Opera singer, blogger, lawyer. You can reach me by email at david [at] bluemassgroup [dot] com.

Person #2: 4145 Posts

Recommended: 532 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. Do you have a link (0 Replies)

    for the “would not bring her back to life” comment? Thank you in advance.

  2. Well, (0 Replies)

    I do think that the positions I’ve attributed to Trump are pretty well documented – he’s stated all of them multiple times in the last couple of months. No, there’s nothing substantial on his website outside of immigration. But just because a position isn’t on a candidate’s website doesn’t necessarily mean that attributing it to him is projecting.

  3. Yglesias has written (1 Reply)

    about the commonalities between Trumpism and present-day European far-right parties. What strikes me, and the reason I wrote this, is how neatly much (though not all) of Trumpism lines up not only with those parties, but also with Mussolini’s original version of Fascismo.

  4. Well, (0 Replies)

    to be fair, David Koch in particular gives a lot of money to charity. Here are two examples.

  5. Of course, you may well be right. But... (2 Replies)

    just for fun, let’s take up your 5 reasons Trump won’t win.

    1. Factually, this is correct: Trump has no insider support, and he’s not likely to gain much as time goes on. My question is whether Trump’s money can help make up for that. After all, what is it, exactly, that insider support and endorsements bring? Logistics? GOTV? Trump can buy all that if he does it right.

    2. As I said in the post, I think people are paying more attention this summer than usual, precisely because of the Trump show. Time will tell.

    3. Yes, the field will indeed shrink next year. But Carson and Cruz are polling decently right now, and it’s not inconceivable that they’d go Trump’s way. And many of the other likely dropouts (Graham, Jindal, etc.) have so few supporters that it’s not an issue.

    4. This is a good point – Trump is indeed the beneficiary of one of the greatest free media campaigns in history. The problem is that the media has to talk about something, and the other candidates turn out to be so incredibly dull that it’s hard to imagine what the next shiny object would be. He will, at some point, have to shape something like a platform. But, as I noted in the post, there’s precedent for the mix he seems to be selling.

    5. Also a good point. In fact, I’d say Trump’s high unfavorables are his biggest problem right now. If – and it’s a big “if” – the party can coalesce around “the person who isn’t Donald Trump,” then of course Trump will lose. But let’s say it boils down to a four-man race: Trump, Bush, Rubio, and Kasich. With the “moderates” going to Kasich, and the establishment conservatives split between Bush and Rubio, is it so obvious that Trump doesn’t win?

  6. Why should she hide (0 Replies)

    the fact that potential presidential nominees are seeking her out? That only increases her influence.

  7. Well... (1 Reply)

    I don’t think it’s really fair to compare the bankruptcy bill to the medical device tax. Maybe Warren voted the wrong way on the latter and maybe she didn’t; in either case, it’s a pretty trivial piece of legislation that is not going to make or break Obamacare. The bankruptcy bill, in contrast, hurt a lot of people badly, and continues to do so, with no societal upside whatsoever. (Jobs at MBNA? Please.)

    As for Bork … maybe, maybe not. What’s clear to me is that without Ted Kennedy’s role, Bork would probably have been confirmed. Frankly, I’d say that Kennedy, not Biden, was the sine qua non there. Biden, after all, had initially expressed approval of a possible Justice Bork, and one of Biden’s aides at the time urges that Biden was the very model of restraint and even-handedness during the hearings.

    I do agree that Biden has been a very good VP, and also that he seems unlikely to run.

  8. Couldn't disagree more with this, both in general and on the specific case. (0 Replies)

    Cabinet appointments are one thing. Judicial appointments are quite different IMHO – no presumptions there. And doubleman is exactly right: this wasn’t about “rudeness.”

  9. Nope. (0 Replies)

    I agree 100% with hester on this. It is the job of a Supreme Court (or any other) nominee to prove their qualifications and suitability for the job. No presumption should exist in their favor.

  10. An all-smartphone society (1 Reply)

    is, IMHO, unrealistic for the foreseeable future. There are lots of older people who simply don’t want to use them. The phones are expensive, and the data plans that you have to buy along with them are expensive too. And the expense and logistical nightmare of a government program to give out some sort of stripped-down smartphone so that people can … what, use Uber? … strike me as almost certainly not worth it. Far better, I think, to ensure that multiple options remain available, than to take a purely Randian approach.

  11. If the cell phone lot (1 Reply)

    is filled with Ubers waiting for someone to call them, there won’t be room for actual people waiting to pick up friends and family. The lot at Logan is already close to full at peak landing times.

  12. And even in NYC, (0 Replies)

    the combination of rush hour and rain means it’s nearly impossible to flag down a cab anywhere.

  13. At least in NYC, (2 Replies)

    cabs indeed cruise the streets. There are a lot of them, which is why it’s possible in some parts of Manhattan to reliably flag down a cab when you need one. But it doesn’t work everywhere even in Manhattan, to say nothing of the other boroughs. In Boston, in contrast, there aren’t enough cabs, so the likelihood of finding a cab on the streets is low.

  14. Well, a couple of things. (0 Replies)

    First, on average, I’d imagine that cars for hire spend a lot more time on the road than a typical personal-use car. That would seem to increase the likelihood of incidents causing damage, and perhaps explains why personal insurance policies aren’t supposed to be used on cars for hire. Taxis, Ubers, and other vehicles for hire should (it seems to me) be required to carry insurance well in excess of statutory minimums, which are generally not really adequate even for personal use.

    Second, I have heard anecdotes of people involved in accidents with cars for hire having huge problems getting claims paid because of difficulty identifying the true owner, the insurance carrier, etc. That needs to be researched further and rectified. Perhaps cars for hire should have to file their insurance information with the state which will then make the information publicly searchable. Doesn’t seem unreasonable off the top of my head.

    I’m not sure we’re actually disagreeing.

  15. Largely agree... (1 Reply)

    except on insurance. The problem isn’t insurance fraud, it’s that Uber’s requirements regarding insurance (and the taxi industry’s, for that matter) may be inadequate to cover injuries when a hired car causes damage or injury, or when a passenger in such a car is hurt. That should be a relatively easy problem to fix via regulation, and it’s exactly the kind of problem that requires government intervention because it’s nearly impossible for consumers to inform themselves adequately about it in advance.

  16. Oh, I totally agree with that! (0 Replies)

    Sununu writes awful stuff – there are much better writers among the ranks of partisan hacks. But his non-disclosure really is unacceptable, and the Globe should be embarrassed about this.

  17. Dan is wrong. (1 Reply)

    The “larger question” isn’t why an op-ed page would offer space to a “partisan hack.” That happens all the time. The large and very serious question has to do with repeated failure to disclose conflicts of interest. That’s what is undermining the Globe’s journalistic credibility.

  18. An alternative view (3 Replies)

    was posted by a current Amazon employee at GeekWire. He claims the NYT piece is a hatchet job.

  19. Lessig is a bright guy... (0 Replies)

    who I find to be painfully clueless about politics and the real world. Sadly, I agree with many of the comments here that Lessig’s latest stunt – and let’s be clear, that’s what it is – is little more than narcissism. It has a vanishingly small chance of accomplishing anything beyond generating a few more headlines for Lessig’s scrapbook. What a waste of time, effort, and other people’s money. :(

  20. Yes. However, (0 Replies)

    it would be poor strategy to undertake the effort and expense of getting a question on the ballot that you know is unconstitutional under current law, just in the hopes that the SJC will see the error of its ways. Because the odds are pretty good that it won’t overrule even if given the chance.