and paid for by moneyed interests, the Supreme Court is legalizing bribery.

Of course, it's certainly not a coincidence that one of the institutions that's been bought and paid for is the Supreme Court itself.

Literally, officially, it's now entirely legal under federal law for officials to accept and even solicit bribes for specific services rendered, just so long as they do it after, rather than before, the service is rendered.

They aren't even pretending to be a legitimate court of law any more - they're just a rubber-stamping service for the oligarchy.

The Supreme Court basically just ruled that it's perfectly acceptable for officials to accept and even ask for bribes, just so long as they wait a few weeks after the service for which the bribe is meant to pay.

Seriously. That's exactly what this ruling in effect says - that bribes are only bribes if they're paid before the service is rendered, and if they're paid after, that's perfectly fine.

And people still wonder why I'm such a cynic...

So as near as I can tell, the Supreme Court's goal is to create some vague illusion that corruption is not to be tolerated by making it a crime if and only if people with a specific interest in a specific ruling or piece of legislation offer a substantial amount of money or something of equivalent value while clearly communicating their intent to buy the influence of an official and said official then accepts the bribe, clearly announces their intent to act according to the bribe-payer's wishes solely because they've been paid to, then does so.

And in literally ALL other cases, it somehow won't count and will be entirely legal.

Already did, though instead of the bot, I blocked the entire instance.