Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[AmosArch]

So has there been any actual evidence that Sam Bankman gave just as much money to the Republicans as he did to the Democrats or are we just going to take a known liar's word for it just because we desperately want to believe him in this and only this case even though it doesn't make sense given his character and he'd have obvious incentive to lie? Its hilarious how this 'fact' has just become unquestioningly accepted by everyone who otherwise makes a show out of being superskeptical of everything else out of his mouth. .

[mse326]

https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?data_type=processed&contributor_name=sam+bankman-fried&two_year_transaction_period=2020&two_year_transaction_period=2022&two_year_transaction_period=2024&min_date=01%2F01%2F2020&max_date=12%2F31%2F2024

I'm not going to pretend that I know most of those candidates so I can't talk to individual names (I did see Collins and Murkowski). So that may be more diverse. Almost all state committees I saw were dem but he did give over $100K to the Alabama Conservatives Fund.

And if you want you can check further back as well. This is only fed elections though. I'm definitely not going to the trouble to look up state elections

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think Amos was saying that Bankman didn't give any money to Republicans. He's denying that Bankman gave "just as much". Your own link seems to make it transparently clear that he was giving the bulk of his money to Democrats. I'm not going to sit down and add it up, but Fox did:

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried was also prolific donor to Republicans: 'I have a duty'

"Bankman-Fried, whose cryptocurrency exchange platform FTX has collapsed in recent weeks, funneled an estimated $262,200 to Republicans throughout the 2021-2022 election cycle, according to Federal Election Commission records. His contributions to Republicans paled in comparison to the nearly $40 million he contributed to Democratic campaigns but still represented a significant sum, compared to most Americans."

A significant sum, compared to most Americans. That's easy when 90% of Americans don't make political donations at all. But still only 7% of his donations.

As a guy who knew he was breaking the law, he saw some point in buying allies on both sides of the aisle, but it's clear where his heart was.

[Mr. Bumble]

Be suspicious of anyone with a hyphenated name.

[Heedless]

Or anybody who is routinely named in the press with three names. The sign of a serial killer, that is.

[Kazinski]

Brett I hope you are claiming only giving a 0.655% of his recorded contributions to Republicans and the other 99.345% to Democrats shows bias?

After all that's the roughly the percentage of the media that votes Democratic and we know they are unbiased. It also coincidentally the percentage of intelligence analysts that claimed Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation.

[Martinned]

So your theory is that even the majority of people who work for media organisations like Fox and OANN vote Democratic?

[Kazinski]

Well Fox yes.

But but probably not OANN.

But I'm hardly an expert, I don't watch either.

[Mr. Bumble]

Fired up the bullshit spreader early?

[Martinned]

Who? Me? I was just testing whether Kazinski had thought through the implications of what he said.

[Armchair]

Not sure what you're arguing against exactly...

But, if you're looking for actual numbers (albeit these are from 2016).

https://publicintegrity.org/politics/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-with-campaign-cash/

[Martinned]

That article has a lot of anecdotes, a piece of analysis that isn't worth the pixels its written on (because it relies on self-description, and only looks at campaign donations), and a study from 2014:

About 28 percent of journalists say they affiliate with the Democratic Party, 7 percent the Republican Party and 14 percent an “other” party, according to a 2014 study by Indiana University-Bloomington professors Lars Willnat and David H. Weaver.

The rest of journalists — more than 50 percent — say they’re not affiliated with any political party.

[Armchair]

We didn't ask who they are affiliated with. We asked who they donated to.

We've presented facts. You've presented nothing to back up your case. If you want to search out some actual surveys and post them, do so.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's 9 years ago, I wonder if the numbers are at all comparable today?

There is no liberal media bias in which news stories political journalists choose to cover (How about HOW they cover it?)

"First, using Twitter data, we are able to estimate the ideology of half of the journalists in our sample, nearly five times larger than any previous study of journalists. In this dataset, we show that journalists are overwhelmingly liberal, perhaps even more so than surveys have suggested. Most journalists are far to the left of even the average (Twitter-using) American."

Interesting graph, no? Seems the modal journalist is somewhere between Bernie Sanders and Occasional Cortex in their political views, and virtually all journalists are more liberal than Mitt Romney.

[Bob from Ohio]

" not affiliated with any political party."

Twitter exists now. You can read journalist's unedited thoughts now.

Thinking they don't back the Democratic party is willful blindness.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and Martinned went missing in action.

[Life of Brian]

Past his bedtime.

[Brett Bellmore]

Thanks for pointing out that I exaggerated his Republican donations by a factor of 10.

Interesting, isn't it, that Fox would be laboring to make this look bipartisan. You'd expect The Nation to be highlighting his tiny fraction of Republican donations, but supposedly conservative Fox?

Another data point for the proposition that Fox never was actually a conservative news outlet. They just looked that way because they weren't as reliably left-wing as the rest of the media.

[Kazinski]

When Roger Ailes ran Fox it probably was conservative, but he shat the bed, not realizing that one of the reasons that CEO's are paid so much is they can buy their own women without preying on the help. No one told poor Harvey that either.

The Murdoch sons aren't conservative at all, so they run the company accordingly, and of course Ailes is dead now anyway. And Ailes was a genius, his orchestra pit theory of campaigning explains every presidential election I can remember:
"If you have two guys on a stage and one guy says, "I have a solution to the Middle East problem," and the other guy falls in the orchestra pit, who do you think is going to be on the evening news?"

[Martinned]

The Murdoch son who has been given the keys to the kingdom is more conservative to his father. Murdoch senior only likes conservatives "because they pick up the phone when I call". But Lachlan Murdoch is a true believer. (The James Murdoch not so much, that's true. I'm not sure if anyone knows very much about the sisters.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Got a source for that, because it sure doesn't seem that way?

[Martinned]

You know that he was only crowned last month, right? Until then Lachlan and James had equal positions.

Lachlan Murdoch doesn’t speak publicly about his politics, according to an article in the New York Times magazine, which cited the 2016 memoir "Making Headlines," by Chris Mitchell, the longtime editor of The Australian, as describing “Lachlan’s conservatism is more vigorous than that of any Australian politician” and that his views were usually to the right of his father’s.

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/who-is-lachlan-murdoch-what-will-happen-fox-news-corp-2023-09-21/

Or, as the FT put it (not linking for spam filter reasons):

Less is known about Lachlan’s views, though they are believed to be to the right of his father.

[Brett Bellmore]

Even when Ailes ran it, they had people from both sides, it's just that the conservatives WERE conservative. Whereas most media outlets, if they feel like feigning balance, will bring somebody like David French on.

[Martinned]

Sure. Fox always had liberals for the conservatives to beat up on. Otherwise it would have just been monologuing, and that wouldn't have made for very good TV.

[Brett Bellmore]

And my point is that most media outlets, even if they have a 'conservative' on, it will be the sort of conservative who just happens to agree with liberals on whatever topic is at hand.

[Sarcastr0]

I know you believe this, but this just shows you don't watch FOX News, but rather imagine what it says based on your usual take of every institution ever being filled with densely packed liberal zealots.

[Kazinski]

Back when I watched cable TV I remember that Sean Hannity was originally paired with Alan Combs who was co-anchor, other well known liberals with regular gigs were Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera. Sheppard Smith is a liberal who was breaking news anchor on Fox for over 20 years until he moved to CNBC.

[Martinned]

You mean the *Republican* Geraldo Rivera?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldo_Rivera#Politics

[Sarcastr0]

David French is quite conservative. Loves guns, hates LGBT, wants religion to excuse civil rights requirements, talks about market solutions to every moral issue.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/what-does-david-french-believe-223777

You just insist Trump is conservativism and conservativism is Trump because your politics has become really shallow.

[Bwaaah]

Sarcastr0 is quite progressive. He hates guns, loves LGBT, rejects religion as an affront to civil rights, and speaks of government as a solution to every moral issue.

Now you know as much [bs] about Sarcastr0 as you know about David French. (Although this one's closer to reality than Sarcastr0's description of French.)

[Sarcastr0]

I don't hate guns,
I do support LGBT rights, though trans in sports is something I am not sold on.
I am a Christain who believes in God

You don't know jack shit about me, eh?

[Brett Bellmore]

David French is the prototypical "Republicans liberals invite to be interviewed.

David French loves guns; But he thinks opposing gun control is "Gun idolatry".

That's the sort of Republican liberals like to interview. The one you can always count on to criticize other Republicans on the topic at hand.

[Sarcastr0]

Your link is paywalled.

Any quotes that show opposing gun control is gun idolatry?

[Life of Brian]

Here's a full copy. Happy reading.

[Mr. Bumble]

Crickets.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, I was fairly sure he didn't actually want to read it -- it took way more time to peck out his comment than to just try prepending "archive.is/" to the link just as I did.

That was just the cheap deflection immediately in front of him, and now that he's lost that temporary cover I predict he'll just flatly ignore this thread just as he has multiple other ones today where he painted himself into a corner.

[myself]

Ok, I read the article.

He doesn't say that opposing gun control is "Gun idolatry".

He say's that the US gun movement has devolved into gun idolatry.

The difference between guns for self-defense and what US gun culture has become is the entire point of the article.

[David Nieporent]

David French is always worth reading, so I read it, and — shocker — you people are lying. He did not say that opposing gun control is gun idolatry. He said that fetishizing guns is gun idolatry.

[Life of Brian]

Another reason Sarc knew he could just slink away: the relief crew would show up and do the actual work for him.

You can slice the baloney however you personally wish, but when the author lumps “popular t-shirts and signs that declare a person “pro-life, pro-God, and pro-gun” into his definition of a “gun fetish,” in my view there’s not really any meaningful airspace between that and opposition to gun control.

At best, the author is dictating acceptable and unacceptable ways to articulate that opposition, which frankly seems a bit boorish but at the same time is fairly unsurprising for David French.

[myself]

Another reason Sarc knew he could just slink away: the relief crew would show up and do the actual work for him.

They probably grew tired of dealing with insincere arguments.

You can slice the baloney however you personally wish, but when the author lumps “popular t-shirts and signs that declare a person “pro-life, pro-God, and pro-gun” into his definition of a “gun fetish,” in my view there’s not really any meaningful airspace between that and opposition to gun control.

It's fine if you disagree with his argument (you're wrong, but that's allowed).

But you're not allowed to completely rewrite his argument to assign him positions he never took.

David French doesn't believe in a lot of gun control.

David French is also very critical of current gun culture.

[Sarcastr0]

I had stuff to do Monday night. But also I have Bumble and LoB blocked at the moment. Not got the time to waste on those two at the moment. Maybe later.

I see others have said about what I was gonna say.

[David Nieporent]

You can slice the baloney however you personally wish, but when the author lumps “popular t-shirts and signs that declare a person “pro-life, pro-God, and pro-gun” into his definition of a “gun fetish,” in my view there’s not really any meaningful airspace between that and opposition to gun control.

I don't think you're stupid, so therefore you are arguing in bad faith. (Even setting aside that you meant support for, not opposition to, gun control.) French isn't making any statement at all about gun policy in that column, not supporting any restrictions on firearms ownership, and no reasonable person could think he was. He is criticizing people who treat guns not as tools to protect themselves, their families, their homes, not for hunting or recreational shooting, but as a status symbol and political icon.

The problem right wingers (and especially Trumpkins) have with David French is that most of them pretend to be Christian, but don't really mean it. "Christian" is just an identity, not a belief system, and it's used as a political/rhetorical weapon. David French is sincere, which makes them all look bad. So they demonize him. (Mitt Romney represents a similar problem for right wingers/Trumpkins; when most of them said that they prayed on an issue, they just mean, "This is my excuse for doing what's best for me." Romney decided to vote for impeachment (removal) against the advice of his advisors because he prayed on it and decided that his oath actually meant something.)

[Life of Brian]

Combined response, to keep the terminal thread from getting more fragmented.

Sarc: Take a gander at the several responses I left on this page, and you’ll find that every single one of them was either incontestably factual or, like my first one in this thread, solving a problem you said you had. If you have to plug your ears to stuff like that because it unduly interferes with your shtick here, that says everything about you and nothing about me.

myself: I think our disagreement hinges on the question of whether there’s a bright line between “loud and proud” support for something (whether that’s guns, gays, or gods) and opposition to restrictions on that something. David French is tut-tutting about people who, he feels, are too loud and proud about the subject — ergo, that mode of supporting guns/opposing gun control is unacceptable to him. That was the point of my final sentence in the post you responded to, which you may have overlooked: “At best, the author is dictating acceptable and unacceptable ways to articulate that opposition, which frankly seems a bit boorish but at the same time is fairly unsurprising for David French.”

David “Gotcha” Nieporent: See above. Additionally, you’re way down on the list of people I would consider taking pointers from on making good-faith arguments, so please don’t bother wasting your keystrokes and our eyes on any further sanctimony along those lines.

[bernard11]

Another data point for the proposition that Fox never was actually a conservative news outlet. They just looked that way because they weren’t as reliably left-wing as the rest of the media.

Laughable.

[David Nieporent]

You've got to remember that Brett and other Trumpkins argue that pretty much every elected GOP official, including the (at least) the party's last five presidential nominees before Trump, are not actually legitimate Republicans, but "RINOs," and that every judicial appointment who doesn't swear fealty to Clarence Thomas is not a real conservative judge either.

[M L]

"Fox Business" has always been a little more government propaganda-y than the main part of Fox I think.

[mse326]

I wasn't saying he was wrong. I was simply supplying what public evidence there is regarding his donations. And since it would provide a whole picture rather than a cherry picked one that articles may give. I don't think for a second SBF gave as much to republicans as he did to democrats.

[bernard11]

Who gives a shit who he gave money to?

So he's a crook who's a Democrat. BFD.

[Bored Lawyer]

Generally, crooks like him donate not for ideological reasons, but where they think their money will buy them the most influence. That in his case he believed that meant overwhelmingly on the Democrat side is telling, IMO.

[bernard11]

Which party do you think more strongly favors regulating cryptocurrency?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Did he donate to Republicans or RINOs, and did he donate with intent to help them win the primary or the general election?

And then did he donate to the strongest candidate or the one that the Dems most wanted to face in the general election? Both parties have been known to do this when they can afford to do it.

[jb]

I don't know the answer, but I'm not sure why I would try to figure it out, either. Why do we care who he gave money to?

[DaveM]

“Money is fungible”, as we know, and so are political party allegiances.

[Nige]

Why do we care? It's clear any old crook can donate as much as they want to any party in the possible hope of gaining influence or protection. Money is speech, and rich crooks can afford more speech than poor honest people! Didn't work with this guy and the Dems, apparently.

[M L]

Remains to be seen.

[M L]

Of course he didn't, but in general all of the corrupt entities that operate through and give money to Democrats are eager to do the same with Republicans. And they do just that. There's just maybe a little less opportunity on that side.

For example Planned Parenthood, who slaughters babies and collects their brains and other tissue for money, donates millions to Democrats and in return is able to steal billions from taxpayers. They rarely support Republicans but Cecile Richards once noted they had a “strong relationship” with Susan Collins despite their and would “love to have more Republicans support women’s health and women’s rights.”

[Life of Brian]

Walking away with nearly 52% of the vote for governor in Louisiana's jungle primary, some might say Jeff Landry has a mandate.

[Martinned]

With 52% of the vote he could take Louisiana out of the Union...

[Mr. Bumble]

Where would he take it...?

[Martinned]

Independence, obviously. Take back control!

[Kazinski]

They settled that question decisively in 1865, in Louisiana before that.

Texas negotiated a succession clause in its treaty to join the union so that could possibly be still in play, but we bought Louisiana outright, so that wouldn't apply.

[Commenter_XY]

If I am not mistaken, TX reserves the right to break into 5 states, if they choose to do so.

[Brett Bellmore]

I doubt very much they’d be allowed to exercise that right, though. Certainly not if the Democrats had anything to say about it.

I believe the dominant position on the left regarding that right, is that it was extinguished when Texas was 'allowed' (dragged) back into the Union after the Civil war, without any such proviso.

It wouldn't be such a terrible thing, though, if we could arrange a prisoner swap of sorts, breaking up both Texas and California at the same time.

[bernard11]

I don't know that the Democrats would oppose the subdivision if it were done in a rational way.

Trump carried the state by 6 points in 2020, so there would be plenty of room for Democrats to win seats in Congress. Take the Senate. Both the Houston area and the Dallas area are heavily Democratic, and they would surely be the bases of two of the new states. A state built around Austin and San Antonio might be a tossup. It wouldn't be surprising if there ended up being five senators total from each party.

[Brett Bellmore]

I said I though there was room for a trade there. The biggest problem would be arranging for the breakup not to be gerrymandered in favor of one party.

[bernard11]

You said they could trade with CA, not that there was room for trading over the Texas breakup.

You were quite adamant that the Democrats would oppose a breakup, and I suggested reasons why they might not.

You have no response, so you deflect with BS about CA.

[OtisAH]

You are mistaken. They believe they have the right to secede, about which they are mistaken.

[Martinned]

Well sure, that's the view of legal experts. But I think you'll find that the people of Louisiana have had enough of experts.

[Kazinski]

As have we all, as Brexit showed.

[M L]

The view of legal experts is "might makes right" ?

[Sarcastr0]

No, it's that the South was wrong.

[M L]

Link?

[Sarcastr0]

Plenty of legal analyses that states cannot secede out there, as you know.

[Brett Bellmore]

Plenty that they can, too. It wasn't 'settled' by legal analysis, it was 'settled' by killing people. The problem with winning arguments by killing people is that they only stay won as long as people think you'd kill anybody who disagrees.

[Sarcastr0]

I wouldn't say plenty. The view you prefer is not the mainstream one in academia. Or at least wasn't when I was in law school.

We all know you think all consensus that disagrees with you is bad faith, but the discussion here is about 'the view of legal experts' so your telepathy is particularly irrelevant.

[M L]

Well, many legal experts do in fact hang their hat on "might makes right" with regard to this issue.

In this thread Kazinski said it was "settled in 1865," and Martinned agreed that this was the view of legal experts.

Look far and wide, and you will find many legal experts saying that the issue of secession was settled by the war. At most, you may get a passing reference to a convenient opinion by Lincoln's wartime treasurer. Relatively few will address the issue on the merits or analyze original meaning.

So when I asked Martinned the question, I was merely putting in different words what he had already said, and even though you (Sarcastro) reacted negatively to this concept, it is a very common idea. A reasonable answer to my question is simply, "Yes."

Even Justice Scalia basically said this.

To me, the logic seems analogous to something like this: "I tried to leave my husband back in 1865, but that question was decisively settled when he beat the shit out of me." I take it you agree since you don't want to hang your hat on that logic.

[Sarcastr0]

ML, I'm not relying on posters in this thread.

I don't care what you got other people to say, you and I both know the state of the legal academy.
You're a Lost Cause person so you don't like it and will take whatever Internet debate club wins you can get. But we both know that's meaningless.

[M L]

Right, so I take it you disagree that the issue of secession was simply settled by war, you don't agree that might makes right, and furthermore you take the position that secession is not permitted under the Constitution. Any reasoning behind that last part or just ipse dixit? Or vague appeal to unspecified authority?

[David Nieporent]

that secession is not permitted under the Constitution. Any reasoning behind that last part or just ipse dixit? Or vague appeal to unspecified authority?

It's structural in the constitution itself. (And Texas v. White lays out many of the arguments.)

[Frank Drackman]

Louisiana's really 4 States, Northern Louisiana which could either be East-East Texas, or South Arkansas, Acadiana where the Coon-Asses live (Like the N-word, only Coon-Asses can call each other Coon-Asses, be warned, they all carry knives (sharp ones)
East Louisiana, which could be West Mississippi, and Nawlin's which is it's own State (of mind). Only seen it from the back seat of the family car going either west/east on I-20 and US 80 making east /west coast PCS moves.
If it tells you anything we always had lots of LSU/Tulane grads come to do their Residency Training in Alabama, because Alabama paid more, Yes, Alabama wasn't last in something.

Frank "I smell Corndogs!"

[Bwaaah]

Did somebody say Corndogs??? CORNDOGS!!!! (Now I'll be smelling 'em for the rest of the day.)

[Frank Drackman]

Never understood that insult, I like the smell of Corndogs.
A lot more pleasant than the Chicken Shit I dealt with as a Poultry Science Major at (The) Auburn University.
And I don't mean "Chicken Shit" as BS rules, red tape, stupid assignments, I mean the actual shit of Chickens, that we had to check for Parasites and umm,. other things (I only did Poultry Science because it had all the Pre-Med courses and wasn't as tough as Engineering)

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

With all the woke-ness out there, ex-communication if you mix up your He, She, Z's,
nobody seems to get upset about "Jungle Primaries"
they sure would if you talk about "Jungle Bunnies"
What? (see, told you there's alot of woke-ness)
I'm talking about "Nesolagus netscheri"

Frank "Watch out for that Tree!!!!!!!!!!"

[Frank Drackman]

We're all Jews today,
except for that waste of Jizz Jonathan Ass-lick, he's lost his Hebrew Privileges.
Rumor that Parkinsonian Joe's going to Hol-ey Land this week, C'mon (Man!) haven't they suffered enough? What's he gonna say
this time, how he walked with Hey-Zeuss??, his dad built the Western Wall?

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

"We’re all Jews today,..."
Circumcision not required?

[Frank Drackman]

Don't ask, Don't Tell

[Randal]

Male genital mutilation, you mean of course. No wonder your frank is drack, man.

[Frank Drackman]

2 works, Smeg-Ma
and hard to get (get it? hard?) Foreskin Cancer when Your foreskin's on some wallet in a Korean pawn shop (we used to joke that this old Korean OB/GYN made wallets out of foreskins, he probably did)

Frank

[not guilty]

When you rub that wallet, does it turn into a briefcase?

[Commenter_XY]

Taking bets: How long before Ilya the Lesser blogs about how the US ought to import poor, teeming wannabe jihadists masses of Gazans into America. Pick one. 🙂

You missed it, he already did
Coming within 24 hours
Coming this week, by Short Circuit time (5pm Friday)
Ilya the Lesser will not write a blog post supporting taking in wannabe jihadists refugees

[Sarcastr0]

This reads like a BCD screed. Awful to see it coming from you.

Petty namecalling followed by bigotry.

Living in Gaza does not mean you’re a ‘wannabe jihadists.’ Refugee status is not easy to get, and is not a rubber stamp process that ignores jihadi ties.

Hamas is a terrorist organization and should be wiped out, root and branch. Don't let that righteousness pave the road to you becoming hate-filled bigot.

[Armchair]

But it IS easy to simply say "I'm afraid" when you illegally cross the border.

Then good ol' Joe will let you in, until your court hearing. In a few years. Which you can show up to. Or not.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, this isn't actually how assylum works. Same bullshit as 'our border is wide open.'
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/04/factchecking-claims-about-asylum-grants-and-immigration-court-attendance/
"Individuals who filed claims for relief (such as asylum or cancellation of removal) are very unlikely to miss court: 95% attended all of their court hearings over the eleven years of our study in pending and completed nondetained cases"

You tell nativist populist lies.

[Armchair]

Mmm. No. Not sure how they're manipulating stats to get that number. The real number is closer to 50%

https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-Courts-Aliens-Disappear-Trial

[Sarcastr0]

You switched to a different set of people, numbnuts.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's how the stats were manipulated; Most of the people who don't show didn't bother filing a claim for relief, I assume because they know up front that they don't qualify.

[Sarcastr0]

If you equate all immigrants with those seeking asylum, it's you who are manipulating the stats, though badly.

[bernard11]

Ah yes. Stats show something Brett doesn't want to see. Hence, per Brett, they must be manipulated, just like the 60 Minutes deal.

[Armchair]

Oh, I see what happened. I included the people who claimed credible fear, but then you switched to those who actually FILED for asylum...

As opposed to claiming credible fear, then running off without ever filing.

[Sarcastr0]

You sure did not anything about 'credible fear.' Or asylum at all.

[Armchair]

Well, at least you agree that you changed the goalposts to fit your narrative....

[Sarcastr0]

Asylum status was the goalposts of this whole thread, chief.

Anger to cover up laziness doesn't work very well.

[Armchair]

Checking back...nope it wasn't.

[Sarcastr0]

You're pretty dumb. Have you missed what method of immigration Prof. Somin talks about from war-torn places?

I guess even his repetition was insufficient to penetrate your skull.

[Michael P]

That's an example of how to lie with statistics.

https://nypost.com/2019/06/11/homeland-security-chief-says-90-of-asylum-seekers-miss-court-dates/

When cooking the books, it also helps to give ridiculously far-future court dates.

https://apnews.com/article/immigration-courts-wait-54bb5f7c18c4c37c6ca7f28231ff0edf

[Sarcastr0]

"Out of those 7,000 cases, 90 received final orders of removal in absentia, 90 percent"

This isn't about final orders of removal, numbnuts.

If you're going to attack a fact check, bringing up an utterly different fact and pretending it's the same is a pretty poor way to go about it.

[Life of Brian]

This isn’t about final orders of removal, numbnuts.

Of course it is, silly rabbit: The paper cited in the first paragraph of your linked article is clearly titled “Measuring in Absentia Removal in Immigration Court.”

I take it you didn’t bother to look.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, you really ought to take a look at the alternatives to Hamas within Gaza, who also enjoy some measure of popular support. Alternatives like Palestinian Jihad, Islamic Jihad, etc. It is not like they're angels. Which points to a much bigger issue.

What steady diet have Gaza's children been taught inside their schools and mosques? Judeocide is perfectly legitimate, is what Gaza's children been taught from the cradle. An entire society has been steeped and marinated in that belief. The Simchat Torah terror attack proved that beyond all doubt. That broader societal problem is a much worse problem, and one that cannot be undone. Post war, that is the key question I see. That will take many years.

In the meantime, Israel has a war to conduct. It is not complicated. Hamas in Gaza will be obliterated; there is no coexistence whatsoever with Hamas in Gaza. That is existential to Israel. The recovery of hostages (dead or alive) is secondary to this. In fact, I do not expect to recover any living hostages. Does Hamas really want the hostages telling their eyewitness accounts?

I am waiting of course for academia to tell us why we, in America, should take in Gazans (or palestinians from Judea and Samaria, for that matter). These academics are the same people whose workplaces currently host pro-Hamas rallies (in our elite schools, to boot). Watching this has been illuminating, and vastly disappointing. Watching the responses of academic leadership (at the elite schools) has been eye-opening. And let's be real, Professor Somin's views on immigration are well known.

As an American, I don't want a people who have been radicalized from the cradle (whether actively or passively - it doesn't matter!) to believe Judeocide is legitimate, coming to America in the middle of a declared war. Or afterward. No thank you. The sole exception I would make is American citizens evac-ing out of Gaza. American citizens only, not non-citizen extended family members.

[Sarcastr0]

'They've all been taught from the cradle' is not an argument, it's bigotry in service of additional bigotry.
You are singing *the exact same song* you hear on Stomfront about blacks. Inherently violent culture...inculcated from their youth...

I don't care what kind of bigoted fears have you waiting for immigration advocates to be immigration advocates. Yeah, that's what they do.
And of course you think Harvard and the like is just full-on Hamas supporters wall to wall. And use this fiction to guilt by association immigration folks.

I guess you are going full BCD. Bigotry, fallacies wall to wall, and petty namecalling.

Congrats on becoming what you abhore.

[David Nieporent]

‘They’ve all been taught from the cradle’ is not an argument, it’s bigotry in service of additional bigotry.

You are singing *the exact same song* you hear on Stomfront about blacks. Inherently violent culture…inculcated from their youth…

You're missing the point. We're not talking about "culture." We're talking about government. That's what taught in schools there.

That's no more "bigotry" than noting that worship of Kim Jung Un (and Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung) is drilled into North Koreans' heads from birth. It's just a description of their country.

[Sarcastr0]

Condemning people for their government is not a good way to be. We understand that Chinese people can become great American citizens, even if the PRC sucks. Same thing here.

It's bigotry to say that NK's are all evil and if Prof. Somin advocates for letting some of them apply as refugees it makes him 'Illya the lesser' (which...Illia Shapiro has not covered himself in glory lately)

[Ed Grinberg]

Condemning people for their government is not a good way to be.

Joseph de Maistre begs to differ:
"Every nation gets the government it deserves."

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I'm guessing Ed is perfectly aware of that.

[Brett Bellmore]

"‘They’ve all been taught from the cradle’ is not an argument, it’s bigotry in service of additional bigotry."

It's the literal truth. Their school system is a jihadist factory.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not how humans work.

It is how propaganda against humans works.

'Who cares if some of them are collateral damage, they're all jihadis in sheep's clothing.'

[Frank Drackman]

Why not just let 2,000,000 Egyptian Cobras come to the US??, would kill fewer people.

[Nige]

Right, so we're going with all Gazan children are jihadists-in-waiting.

[Randal]

That's why it's fine for Israel to shoot Gazan children in the knees whenever they get within range of the snipers along the fence.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/features/stolen-childhoods-gazas-injured-children-struggle-complete-education

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/shoot-maim-how-israel-created-generation-crutches-gaza

[Don Nico]

Are you actually denying that kids are not indoctrinated in Gaza's school that their obligation to Allah is to rid Palestine of Jews. Do you doubt that many mothers in Gaza think that "martydom" by dying in the process of killing Jews is great for their sons.
The press loves to call women and children "innocent." True enough that they did not cross into Israel on Simchat Tora, but they are hardly innocents.

[Sarcastr0]

Read Commenter's thesis again. I'm not saying that nonsense isn't being pushed.
But he's saying there are no worthwhile people in Gaza because of the indoctrination.

That is prejudice. We don't take people collectively around here.

You talk about 'many' mothers (nice flexible word, many), and then jump to scare quotes about "innocent" women and children as though none exist.

YES there are innocent women and children in Gaza. And men. And you just rationalized your way into claiming there are not. That's a monstruous path you just went down in 2 sentences, Don,

[Don Nico]

“but he’s saying there are no worthwhile people” He really did not say that. There are certainly individuals who have been directly injured in the past by Israeli soldiers. That many people have prejudices is not surprising, that does not make them “not worthwhile.” Those that indoctrinate the children are not innocent, however. Those that passively comply with HAMAS directive are not innocent. That does not mean that they should be exterminated. That is reserved for active members of Hamas, as for enablers, well, they had better get out of harms way.

I did use the word many regarding mothers who paise martyrdom. That is because there are not just a few. Why do you want to keep your eyes shut? You call my comments a monterous path, but your excuses are also heading down the monterous path that Israel must just accept a cease fire and accept a genocidal attack. I don’t see the world that way and fortunately the leaders of Israel don’t see it that way either.

[Commenter_XY]

Here is what I said: As an American, I don’t want a people who have been radicalized from the cradle (whether actively or passively – it doesn’t matter!) to believe Judeocide is legitimate, coming to America in the middle of a declared war. Or afterward. No thank you. The sole exception I would make is American citizens evac-ing out of Gaza. American citizens only, not non-citizen extended family members.

That is not prejudice; that is not taking stupid risks with American lives in service of an idiotic ideological agenda from academia.

[Sarcastr0]

No, you said this: "Ilya the Lesser will not write a blog post supporting taking in wannabe jihadists refugees."

This is bigotry. Stop it.

[Randal]

He also said Palestinian civilians deserve to die because of the election of Hamas almost 20 years ago.

He's a genocidal maniac.

[Nige]

'but they are hardly innocents.'

Welp. I mean, for fuck's sake.

[Nige]

Hard to believe non-Hamas Gazans are more dangerous in that regard than Americans. The US military has slaughtered men women and children across the globe for decades and US schools teach US children that the US is a bright shining beacon of freedom with terrible enemies who must be destroyed.

[Frank Drackman]

Exactly, so why would Palestinians want to come to a country with nearly as many Jews as Israel? and we're better armed.
OK, I get that almost every A-rab country is a Shithole, and the A-rabs don't like them anymore than I do, but they're the ones who're supposed to be so oppressed by Jews/Christians, go live in fucking I-ran, but hey, you try any of your terrorist bullshit there you'll literally lose your head.

[Don Nico]

You have such a finely developed simplistic view of the world, so thoroughly anti-American, too.

[Life of Brian]

You tell nativist populist lies.

And you uncritically believe improbable croonings that say what you want to hear.

EOIR's very own statistics, unmanipulated by facty-checky sophisticates, show an in absentia adjudication rate of just under 50% through FY 2020.

As noted in the footer, COVID dropped the FY 2021-2022 numbers like a rock, but on the other side of that bubble they're roaring back and were 35% for the most recent quarter.

[Dan Schiavetta]

95% show up.

[Life of Brian]

See above. Just over 50% show up to the merits hearing at the end of the process that might result in them being removed.

The nonsensical statistic you and Sarc are throwing around include a flood of cases that don't/can't speak to propensity to dodging removal: e.g., cases where the final hearing that might result in a removal order hasn't yet happened (and thus there's been no risk to showing up), and administratively closed cases (where the hearing date is taken off the court calendar altogether without a final adjudication).

[SimonP]

If one takes as granted that the asylum system is open to abuse, due to its being overwhelmed by the number of applicants (which results in lengthy process, inability to house/monitor, etc.), then what is the solution?

The "conservative" prescription starts with ignoring the asylum laws and relying on executive-branch bending/breaking of the rules to achieve desired results. "Remain in Mexico"; perfunctory initial reviews; absurd documentation requirements; dubious "safe third country" agreements; and the like.

The "liberal" prescription employs alternative paths for qualifying migrants to get processed more quickly; working with foreign governments to manage migrant flows more locally; and managing populations once here, to the extent resources can be gathered.

What we need is probably a more practical solution - reform. And not, "repeal our asylum laws"; rather, we should look at patterns of migration as a problem that requires intelligent management, rather than draconian, go-nowhere approaches that are more likely to be counterproductive in the long term.

The forces that drive migrants to the United States are not going to be fixed by any U.S. policy. We need to grapple with the fact that this is happening - the same way we need to grapple with the reality of climate change, one way or another. Yes, many "asylum" seekers are so-called "economic migrants" looking for an easier way to get into the U.S. So is it better that we engage in the fool's errand of trying to somehow punish those economic migrants so severely that they'll give up, or do we look for ways to turn this tremendous demand for the American dream into something that can work for us?

Let's use that tiresome metaphor - imagine migrants come knocking at the door of your house. The current system lets them in to live in the upstairs bedroom that you don't use for free, until they get on their feet. You might prefer to slam the door in their face, but if you do that, they'll just sneak into your basement and hide out there without your knowledge. In response, you can choose to invest a bunch of money in blocking in your basement, maybe ask for a police patrol to start coming by your house more regularly to ensure no one's there, and kick them out every time you find out they're down there. (Only for them to come back and find a way into your basement despite your efforts.) Or you say, you know what - I'm not using that bedroom anyway. Let's get you a job, get your kids into school, and get you paying me some rent.

Provided that they're peaceful, clean, etc. - who chooses the basement option?

[M L]

It's pretty simple. Don't let people in unless and until they're qualified.

The main way in which they become qualified is through the primary legal immigration system, which should be revised such that the selection criteria and the amount and type of immigration is an expected benefit to Americans according to a transparent calculation, in particular a direct economic benefit to working class Americans, rather than a $500 billion annual wealth transfer from poorer Americans to richer asset-owning Americans, which is what we have now.

A comparatively tiny secondary way in which they can become qualified is the refugee program. This was intended (A) as a form of humanitarian aid, and (B) as a form of global diplomacy that promotes freedom, liberty, free market capitalism, American Christian-derived values. It is separate from the main immigration system and should be discretionary up to 10,000 or 20,000 per year.

But regardless of these details, the main point is to put the horse in front of the cart and have them qualify first.

[Brett Bellmore]

Here's the practical answer: If you want asylum in the US, and it's not asylum from either Mexico or Canada, you can damned well apply for it at a US embassy in a third country, and wait there until such time as we approve it. And expect us to notice that you're no longer in the country you were trying to escape.

If your house burns down, and you walk to the Motel 6 next door, you're a refugee. If you walk past it to the Double Tree Inn, you're just another dude shopping for a hotel room.

Very few actual people showing up in the US have valid claims of asylum, because virtually all of them had already escaped their home country before they arrived here. At the point where they reach the US, they're just economic migrants.

Convention relating to the Status of Refugees

"Article 31 - Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."

That's essentially nobody walking across our border. Once you've passed through a safe country, you've lost your claim to asylum in the next country you show up in.

[Drewski]

"Here’s the practical answer: If you want asylum in the US, and it’s not asylum from either Mexico or Canada, you can damned well apply for it at a US embassy in a third country,"

The actual practical answer here is that you aren't Congress, or even a member thereof, and indeed are just a blowhard making childish demands on the Internet. They can damned well apply for it in the US in cases where they're allowed to do so.

[M L]

You may have missed it but the post he’s replying to was inviting a discussion about what types of reforms and policies should be adopted (by Congress or otherwise).

Not that the opinion of anyone here matters of course.

On the other hand to the extent Brett is making a legal argument, your reply is even less apt.

[David Nieporent]

Brett is — as always — talking about his mistaken view of what the law is, confusing it with what he wants it to be.

[M L]

Well don't leave us in suspense. Explain asylum law and how it differs from what is presented above.

[David Nieporent]

It's correct that international conventions do not require countries to admit asylum seekers once those seekers are in safe countries. But that's not U.S. law. U.S. law does not declare an asylum claim "invalid" (to use Brett's formulation) because they are no longer in their home countries at the time they apply.

[M L]

Brett – Maybe that’s why the Biden admin is up to these shenanigans. Their zeal for extreme open borders policies and flooding the US is . . . something.

https://nypost.com/2023/09/21/biden-secretly-has-let-221456-migrants-fly-into-the-us-in-past-year/

[Life of Brian]

Let’s use that tiresome metaphor – imagine migrants come knocking at the door of your house. The current system lets them in to live in the upstairs bedroom that you don’t use for free, until they get on their feet. You might prefer to slam the door in their face, but if you do that, they’ll just sneak into your basement and hide out there without your knowledge. In response, you can choose to invest a bunch of money in blocking in your basement, maybe ask for a police patrol to start coming by your house more regularly to ensure no one’s there, and kick them out every time you find out they’re down there. (Only for them to come back and find a way into your basement despite your efforts.) Or you say, you know what – I’m not using that bedroom anyway. Let’s get you a job, get your kids into school, and get you paying me some rent.

Why leave it at a metaphor? How many asylees/refugees are you personally willing to host? Heck, how many even in your neighborhood? Or does your broad generosity depend on them remaining Other Peoples’ Problems?

[LawTalkingGuy]

The median age is 18 there. They're talking about children. The amount of glee the right takes in abusing children sure is something, huh?

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, were you talking about Hunter Biden? = abusing children (very young women, that is)

[LawTalkingGuy]

If you want to do an ideological tit-for-tat list regarding child abuse to absolve the right wing that’s not a good idea.

[Frank Drackman]

Again, stick this fucking bullshit up your asshole, asshole. Ham-ass started this war, the Israelis will finish it.

[Nelson]

XY, that is unusually hyperbolic and extreme compared to your usual posts. Given the language I thought it was Frank at first. Why?

[Frank Drackman]

Should tell you something that even the E-Gyp-tian Moose-lum Brotherhood won't let their brother Palestinians in. They've already got enough Terrorists.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Why?"

1400 murders and 120 hostages.

[Commenter_XY]

They truly do not get it. I am utterly amazed. How do they see, yet not understand?

[Bob from Ohio]

"how do they see, yet not understand?"

Insanely committed to "both side-ism".

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
It is extreme moral relativism in action.

[Sarcastr0]

It's everyone noticing you're equating living in Gaza with being in Hamas.

That's not moral reletivism, it's moral principle. You're the one whose morals have flexed so hard I worry you're going to start calling Palestinians insects.

[Brett Bellmore]

Kind of like we equated living in Germany to being in the Nazi party, during WWII? Yeah.

Sucks to be a civilian in a war, but the existence of civilians doesn't obligate Israel to refrain from responding to a murderous invasion.

[Sarcastr0]

And yet somehow we never talked about rubbing out every German.

[Frank Drackman]

Who never talked about not rubbing out every German, ever hear of Dresden?? And we sure as fuck "Rubbed out" a Shitload of Japs, ever hear of "Fat Man" and "Little Boy"?? they sure as fuck weren't "Smart Bombs"

Frank

[Don Nico]

"It’s everyone noticing you’re equating living in Gaza with being in Hamas."... "You’re the one whose morals have flexed so hard I worry you’re going to start calling Palestinians insects."

STOP IT. Your gross exaggerations of what commenters write have degenerated in to just plain lies. Lies and gross insults. It is pitiful that your ability for rational discussion has declined so grossly.

It seems that despite what you say about deploring the massacre, you actually think that Jews should just accept it as a fact of life.

I have noting more to say to you and what you have to say is just a waste of my time.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Both side-ism" here is pro-Hamas no matter how much they spin it.

[Don Nico]

Unfortunately, the growing calls for a "ceasefire" are operationally pressures for Israel to accept permanently a large, heavily armed, organized Judeocidal force in an extensive fortified bunker system. That tunnel system has been built on the backs of the Gazans who have long suffered privation thanks to the diversion if hundreds of million dollars to the Hamas war terrorists.
The longer Israel waits to launch ground operations, the more the pressure to accept Hamas will grow.

[David Nieporent]

Unfortunately, the growing calls for a “ceasefire” are operationally pressures for Israel to accept permanently a large, heavily armed, organized Judeocidal force in an extensive fortified bunker system.

Weird how you don't see how your calls for a ceasefire in Ukraine are just as morally reprehensible and just as operationally absurd.

[Don Nico]

David,
I have never called for a cease fire in the Ukraine. You are making that up a la Sarcastro.
What I did say is that within a month of the beginning of hostilities, Russia and Ukraine were on the verge of a deal brokered by Turkey until Boris Johnson torpedoed the deal on behalf of the U.S.

Lawyers should have learned to read the details of the language rather than making up false claims.

[Sarcastr0]

Fucking read the comments here, Don. I'm not exaggerating.

Commenter started this thread mocking Prof. Somin for maybe gonna arguing that anyone in Gaza was a worthy asylym seeker.

YOU - yes YOU - argue above that there are no innocents in Gaza, mocking the press for saying so.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, I zapped Professor Somin because his policy suggestions vis a vis immigration are well-known, and frankly idiotic. Truly, we don't need lectures or hectoring from academia....the very same people whose workplaces currently host pro-Hamas rallies. The hypocrisy is pretty thick.

You have no cogent response to the 'lifetime steeped in Judeocide' point I made because it is 100% true. You're willing to risk American lives based on your beliefs; I will not risk American lives based on the actual data (you know, 1K+ murdered Jews and the subsequent celebrations in the streets of Gaza, and Judea and Samaria).

I look at your caterwauling here like I look at your caterwauling telling me that anatomy, physiology and biology have no place in gender definition. It is utterly ridiculous and devoid of reason. thought or reality.

[Sarcastr0]

Your supported their idiocy by claiming everyone in Gaza was a wannabe jihadi! You do realize how awful that is?

My response to 'lifetime steeped in Judeocide' is to point out that people are individuals, and you're claiming they are all the same. Which is how bighotry works.

You’re willing to risk American lives based on your beliefs
Keep America safe: end all immigration. All of it has risks!

I hear the same argument every time an immigrant commits a crime from the usual bigoted nativist set. Which you are not a part of.

It is utterly ridiculous and devoid of reason. thought or reality.
Incredible arguing. Truly the sign of someone who is into thinking and engaging with the issue, and not in some emotional bullshit.

[Randal]

Your gross exaggerations of what commenters write

Both ToxicMaleCommenter and... Gozer the Gozarian I think (and probably Drankman but who takes him seriously) have advocated for "rubbing out" all the Palestinians after calling them "animals."

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"It seems that despite what you say about deploring the massacre, you actually think that Jews should just accept it as a fact of life."

Speaking of lies, that one comes straight from the Russian Propagandist.

Not a single person here whom I don't have muted has suggested that Israel just suck it up and move on.

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter_XY, are you truly arguing that there are *no* innocents in Gaza?

[M L]

Even if you assumed half of them were innocents, it still wouldn't make sense to import them.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, there are good human beings who live in Gaza, and want nothing to do with Judeocide, tossing gays off rooftops, or mutilating their daughters. That is true. I would be among the first to acknowledge that. Hope they have a better life, post war.

The fact remains. We have not quite seen an analogous situation where the steady diet for a lifetime for an entire people is that Judeocide is perfectly legitimate. This was taught in their schools and mosques from the cradle, as government and religious policy. No need to risk American lives bringing them here, at this time. Or maybe ever.

And what America especially doesn't need is academia telling them why bringing Gazans here would be a lovely idea, and how moral that would be, when these very same academics (and their leaders) seem to have a problem with pro-Hamas rallies at their workplace. And their inability to speak to that cogently and clearly.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Would you be okay with the total and complete extermination of all Gazans, about half of whom are actually under the age of 18, yes or no?

[Commenter_XY]

No way. Ask me a serious question, LTG.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It is a serious question because some can’t seem to give a straight answer to it.

[Commenter_XY]

LTG, I am going to assume you ask the question in good faith. I will answer you in good faith. The population of Gaza is roughly 2.5MM. The total membership of Hamas within Gaza is ~50K to 100K; perhaps less. Not more than that. There will be no Hamas in Gaza, post war. Whether Hamas members die in battle, or manage to escape (escape for now...until they can be found, and the score settled), they will leave and never return to Gaza.

I personally favor a more humane, and non-violent alternative: voluntary incentivized emigration.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Thank you. I appreciate it. But you're sort of sidestepping the issue of how many civilian casualties are acceptable or necessary to eliminate the 100,000.

[Nige]

'voluntary incentivized emigration.'

Ethnic cleansing.

[Commenter_XY]

Well LTG, let's remember: it is a declared war. The rules are somewhat different in wartime than in peacetime. To me, the war declaration was significant. Legally, it changed the rules. You know that better than I (you're a lawyer).

I do not know how many innocent Gazan civilians are going to die because of Hamas. Too many. But I know that there will be many since Hamas cynically uses their Gazan brothers and sisters as human shields. It sucks, and I wish it were not this way.

As for Hamas: There is no future for them. They need to make peace with Allah; they will be face-to-face soon.

[Randal]

This is a welcome shift from just a week ago when you were calling for the killing of all Palestinians.

I won't make you apologize, but you probably should.

[Armchair]

Here's a serious question for you LTG,

A Hamas terrorist straps a Palestinian baby to his chest, then walks towards a school full of Jewish children to kill them all.

Do you.
A. Shoot the terrorist, knowing that it will also kill the baby.
B. Allow the terrorist to shoot up the school.

Pick one.

[Commenter_XY]

Well Randal, bless your heart. I don't make any apologies for supporting the war aim of physically obliterating Hamas within Gaza. None whatsoever. The world will be a better place without them. I personally hope the US helps Israel out, since the Judeocidal Hamas terrorists (along with a number of civilian hangers-on) killed Americans and took Americans hostage.

Me personally? I'm donating to funds that provide necessities to IDF soldiers in the field.

It is true that Gazans did vote Hamas into power (for a variety of reasons). That did happen. It is also true that Gazans, as a society, have been taught from the cradle that Judeocide is perfectly legitimate. The best thing Gazan civilians not associated with Hamas (or other Judeocidal terror groups) can do is follow the guidance issued by the IDF: move south toward Rafah immediately, as you value your life. Do not delay. If they heed the instructions of the IDF, they will live. Many evidently are.

As for Gazan civilians, post war, it remains to be seen what policy will be put into place. We know what policies failed: Oslo (and the attendant two state delusion), Disengagement, and Conflict Management (mowing the lawn). All I will say is that the level of thinking required to resolve the issue has to be higher than the level of thinking that created the failed policies. I don't see a clear path to get that higher level of thinking, but I am paying a lot of attention to Yossi Cohen.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not actually a serious question.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"If they heed the instructions of the IDF, they will live."

We know that is categorically untrue, as IDF has bombed buildings south of the evacuation zone as well as the Palestinian side of the Rafah crossing.

[Armchair]

So sorry Sarcastro. You wanted the ACTUAL serious question.

Hamas decides to use a local Palestinian school as a base to launch rockets from in order to kill lots of Jewish Children. They make sure to just launch rockets during school hours. Do you as the Israeli commander...

A. Launch an airstrike on the school in order to destroy the Hamas base, knowing that it will kill a number of Palestinian children, as well as destroying the rocket base, rockets, and Hamas terrorists.

B. Allow Hamas to repeatedly launch rockets that you know will eventually kill a number of Jewish children.

Pick one.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Armchair:

A. Duh.

I mean the question isn’t some contrived hypo: it’s how brutal can you be to non-combatants who present no immediate risk. The question is whether you kill everyone in Gaza to defeat the militants.

[David Nieporent]

LTG, I am going to assume you ask the question in good faith. I will answer you in good faith. The population of Gaza is roughly 2.5MM. The total membership of Hamas within Gaza is ~50K to 100K; perhaps less. Not more than that. There will be no Hamas in Gaza, post war. Whether Hamas members die in battle, or manage to escape (escape for now…until they can be found, and the score settled), they will leave and never return to Gaza.

That sounds totally tough and serious minded and all, but how exactly do you propose that Hamas members be identified and distinguished from other Gazans?

[Heedless]

@ David Nieropont

1) Conquer the Gaza Strip. Destroy any and all military resistance, materiel, and institutions of governance.

2) Impose martial law.

3) Round up Hamas members the same way that the allies rounded up Nazis after World War II. Israel has extensive intelligence files, the terrorists who participated in the massacres were not shy about posting to social media, and there are always people ready to sell out their neighbors for a few bucks or just for spite.

I imagine 1 and 2 are going to be absolutely horrific, as Hamas's entire MO is to force Israel to kill as many human shield as possible to get to them, and the Israelis do not appear to be in a mood to minimize casualties. The ugly and difficult part will not be clearing out Hamas, but dealing with the dozen resistance groups that rise up to take their place.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hamas Clarifies They Meant To Start The Type Of War Where They Get To Do Whatever They Want And No One Fights Back

And some people want to give them that.

[Nige]

'Pick one.'

How about going back in time and Israel not supporting Hamas to undercut the PLO in order to ensure there will never be an independant Palestinian state.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Would you be okay with the total and complete extermination of all Gazans, about half of whom are actually under the age of 18, yes or no?"

If necessary, yes.

Our attitude during WWII was simple -- total, unconditional surrender even if it meant killing every last German or Japanese. Both wars ended when the enemy surrendered, remember the ceremony on the deck of the USS Missouri?

Circa 1944, our attitude was "make the rubble bounce" -- we were bombing parts of Berlin that had already essentially been bombed flat. The goal was to kill every last German -- if necessary. And we then executed the Germans who had surrendered at Nuremburg.

I have no problem with Israel saying that they insist on an unconditional surrender from Hamas and they will kill absolutely everyone in Gaza if necessary.

If they are forced to kill everyone in Gaza -- well, they didn't start the war...

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Sarcastr0, there are good human beings who live in Gaza, and want nothing to do with Judeocide, tossing gays off rooftops, or mutilating their daughters. That is true. I would be among the first to acknowledge that. Hope they have a better life, post war."

If that was your genuine belief, then you wouldn't have been suggesting for the past week that their lives don't matter, that none of them are innocent, and that Israel can kill as many of them as it wants to.

If your alleged 'trust me bro' sentiment that there are indeed "good human beings" living in Gaza, you wouldn't (in the very same post) suggest that bringing any of them here would risk American lives.

Own up to your hatred and at least spare us the lies about your bullshit.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There were equally good people in both Germany and Japan as well -- and we couldn't let ourselves be concerned with that. Heck, we killed American POWs in both Dresden and Hiroshima, not sure about Nagasaki but that also was a secondary target.

War sucks, which is why you win it as quickly as you can and then establish a lasting peace.

[Ed Grinberg]

It's Orwellian moral inversion all the way. Black is white, and vice versa. The guys raping women, killing babies, taking hostages are the good guys. The people they're killing (and the people calling them barbarians) are the bad guys.

[Sarcastr0]

*zero people* around here are saying Hamas are the good guys.

And yet, everyone who is arguing there are no innocents in Gaza gotta go with that strawman, because otherwise their position looks like bloody revenge.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Gaza is essentially a city of children anyway. The median age is 18.

[Frank Drackman]

18's not a "Child"
and it wasn't "Children" murdering Israelis, (typical A-rab "Honor Killing" shooting unarmed women at a Rock Concert)
and even if it was, fuck that fucking shit, you're old enough to carry an AK you're old enough to get shot with one.
I know what it is with you Goyim, none of you have great grand parents murdered at Buchenwald, or Dachau, well I do, and it ain't fucking happening again.

Back to Kinder/Gentler Frank

[LawTalkingGuy]

"you’re old enough to carry an AK you’re old enough to get shot with one"

This is psychotic shit. You're literally just advocating mass murder now and using the Holocaust to justify it.

[Frank Drackman]

Mass Murder of Mass Murderers??
it's called "War"
Let's see, just in my memory, we have Munchen 1972, Entebbe (remember? the Israelis were the "Bad Guys" then for not asking Idi Amin permission to save their Hostages in Uganda) Umm, let's see, Italian Airport Massacres 1986, Lockerbie Scotland, Beit El car bombing 1993, Dizengoff Street bus bombing 1994, Dizengoff Street bus bombing 1996, Dolphinarium discotheque massacre 2001, Suicide attack on Passover seder in Park Hotel. Carried out by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad 2002,

See a trend here?? and that's not even including the last 20 years

Frank

[Don Nico]

LTG,
Check out Africa. Boys 12 and 13 are frequent "soldiers" wielding automatic weapons. They can kill just a well as their 19 year old brothers.

[Kazinski]

It looks like most Americans have been taken in by the House Republicans "misinformation" (i.e. stuff the government doesn't want you to hear):

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ethical concerns are casting a shadow over President Joe Biden as he seeks reelection amid investigations into his son Hunter and an impeachment inquiry, with a poll showing that 35% of U.S. adults believe the president himself has done something illegal.

An additional 33% say they think the Democratic president behaved unethically, but not illegally. And 30% say Joe Biden did nothing wrong, according to the poll. The results of the survey by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research reflect both a vast political divide and skepticism about the morality of government leaders."

So that's 68% illegal or unethical, vs 30% nothing wrong, and probably the other 2% is "oh that Hunter is a scamp but what do you expect Joe to do?".

I myself am in the unethical if pressed to pick one, that's clearly been proven, but I expect the illegal proof isn't far down the road.

[Sarcastr0]

Ad popularum is a fallacy.

[Krayt]

But...democracy

[Sarcastr0]

2 things can be true:

Democracy is good,
and
Democracies regularly make boneheaded decisions.

Prof. Somin talks about this all the time - his 'rational ignorance' thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Democracy isn't good at all, it's merely the least bad way of making decisions when a collective decision is unavoidable.

Sadly, people who think it's actually good try to use it even where collective decisions are entirely avoidable.

[Sarcastr0]

Democracy - letting people have a say in how they are governed - is a moral good.
It also solves succession, perhaps the biggest problem governments have faced over the history of government as a thing.

Letting markets rule is not morally superiors to democracy - the power differentials are all over the place from person to person, and the final goal is efficiency not good policy.

Markets are an amazing tool, but that's all they are. People who forget that need to read more Dickens.

[Brett Bellmore]

Bullshit. Democracy is letting the majority of people dictate what everybody is going to get. It's a least bad approach in cases where it actually IS necessary that everybody get the same thing, but it sucks big time when people getting to make their own choices is feasible.

What your formulation excludes is the option of not being governed, which is usually available for most topics.

[Sarcastr0]

Government is about a lot more than resource distribution.

This is just shallow.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Everybody get the same thing" isn't just resource allocation. Which side of the road are you going to drive on? That's not resource allocation, but it's important that we agree on one side.

The simple fact is that, on some topics, we don't NEED to be governed, because it's perfectly feasible for us to make our own choices. But a person who thinks democracy is a positive good might demand democracy even where individual choice is available.

[bernard11]

Moved

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it is. Which isn't saying much, because once you've decided to govern people to begin with, you've decided that you're going to violate their autonomy and dignity. As Proudhon said,

“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”

But, yes, if there's to be oppression, it is mathematically better that the majority oppress the minority, than the other way around. But not oppressing is still better.

But if you think democracy is a positive good, rather than just the least awful way of governing, you're not going to look for ways to avoid governing in the first place.

[Drewski]

"As Proudhon said'

Oh, well, if an angry, insane person said it, it must be true. And that, sir, is the ranting of a very angry and very insane person. He sounds like Jon Affleck with a different obsession.

[Brett Bellmore]

“Only if you don’t give them an equal say.”

LOL! Poe’s law indeed.

Two wolves and a sheep, all three have an equal say about what's for dinner.

[Krayt]

Markets derive from freedom. This is why shelves are stocked and invention progresses apace.

Democracy should be in support of freedom, not pretending to be its master, to be stripped whenever a demagog can whip up a transient majority.

Whether dictatorship, with attendant corruption, or democracy, with corruption, both have dog economies because nobody can make a move withou paying people off, so why bother.

Corruption is under fair control in the west -- when was the last time you had to take an "extra" $500 down to the DMV, or have to wait a few years for your driver's license?

[Sarcastr0]

The profit motive is responsible for these things, not freedom.

They're good things - markets are good. But markets are not good 'because freedom.' That's facile.

As usual your 'all government is corruption' schtick is beyond facile, it's an unthinking mantra by a zealot without even a proper philosophy, just ipse dixit born of inchoate hostility.

[Life of Brian]

The profit motive is responsible for these things, not freedom.

And yet, the freedom to make a profit is what makes the profit motive possible.

So "markets derive from freedom" seems very correct.

[Nige]

‘Markets derive from freedom.’

Now there’s a fallacy. Supply-lines are riddled with slave-labour, child labour and other labour-abuses as well as corruption and authoritarianism and environmental damage that primarily affects poor people in places distant enough not to bother the conscience, and in some not so distant, but still a not a bother.

[Kazinski]

Funny how none of those supply chains originate in free market countries, most of slave labor supply chains originate in China, and most ot the others in Africa run by corrupt Kleptocracies.

[Nige]

That's globalisation for you, though there've been a few child labour cases in the US lately. Markets do quite well with the help of kleptocracies.

[Kazinski]

It's not a matter of "markets ruling" vs Democracy ruling.

Ideally Government should comprise ~25% of the GDP, Markets should be the other 75%.

Markets should inform the government, and conversely government should also inform the markets with some regulations, but should recognize the limits of their competence.

[Don Nico]

"Prof. Somin talks about this all the time – his ‘rational ignorance’ thing."
And then offers bonehead advocacy

[Sarcastr0]

His upshot there is to keep government small and local. I disagree with him on it, but I wouldn't guess you would.

It's not about immigration.

[not guilty]

Not that opinion polls mean anything in this context, but it might be helpful to identify which poll you refer to.

[Mr. Bumble]

Link to story with link to poll.

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-hunter-ethics-illegal-poll-survey-fc56e4d79c8c98758e344cc13f7966ef

[Kazinski]

Well I thought "The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research" would be at least a breadcrumb if you cared to look for it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Hill had an editorial yesterday about how Joey Biden is in serious trouble because the stories he told on his classified docs isn't adding up.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's in serious trouble because the Democrats think they need to run somebody else. If they were sure they could win with Joe, you'd mostly never hear about those stories not adding up.

[Sarcastr0]

You continue to have your thumb on the pulse only of your imagination.

You have no public evidence, and also no unearthed evidence.

[Tom for equal rights]

Christine Blasey Ford : " I have no witnesses, no details and no evidence " The media and Sacastro " Extremely credible"

Tony Bobulinski " I have phone recordings, emails , texts, Itineraries, receipts and corobarating witnesses" The media and sarcastro " not credible"..

Nothing is going to help sarcastro open his eyes and ears

[Sarcastr0]

I’m sure you want to bring up whatever the latest attempt to Hillaryize Biden, but this is utterly off topic.

Which is, I suppose, the strategy,

[Tom for equal rights]

Just pointing out your repetitive willful blindness to the obvious corruption of the biden family

[Sarcastr0]

No, you went off topic to present some evidenceless charge you pretend is proof of anything other than the GOP caring more about creating perception than anything like facts.

[Tom for equal rights]

I was only responding to your inane statement of "no unearthed evidence"

[David Nieporent]

Once again, a MAGA loon can't find any evidence at all about Joe Biden, so he handwaves vaguely about "the Biden family." (Of which he also has no evidence of "corruption." Hunter apparently didn't pay taxes, and bought a gun while being a drug user. That's it.)

[Tom for equal rights]

Christine Blasey Ford : ” I have no witnesses, no details and no evidence ” The media and Sacastro ” Extremely credible”

Tony Bobulinski ” I have phone recordings, emails , texts, Itineraries, receipts and corobarating witnesses” The media and sarcastro ” not credible”..

Nothing is going to help sarcastro open his eyes and ears

the shoe certainly fits DN

[David Nieporent]

phone recordings, emails , texts, Itineraries, receipts and corobarating witnesses

Phone records, emails, texts, itineraries, receipts, and corroborating witnesses of what?

You understand that nobody denies that various non-Joe Bidens were making money off business deals and investments, right? That's not illegal. Not for them, and certainly not for Joe.

[Tom for equal rights]

DN - lets just ignore the 10% for the big guy
or the 10% for "my uncles brother"

If we ignore the evidence - then we can say there is no evidence

[Nige]

Oh no. If you look at the evidence, then you can say there's no evidence. If you refuse to look at the evidence and just talk about 'the evidence' in the abstract, then you can say there's evidence.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know what the "uncle's brother" thing is a reference to, but I know the other one is bullshit on multiple levels, so it's safe to assume that that one is also.

1) We don't know who "the big guy" refers to. I know Bobulinski said it was Joe, but there's nothing that I've seen confirming that. The guy who actually wrote the email said that Joe Biden was not involved in the potential deal. But let's get past that.

2) The email in question does not say "10% for the big guy." It says "10% held by H for the big guy?" See that last, bold-faced character? (To be clear, I added the bold-facing for emphasis; it was plain text in the original.) It indicates that someone is asking a question, not stating a fact.

3) The potential deal the email was about never happened.

and

4) This potential deal was being negotiated after Joe Biden had left office, so there could be no "corruption" if the deal had taken place and Joe Biden was part of it.

And that's the strongest piece of evidence the GOP has of Joe Biden's corruption! A question about a potential deal that never happened when Joe Biden was a private citizen!

[Brett Bellmore]

"I don’t know what the “uncle’s brother” thing is a reference to"

I think you know that the only brother Hunter's uncle has is Joe, so, yeah, you do know what it refers to.

According to Bobulinski, Hunter and his business partners were careful not to explicitly mention Joe Biden, so they'd typically call him "the big guy", or "my uncle's brother", or whatever, perhaps to make things difficult for key word searches. Or just to give people like you a fig leaf to cling to...

And, of course, they've now got emails from Hunter to his business partners promising "his uncle's brother" would attend various meetings.

But, cling to that fig leaf, why don't you. I suppose looking stupid seems like a better option than just admitting Joe is corrupt.

[Nige]

'Code for Joe Biden' is more of a fig-leaf than 'actually there's still no evidence,' which is factual.

[David Nieporent]

I think you know that the only brother Hunter’s uncle has is Joe, so, yeah, you do know what it refers to.

You misunderstood me. I know who those words would have to refer to. What I don't know is what Tom for equal rights is supposedly quoting. What document talks about 10% for "my uncle's brother," which is what Tfer said?

[Nige]

It turns out Ford was credible and Bobulinski is not. That's why actually examining things is better than not.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, she credibly had her Vagina (redacted) by someone she can't remember at a place she doesn't remember, at a time she doesn't remember. Shit, maybe I fucked her! I don't remember though.

Frank

[David Nieporent]

Ford wasn't particularly credible. But more to the point, "Ford was credible" is just a fancy way of saying, "I believe her."

[Nige]

Credible enough for a court is all I meant.

[Nige]

Ugh, mea culpa.

[Kazinski]

Well Ford wasn't credible was she?

Her friend (who was married to Bob Beckel, Mondales 1984 campaign manager) who she said was with that night said she remembered no such thing for one.

[Nige]

Credible enough for a court. Which literally none of your claims and so-called evidence about Biden will ever come near.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know what "credible enough for a court" refers to. No court, of course, ever heard or addressed Ford's claims.

[Brett Bellmore]

They've got her confused with Jean Carroll, I'm guessing.

[Nige]

Oooh, brain fart. It's a fair cop.

[DaveM]

If Biden wasn't so old-looking, things would be different. It's not just the lack of ethics or the possibility of criminal activity, it's the combination. Democrats are preparing to nominate for President a doddering old man who apparently has been selling influence to the highest bidder and distributing the booty to his family members for decades.

About the only thing you can say in his favor is that his opponent is arguably just as bad, but for different reasons.

[Martinned]

just as bad

This is the mind-boggling thing about tribalism in American politics. How could a sane person look at Trump and Biden and conclude that they are "just as bad"???

[Frank Drackman]

You're right, Parkinsonian Joe is way worse.

[VinniUSMC]

This is the mind-boggling thing about tribalism in American politics. How could a sane person look at Trump and Biden and conclude that they are “just as bad”???

Because they're sane and have eyeballs? Why would anyone care what Misek's Dutch friend has to say?

[Don Nico]

As bad as Biden is based on policy alone, Trump is far worse by any measure

[bernard11]

has been selling influence to the highest bidder and distributing the booty to his family members for decades.

This is an evidence free assertion.

Even those lying assholes Comer and Jordan haven't come with shit.

[DaveM]

Yeah, I admire this kind of push back. Never give an inch! (Until the dam breaks.)

[David Nieporent]

You understand that no evidence means no evidence, right? If I accuse Trump of being involved in a dog fighting ring, I'd be making up an accusation with zero evidence. If later it turns out that Trump was involved in a dog fighting ring, that wouldn't make me retroactively reasonable.

[Nige]

So, your misinformation is gaining traction? Congratulations, I suppose, you're a propagandist.

[DaveM]

Some 68% of people in this poll have come to a similar opinion on Biden, so "gaining traction" sounds accurate. But careful with calling this "misinformation", because by so doing you are granting it status as a (misreported) fact, instead of what it actually is, which is just, like, our opinions, man.

I like how bernard11 is attempting to push back by saying "evidence-free assertion". That's how you do this, I think.

[Nige]

Opinions based on misinformation are just misinformed opinions. And the reason it's misinformation is because all the supposed 'evidence' isn't.

[Mr. Bumble]

Did anyone watch Slo Joe on 60 Minutes? Does anyone watch 60 Minutes?

[Krychek_2]

I did. He was sharp, he gave thoughtful and intelligent answers to the questions, and it's obvious he's well informed and fully in command of his faculties. Slo Joe my ass. (And by the way, I love how Republicans insist he is both incompetent and a criminal mastermind both at the same time.)

I couldn't help but contrast him to how Trump would have handled that interview. It is so nice to have a president who thinks before he speaks, who has an actual game plan, and who understands the issues. In other words, a president who actually speaks and acts presidential.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What drugs did they fill him full of?

[Dan Schiavetta]

? Is there a drug that makes you well-informed, thoughtful, able to give good, to-the-point answers?

[David Nieporent]

? Is there a drug that makes you well-informed, thoughtful, able to give good, to-the-point answers?

If so, Dr. Ed taking it would cause an explosion, like the collision of matter and anti-matter.

[hobie]

HaHa!

[Kazinski]

Caffeine and nicotine have been shown to improve mental function.

[Brett Bellmore]

They just did the usual 60 minutes editing job, the friendly one, not the hostile one. It’s not like they’re going to tell you how many takes it took to get him to answer each question coherently, or even if the seemingly coherent answers were paired up with the question he’d actually been asked.

They’re notorious for deceptive editing, it’s hardly like they only deploy it negatively.

[Nelson]

Wow. Even for a Brett response, that's a conspiracy-tinged reach into absurdity.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wait, are you actually claiming that 60 Minutes ISN'T known for deceptive editing? See, for instance.

Maybe you didn't notice that thing where they swap back and forth between closeups of the interviewer and subject, which serves to make it impossible to catch edits?

[grb]

I guess the real question is this : If Biden and Trump are the nominees and appear live in a debate, who'll win?

Same as last time, Biden.

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, they're both declining, but I think Biden has been declining faster.

I think it will be the usual, actually: The people who actually watched the debate will think the Republican won, but the people who just go by the news coverage of it will think the Democrat won.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “The people who actually watched the debate will think the Republican won, but the people who just go by the news coverage of it will think the Democrat won”

Really, Brett ?!? That’s pretty lame even for you. So the only reason Biden trounced Trump last time is that the all people who said he won didn’t watch the debate!

Look, you were selling your Biden-Dementia B.S. before the ’20 debates and it bit you in the ass. Biden and Trump were on a stage together live and everything you said was obviously phony.

Now you’re selling your Biden-Dementia B.S. even harder, but the result will be the same. It will be exposed again. And the more frenzied insistence you place on it, the more you set yourself up to fail.

[Krychek_2]

Here's the real reason Biden is likely to win any debate with Trump: Biden will talk about how he wants to make life better for Americans; Trump will talk about how the 2020 election was stolen, the prosecutions are a witch hunt, and he needs to get re-elected so he can take revenge. Which of those two strategies do you think are more likely to appeal to the American people? Especially the swing voters?

[SRG2]

Are you truly dumb enough to think that Trump won the debates against Biden?

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : ”…. but I think Biden has been declining faster”

Wishful thinking there, Brett. Let's look at Trump over the last month:

16Sept : Says you need ID to buy a loaf of bread.
18Sept : Says under Biden, we would be in World War II.
18Sept : Says he beat Obama in 2016.
26Sept : Says Jeb Bush invaded Iraq.
08Oct : Says Hannibal Lecter was a great actor.
13Oct : Thinks Obama is currently president.
14Oct: Says Republicans “eat their young” when they attack him.

Imagine the screeching hysteria if Biden completely lost it that often. You’d never hear the end of it. Of course Trump operates under a double handicap. In addition to showing clear signs of advanced dementia, he was dumb as a box of rocks when his brain still functioned. A Biden-Trump debate is gonna be pretty painful for you to watch, Brett.

[bernard11]

IOW, if Biden looks bad that's an honest presentation.

If he looks good he's been drugged and the show was edited to pick out a few high spots, and the drooling left out.

Nothing, nothing, will ever change Brett's mind. He has a ready, if insane, explanation for any fact he wishes weren't true.

[Moderation4ever]

Does it matter, your mind is made up and your opinion set.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Next, we'll be told that wasn't really Biden, it was a body double who's 44 years old, was given the answers ahead of time, and was made up to look Biden's age.

[Tom for equal rights]

Krychek_2 54 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
I did. He was sharp, he gave thoughtful and intelligent answers to the questions, "

Seriously
Sharp thoughtful
Compare and contrast the highly edited 60 minutes version with his everyday live unedited videos of Biden.

As Brett stated, It doesnt speak well of your analytical skills if you get fooled so easily

[Dan Schiavetta]

He's pretty much the same unedited, where the topic is narrow and the questions focused.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not generally one for speculation, but based on past history Tom doesn't bother to review the media to have an opinion on it.

He's a narrative guy.

[Tom for equal rights]

captcrisis 2 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
He’s pretty much the same unedited, where the topic is narrow and the questions focused"

NO - he is not - & you know he is not - though like a typical leftist

[Krychek_2]

Tom, you don't have to take my word for it. The interview is on Youtube. Watch it for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d403nALfQrE

[Tom for equal rights]

that was a 13 minute broadcast - no mention of how many hours it took to tape the interview before it was edited down to 13 minutes.

Like Brett said, you have to be pretty gullible not to pick up on the intentional deception. That or have no interest in being honest. It does hurt your credibility

[Krychek_2]

Or maybe there was no deception, intentional or otherwise. You accept as an article of faith that there had to be deception, even with no evidence to back you up, just because that's what aligns with your world view.

[Tom for equal rights]

Krychek_2 11 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"Or maybe there was no deception, intentional or otherwise."

multitude of videos showing serious cognitive decline - yet you think there was no deception ?

[Krychek_2]

No one is arguing he has the mind he had at 30. Older people do slow down. But people who actually work with him and see him on a daily basis regularly say that he's still sharp.

Because you hate Biden, you latch on to any small bit of evidence that might support that he's slowing down. In the meantime, he continues to take the GOP to the cleaners in terms of getting stuff done.

[David Nieporent]

Because you hate Biden, you latch on to any small bit of evidence that might support that he’s slowing down.

What's truly telling is that a long video from a news outlet is dismissed as probably deceptively edited, but some 40-second clip posted by @John37341313 on Twitter is treated as authoritative.

[Tom for equal rights]

Krychek_2 23 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"No one is arguing he has the mind he had at 30. Older people do slow down. But people who actually work with him and see him on a daily basis regularly say that he’s still sharp."

Yea Right - People that work with him and see him on a daily basis say he is still sharp.

The videos show otherwise - keep believing in fairytales.

[Brett Bellmore]

Remember when Presidents didn't "call lids"? When it was actually a full time job?

I don't think I ever even heard the term before Biden!

[David Nieporent]

Remember when Presidents didn’t “call lids”?

No.

When it was actually a full time job?

You understand that calling a lid doesn't mean that the president is going to bed, right? All it means is that he doesn't plan to make any more public appearances or statements for the day.

I don’t think I ever even heard the term before Biden!

Your ignorance reflects on you, not Biden. It's been used for decades, and became well-known to the general public via the show the West Wing, which started airing more than 20 years ago.

[Life of Brian]

Remember when Presidents didn’t “call lids”?

No.

Ah, we have a squirmer. Remember when Presidents didn't routinely call lids before noon?

You understand that calling a lid doesn’t mean that the president is going to bed, right?

Of course. And you understand that calling a lid gives him full cover to do so, right?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, look up what a lid indicates. Pretty sure you knew what it meant once.

Your curated forgettign is getting way out of hand.

[David Nieporent]

Ah, we have a squirmer. Remember when Presidents didn’t routinely call lids before noon?

I do not. I have never tracked when presidents called lids — and I'm betting you never have, either.

[Brett Bellmore]

For what it's worth, Google Ngram, (Which admittedly only goes up to 2019.) comes up empty for "call a lid". Doing a general Google search for the phrase, I find some instances of it prior to Biden, so I accept that he didn't invent the term.

None the less, I'd never heard it before Biden started his Presidential campaign, and they'd tell the press to go away early in the day. It was just an obscure bit of journalistic jargon prior to this administration.

[David Nieporent]

For what it’s worth, Google Ngram, (Which admittedly only goes up to 2019.) comes up empty for “call a lid”. Doing a general Google search for the phrase, I find some instances of it prior to Biden, so I accept that he didn’t invent the term.

How magnanimous of you. Again: it came up repeatedly on the West Wing. Which was long before the Biden presidency.

[Life of Brian]

Again: it came up repeatedly on the West Wing.

Why are you so obsessed with the usage of a term on a TV show rather than in real life? What exactly do you think the former demonstrates relevant to the discussion here? We're already past the question of whether the term existed.

And I'm happy enough that if any prior president had any sort of a pattern of calling lids early in the day as Biden does, any one of us would easily be able to pull up a plethora of articles from an aghast media. That's not surfacing for me, and I highly doubt it does for you.

For some examples of what a pre-Biden press actually did find newsworthy, check out this example from just before Biden took office, where Yamiche Alcindor is bitching about Trump calling a lid on Jan. 6 at close to 6pm. And another from 2020, pointing out Trump calling a lid just before 11pm.

The two standards are literally not even in the same half of the day.

[Life of Brian]

Another here, calling Trump out for calling a lid at 5pm. And another, just before 4pm.

Nothing up my sleeves -- that's what I saw in about 5 minutes, in the order they came off the search engine. Perhaps someone will dig hard enough to find at least a single instance of a pre-Biden early-day lid and then try to create some sort of moral equivalence between doing it once and doing it all the time. But the intellectually honest folks in the room know that this is the first President we've had that has routinely cut himself off from the press for substantial portions of the day and when big things are happening in the world that the press would normally expect to be able to timely inquire about.

[David Nieporent]

Why are you so obsessed with the usage of a term on a TV show rather than in real life? What exactly do you think the former demonstrates relevant to the discussion here? We’re already past the question of whether the term existed.

It demonstrates that the term was publicly known before Joe Biden's presidency, despite Brett's desperate attempt to disprove that. (It's generally an inside baseball term, which is why it would've been used on that show but not widely known outside the beltway.)

But what it really demonstrates is just how full of shit you people are. You've never heard of something before, so you're gullible enough to believe when Fox or the even further loony right media ecosystem feeds you a narrative.

[David Nieporent]

And I’m happy enough that if any prior president had any sort of a pattern of calling lids early in the day as Biden does, any one of us would easily be able to pull up a plethora of articles from an aghast media. That’s not surfacing for me, and I highly doubt it does for you.

Why would there be any such thing? Who cares? It's a fake non-scandal.

For some examples of what a pre-Biden press actually did find newsworthy, check out this example from just before Biden took office, where Yamiche Alcindor is bitching about Trump calling a lid on Jan. 6 at close to 6pm. And another from 2020, pointing out Trump calling a lid just before 11pm.

I reiterate my comments from earlier about you not being this stupid, and therefore making posts in bad faith. Neither of those comments are about the times of day Trump called a lid; they're about the fact that Trump wasn't issuing any statements. Any non-sociopathic president would have addressed the country after the events of the afternoon of J6. Trump chose not to. That's what it was about.

[Life of Brian]

Neither of those comments are about the times of day Trump called a lid; they’re about the fact that Trump wasn’t issuing any statements.

Since calling a lid for a given day ends the potential of any statements to the press for that day, the impact to the press of calling a lid increases the earlier it is in the day. Hopefully we can at least agree on that.

Just in case you misunderstood and weren't just itching for another excuse to use "bad faith" in a sentence, my broader point was that the press used to think it was BFD to call a lid with only a few hours (or in my second example, one hour!) left in the day, and now just a few short years later we're not supposed to be at all alarmed by frequent Presidential communicative pauses of nearly an entire day.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled distortion.

[David Nieporent]

Just in case you misunderstood and weren’t just itching for another excuse to use “bad faith” in a sentence, my broader point was that the press used to think it was BFD to call a lid with only a few hours (or in my second example, one hour!) left in the day, and now just a few short years later we’re not supposed to be at all alarmed by frequent Presidential communicative pauses of nearly an entire day.

Yeah, I'm still going with bad faith. Not one of those citations are to "the media" — by which you mean one particular reporter! — thinking it a BFD to call a lid with hours left in the day. That's 100% normal, and happens almost every day! What the first two¹ of those represented was the reporter thinking that it was a BFD to call a lid when major events had happened that day and the president hadn't spoken on them.

¹The second two you provided don't even do that! They aren't making a BFD of anything! They just involve the reporter noting as a brief aside buried in the articles why the reporter doesn't expect any further comment that day from the WH on the topic of the stories.

[David Nieporent]

Since calling a lid for a given day ends the potential of any statements to the press for that day, the impact to the press of calling a lid increases the earlier it is in the day. Hopefully we can at least agree on that.

Yes, and the whole point of calling a lid is as a courtesy to the press, to let them know they don't have to stand around twiddling their thumbs waiting for a statement. (Well, that and making the WH spokesperson's life easier, in that the press won't keep bothering them about when there's going to be a statement because you've already told them there won't be.)

[Brett Bellmore]

It's 60 Minutes, that by itself is enough reason to suspect deception.

The format, continually switching back and forth between subject and interviewer, scarcely ever having both in the frame at the same time, and always, without exception, doing a camera cut between question and answer, is perfectly designed to allow for unlimited editing without leaving suspicious artifacts. It's the videographer equivalent of cutting up pages from a magazine to make a ransom note!

Forget retakes, you can't even tell if the questions and answers were recorded at the same time!

[Nige]

Wow, I hope all those short little clips showing Biden's mental decline aren't deceptively edited and out of context, either, that would be so bad!

[Bob from Ohio]

"thoughtful and intelligent answers"

Didn't he say he thinks he'll achieve world peace in his second term?

[Krychek_2]

No, actually, he didn't say that. He said there were some things he wanted to finish in a second term. "I'll accomplish world peace in my second term" actually sounds more like the kind of claim Trump would make.

[Bob from Ohio]

"imagine if we were able to succeed in getting the Middle East put in place where we have normalization of relations. I think we can do that. Imagine what happens if we, in fact, unite all of Europe and Putin is finally put down where he cannot cause the kind of trouble he's been causing. We have enormous opportunities, enormous opportunities to make it a better world."

My mistake, just peace in the MidEast and Europe.

Not quite as delusional but hardly “thoughtful and intelligent" either.

[Krychek_2]

Asking us to imagine isn't quite the same thing as saying it will happen by Tuesday. I routinely say that the lawyers on a particular case could settle it if not for our stubborn clients.

Yeah, we could achieve peace in the Middle East if all sides agreed to be reasonable and act like decent human beings. So in that sense he's right.

[bernard11]

I believe Trump claimed he could settle the Russia-Ukraine war in one day.

Delusional? Or are all his claims sensible?

[Bob from Ohio]

“Delusional? Or are all his claims sensible?”

Yes. Ha Ha, no.

Biden and Trump are just opposite sides of the same coin.

[Nige]

If you comepletely change what Biden says, then yes!

[Krychek_2]

Bob, congratulations on finding the lone statement in everything Biden said that is open to claims of not being accurate. I think you have to twist it to reach that conclusion, but even if I grant it to you, you're still left with Biden said one thing the entire interview that's open to quibbling with.

Biden and Trump are not opposite sides of the same coin. Biden is thoughtful, Biden is intelligent, Biden is well spoken, Biden wants to make life better for all Americans, and Biden is willing to work across the aisle. Your false equivalence is just that, and doesn't fool anyone not already converted.

[Bob from Ohio]

Whatever dude. You don’t fool anyone not already converted.

[Krychek_2]

Well, we'll see what the voters think.

[Life of Brian]

Well, we’ll see what the voters think.

They seem to be clearly expressing what they think: Biden should not seek a second term .

[Krayt]

Based on his lingual ball fondler talking heads, that day would have gone like this: "Hi, Vlad. It's all yours!"

"Not our business. Many such cases!"

[Don Nico]

"and Putin is finally put down"
That quote from a US President is why US-Russia relations are the worst in 30 years.
It is why Biden's regime change remark wasn't a gaffe

[Nige]

Seems weird to discount things like Russian efforts at election interference and quite astonishingly over-the-top and agressive anti-US rhetoric from Russian media.

[Don Nico]

Weird? Your view is weirdly distorted by your far-left politics.
The US has been at odds for a long time, in fact since the second Clinton administration. It got worse under Bush II. Do you remember that Hilary as Sec of State was going to reset the relationship? Maybe she did in the sense that she made it far worse. No wonder Putin wanted to see her lose.

[grb]

Russia was also involved in election inference in France, Britain, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain and Sweden. This was particularly true of Brexit. Casting further afield, there was Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania and the east African island nation of Madagascar.

All Hillary's fault to be sure. Is there no end to her evil?

[David Nieporent]

US-Russia relations are the worst in 30 years because Russia unprovokedly invaded Ukraine, you imbecile.

[Don Nico]

David,
You have degenerated to name calling. You are the imbecile because you discount 25 years of history. Relations were terrible before the invasion. So Mr Biden calls for regime change in a nuclear power. Very smart of the guy. Stop your school yard bullshit and take a valium

[David Nieporent]

Relations were terrible before the invasion.

Which is it? Are relations terrible because of "That quote from a US President"? Or were they terrible before the invasion?

Biden's comment about regime change was after the invasion.

[grb]

David Nieporent : "Biden’s comment about regime change was after the invasion"

True, but you're ignoring Don's point : Biden was very dismissive and hurtful about Putin's invasion. He failed to give Putin an emotional safe space in which to conduct bloody offensive operations. He made no attempt understand Putin's needfulness for Tsarist glory, refusing to recognize its roots in a difficult childhood.

Really, there's no other way to see it : The blame's all Biden's....

Really,

[Don Nico]

"president who thinks before he speaks"
No, no. Otherwise he would not dish up so many outlandish statements that his staff have to walk back.

Actually, I think that Trump thinks about and plans to say the vile things he says before opening his mouth

[Kleppe]

"insist he is both incompetent and a criminal mastermind both at the same time"

What does George W. Bush have to do with this?

[Don Nico]

It was Chaney who was the criminal mastermind

[Brett Bellmore]

I thought "Lon" was the werewolf. Maybe you meant Cheney?

[Don Nico]

cute. I stand corrected

[Frank Drackman]

That was Sleepy Joe? Thought it was Clint Eastwood with the Squinty Eyes and gravelly voice.

[Kazinski]

60 minutes is to interview shows what SNL is to late night comedy, once very relevant and water-cooler topics, now completely irrelevant.

I haven't watched it in decades.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If you haven't watched it in decades, then you aren't in a position to judge.

[apedad]

Americans support mandatory national service

Americans agree on very little. That is why the results of a recent poll about mandatory national service were both surprising and encouraging.

Today, fully 75 percent of all young people aged 18-24 — those in the group most affected by the proposal — support that idea. People slightly older (25-37) support it even more: 80 percent are in favor. Older adults are also in favor. Sixty-two percent of people 38-44 — the largest group of parents of those expected to serve favor it, and 56 percent of people 45-64 are in support as well. No demographic reflected a majority in opposition.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4253664-americans-support-mandatory-national-service/

I'm a little skeptical about this one.

75 % of people aged 18-24 agree with, "All citizens and permanent residents (Green Card holders) will be required to participate in an 18-month National Service program. Service can be started any time between an individual’s 18th [and] 22nd birthday?"

Really?

The writer doesn't even link to his own survey although he links to another survey about the draft.

[Krayt]

So the difference between this (and much of Europe) and Robert Heinlein's "fascist" democracy in Starship Troopers is Heinlein makes it voluntary, with the reward being the right to vote, while all that above gates it behind threats of jail.

Got it.

[Sarcastr0]

I *love* Starship Troopers (kind of a death of the author thing), but

1) National Service is not military service
2) Gatekeeping the franchise is anti-democratic in a way a publicly approved policy is not
3) Is like Finland, with their national service, a fascist country?

Personally, I like the idea, but don't think it being a requirement is worth it. If 75% of the country likes it, than just create the infrastructure and use public expectations.

[Brett Bellmore]

The book was better than the movie, which is generally the case.

In the book, you didn't have to do military service to get the franchise, any sort of dangerous/unpleasant public service was sufficient, and in fact most didn't end up in the military. But you didn't get to pick it, the government did.

[Magister]

Been a while, but I'm pretty sure that most did end up in the military. Since the book flatters Brett's political beliefs, of course there was no bias or corruption in how recruits were assigned. Heinlein should be read for entertaining adventure, not political theory.

[Sarcastr0]

Eh, the movie is unsubtle and shallow and a bit too strudent to have a sense of fun. I prefer Robocop for such things.

you didn’t get to pick it, the government did.
How trusting of you and Heinlein in the government!

I mean, there was a war with a pretty muddy provenance. And a very well oiled military machine in it's service.

And by the end Rico couldn't even understand why he had the shakes. Heinlein was a better writer than he knew to capture how broken his main characters' humanity had become from the vibrant and horny teenager of the open.

[Randal]

If you think the movie is unsubtle and shallow you didn't watch it closely enough. It's one of the best satires ever made, exactly because it's all buried. The only glimmer you get on the surface is Neil Patrick Harris. Of the actors, he alone was smart enough to understand what was actually happening.

(And even that was intentional. The DVD has deleted scenes and some of the actors' auditions. They're the same! Even schlockier soap-opera garbage than what's in the movie itself. Verhoeven intentionally picked stupid, pretty, terrible over-actors to go along with the movie's superficial trite dialogue and moral certitude. Except for Neil. I think he wanted to make sure there was at least one person winking at the audience.)

[Sarcastr0]

Naw, it was the stuff you think was buried that I found unsubtle and shallow - yes I get it was framed as fascist propaganda as a satire of our kinda fascistic take on the Our Troops crowd.

I did not think that was much of a light touch.

[Randal]

Oh man, I think you’re underestimating what it takes to make a movie work so perfectly on so many levels! Like a Bach fugue.

I agree that the message of the satire wasn’t super-sophisticated… but is it ever? Satire’s message is pretty much always “look how ridiculous this thing is,” there’s not a lot of room for complex analysis. The joy of satire is the execution.

There was nothing more joyful than watching a lot of mindless Americans cheering on the fascists (level 1), or mindless critics complaining about the puerile dialogue and hammy acting (level 2), or the actors themselves mindlessly describing the movie as an action flick (level 3)… all of which being part of the point of the satire of how easy it is for people to swallow fascist propaganda (level 4).

But yes, a lot of that required experiencing the movie in the context of its release in the late 90s. On the other hand, the movie was also set in the future and directed as though it were future movie such as by batting nary an eye at co-ed nudity, racial stereotypes, a cozy relationship between government and online media, dehumanization of perceived enemies, indoctrination of kids, and political glorification of guns and violence (level 5). All things which are trending, 25 years later! The movie feels almost more at home in the 2020s than it did in the 1990s.

[Sarcastr0]

This analysis is a bit too po-mo for me. There is such a thing as subtle satire.

But I also like some anviliccious satire as well - Robocop is great at this. I see the plan with the bad actors with flat affect, but to me it degraded the quality of the execution.

Of course, YMMV.

[Randal]

Oh yeah, a penchant for postmodernism is definitely required. 1997!

[Randal]

Ok, just to dig in a bit on one aspect to try to convince you that there’s some actual depth… consider the movie’s take on race.

Everyone who matters is white. This actually isn’t that notable for a ’90s movie (but it is a deviation from the book). There are a number of secondary non-white characters, but none of them evince even a shred of cultural identity. They’ve all been completely assimilated into the Aryan-dominated monoculture.

In the ’90s, a colorblind society was still seen as a progressive aspiration compared to the overtly racist society we were just putting behind us. At the time, I was young and naive and thought Verhoeven was commenting on the future success of that progressive ideal.

But now I see that he realized all along that the real enemy isn’t racism, it’s the monoculture. Whether it’s achieved by expelling minorities or by stripping them of all distinction, the result is the same: a fascist utopia.

It’s fascinating to me that MAGA conservatives have caught up to Verhoeven on this. How many times per day do you see a comment right here on VC advocating for colorblindness while decrying diversity? It’s the modern version of the call of the Aryan monoculture, as anticipated by Starship Troopers.

[Sarcastr0]

Everyone who matters is white. This actually isn’t that notable for a ’90s movie

This seems to cut against itself – it could have been unintentional since that was the style of the time, or it could have been intentional and we can’t know.

I give the the book credit for having the main character being Filipino but utterly assimilated, though Heinlein probably didn’t realize what he was doing since white monoculture in golden age sci-fi was aggressively the norm. And the movie does the same thing perhaps better with the nonwhites as stage dressing. So yeah, that’s a good point.

It’s just…the movie isn’t enjoyable to me. Maybe that was intentional as executed, but I like movies that are at least well done cheeze, and that’s the bottom line for me.

[Nige]

It is a sci- fi space-opera grunt-action war epic, but its satirical thrust renders all that intensely uncomfortable, like watching Birth Of A Nation.

[David Nieporent]

In the book, you didn’t have to do military service to get the franchise, any sort of dangerous/unpleasant public service was sufficient, and in fact most didn’t end up in the military.

No, that's not right. One had to do military service. What Heinlein wrote was that the military would find something for people to do who were physically incapable of engaging in combat duty. But one was still joining the military, with all that entailed.

[David Nieporent]

The quote from the book was in a scene where the protagonist was getting an entrance physical:

“Why, the purpose is,” he answered, hauling off and hitting me in the knee with a hammer (I kicked him, but not hard), “to find out what duties you are physically able to perform. But if you came in here in a wheel chair and blind in both eyes and were silly enough to insist on enrolling, they would find something silly enough to match. Counting the fuzz on a caterpillar by touch, maybe. The only way you can fail is by having psychiatrists decide that you are not able to understand the oath.”

[Noscitur a sociis]

Heinlein did later say write that 95% of the people serving weren't in the military. But I agree with you that the text doesn't support this construction.

https://www.nitrosyncretic.com/pdfs/nature_of_fedsvc_1996.pdf

[Moderation4ever]

It is pretty hard to get Americans to agree on much so 75% seems pretty high. I take this with a grain of salt with seeing the supporting documentation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

13th Amendment?

[Magister]

Military draft still legal more than a century later?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Article 1 -- Congress has the power to raise armies -- not public service corps.

[Magister]

So declare them in the army, but assigned to non-combat duties.

[Kazinski]

While the draft does not run afoul of the 13th amendment, involuntary servitude and mandatory public service seem very similar, conceptually and linguistically.

Then what do you do with people who refuse to serve?

Jail? Stiff fines? It will quickly be scrapped because even 10% not going along will make it highly unpopular.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There would be the inevitable argument (going to SCOTUS) that an "army" involves people with guns either preparing to or actually going out and shooting people and breaking things.

And there is no way that UNARMED public service labor forces constituted an "army" as the term was defined as being in 1787 -- and really, not now either.

The other thing people forget is how much of a problem the "don't give a f*ck" draftees were in Vietnam -- I've long said that we'd never have another military draft as long as any officer who fought in Vietnam was still alive.

Things like the CCC involved people who *wanted* to be there, who were happy to be there. Can you imagine the consequences of a totally disinterested workforce, even without the hard-to-control drugs that we have now?

You'd have scary situations if those conscripted held even a scintilla of responsibility.

[Magister]

Armies are for national defense, which mandatory national service could also contribute to. Not everyone in the army is tasked with shooting and breaking. At worst, it is implemented as a draft into an army and spends enough time training for shooting and breaking to qualify as an army.

[Moderation4ever]

What I have seen in the last week is that the American people made the right choice in their pick for President in 2020. Joe Biden knows how to communicate with world leaders and with the American people who are angry and worried. He can park his ego at the door and talk to leaders with which he has personal differences. He can build coalitions that will be needed to contain the violence. He is a friend to Israel both having that country's back, and knowing how to tell them things they may not want to hear. The situation in the middle east will not end well, but it can end better than the worst case. Joe Biden has the best chance of getting the better case.

[Dan Schiavetta]

+1 What a relief.

[Tom for equal rights]

builds a coalition with the likes of the Iran mullahs who then funnel money to terrorist organizations such as hamas.

Great coalitions he builds

[Moderation4ever]

Based on your history of muting opinions you don't like I believe you only like comments that fit your mindset. So I think we can ignore much of your response.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Biden is a senile old fool who likely will get us into a nuke war.

[Magister]

Dodged that bullet with Ronald Reagan.

Of course, Dr. Ed 2 only approves civil wars.

[SimonP]

By this point in a second Trump term, Russia would have taken over Ukraine, NATO would be teetering on the edge of dissolution, China would be ramping up for its invasion of Taiwan, Afghanistan would still have been a clusterfuck. Russia and China likely would have continued with the same campaign of supporting military coups and kleptocratic regimes in Africa and Asia. Israel would have continued normalizing relations in the Middle East, and it's a good bet that Saudi Arabia would have the security umbrella that Biden has been talking with them about.

All that being the case, it's easy to see Iran and Hamas launching a similar attack against Israel as has recently occurred. So what, then, do you think would have been the response, if Trump were president?

[Moderation4ever]

I noticed this article in my local newspaper, the Wisconsin State Journal, and offer it as a counter to those thinking we need no government regulations. There is no doubt the government sometimes overregulates, but sometimes it under regulates. Colorado's weak oversite of funeral home allowed 115 decomposing bodies to go unnoticed until the smell brought complaints. As the article noted, better regulation and inspections would not have stopped the problem but would have found the problem earlier and before 115 bodies accumulated. I am not for over regulation but for effective regulation.

https://madison.com/eedition/page-a5/page_cd4ebae1-443a-5fd4-a9a5-bf467c11dc91.html

[Brett Bellmore]

You think it's irrelevant that it was a "green" funeral home?

[Moderation4ever]

What I think is relevant is that it did not get inspected enough to catch the problem quicker than it did.

[Michael P]

Reminiscent of Kermit Gosnell. The leftist-approved outfits somehow hardly ever get inspected by leftist big-government types.

[bernard11]

You left out the Scalise shooting. No. Wait. That's Brett's shtick.

[Brett Bellmore]

Is this a problem that's endemic in the funeral home industry? Not that I've heard.

You think maybe the nature of this particular funeral home might have had something to do with the situation?

[Randal]

So... regulations would only have impacted this one funeral home, preventing it from going so far off the rails. No impact on the rest since they're already doing it right.

Sounds great! Use regulations to make sure there's a min bar of acceptability.

[Bob from Ohio]

"those thinking we need no government regulations"

Giant strawman alert!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

a counter to those thinking we need no government regulations

You sure showed that tiny handful of anarchists.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What, exactly, can two aircraft carrier task forces do to Gaza that the IDF can't? What is Obama up to?

[Martinned]

Are you like Trump, who thinks that Obama is still president?

https://twitter.com/BidenHQ/status/1712518509211590760

[David Nieporent]

But Trump also thinks that he himself is still president. Ergo, Trump is Obama.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think that Obama is pulling the strings from his mansion in DC.
Biden wasn't bright enough to be President 40 years ago, and he's no brighter now -- he is a puppet.

[not guilty]

"I think that Obama is pulling the strings from his mansion in DC."

Supporting facts??

[Noscitur a sociis]

While there is unquestionably some stiff competition, this may just be the dumbest thing you’ve ever said.

[Armchair]

"What, exactly, can two aircraft carrier task forces do to Gaza that the IDF can’t?"

Act as air support in case Iran decides to take action against Israel.

[Brett Bellmore]

Iran has threatened "a huge earthquake"; I wouldn't look for that to be an air attack, but instead a buried nuke.

Iran has had plenty of time to make at least one or two nukes.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Iran has had plenty of time to make at least one or two nukes"

And all "thanks" to Trump for that sad fact....

[Don Nico]

"And all “thanks” to Trump for that sad fact…."
It is NOT a fact. There is no evidence that Iran has enough special nuclear material to make a nuclear explosive.
Maybe a year or so from now.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe!

[Brett Bellmore]

You never have evidence for what you avoid looking at. The inspection regime was crippled from the start, at best it could have slowed them down.

[grb]

Let’s review, shall we?

1. After twenty months of negotiations, China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States reached agreement with Iran to limit their nuclear program.

2. Under the JCPOA, Iran agreed to eliminate its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium, cut its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 98%, and reduce by about two-thirds the number of its gas centrifuges for 13 years. For the next 15 years, Iran agreed to enrich uranium only up to 3.67%. Iran also agreed not to build any new heavy-water facilities for the same period of time. Uranium-enrichment activities will be limited to a single facility using first-generation centrifuges for 10 years. Other facilities will be converted to avoid proliferation risks.

3. Under the terms of the deal, Iran shipped thousands of pounds of enriched uranium to Russia, to bring their stock under the pacts limits.

4. Under the terms of the deal, IAEA inspectors spent an aggregate of 3,000 calendar days in Iran during 2018, installing tamper-proof seals and collecting surveillance camera photos, measurement data, and documents for further analysis. IAEA Director Yukiya Amano stated (in March 2018) that the organization has verified that Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments.

5. Repeatedly, IAEA inspectors and governments in Europe and the United States certified Iran was complying with the pact, right up to and including the Trump Administration, which formally certified compliance in April 2017 and in July 2017.

6. At the time, the major Right-wing criticism had nothing to due with Iran cheating, but complained the pact didn’t address their ballistic missile program or conventional arms. Only the fever dream fringe-Right insisted Iran was cheating reflexively, but never produced any evidence or real allegations. There were none.

7. But Trump wanted to toss some red meat to folk like Brett, certain they’d be dizzy with ecstasy if he pulled out, pounded his chest, and made a really tough-sounding speech.

8. So Trump did, proclaiming he’d renegotiate the deal to include non-nuclear weapons. The Iranians ignored him and began to ramp-up the mass industrial enrichment of uranium.

So Brett got his speech, found it really, really exciting, and now has to face the facts: His hero made one of the most colossal imbecilic blunders in recent foreign policy history. So with the same ease he claims Trump lost the ’16 debates because everyone who said so didn’t actually watch, Brett invents fantasy cheating. What else can he do? He can't admit the extent of Trump’s error, or the petty reasons the mistake was made.

[Don Nico]

Brett,
At the time Trump pulled out of the JCPOA, IAEA was certifying that Iran was in compliance with the letter of the agreement.
But subsequent events showed that Iran was ready to exploit the US withdrawal very quickly. And it did so in an impressive fashion.

[Frank Drackman]

They keep going with their bullshit Israel might give them a few, but not in the sense that the Ear-ronians want.
And after the Plutonium reaches critical mass and goes Ka-blooie, where does it end up? We're talking 20-30 lbs.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Besides, what aircraft would Iran use to attack *with*?

All they have are some 44-year-old F-14s that have been cannibalized for parts -- a couple may still fly.

[Frank Drackman]

Dr. Ed, if you ever "Transition" you could be (Dr?) Miss Information,
First of all, they still have several squadrons of F-14s, funny, it's almost like some other country stopped flying them and now there's lots of spare parts. They've got 4-5 Squadrons of F4 Phantoms, that the Israeli's helped them maintain during the Iran-Iraq war (That old "Enemy of my Enemy" thang)
They also have their own version of the F-5, which is not a bad jet,

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

"F4 Phantoms,"

Rocks can fly with a big enough engine.

The entire Iranian air force woulds last 5 minutes. They will just hide them, like Iraq did.

[Frank Drackman]

They said the same thing about the North Vietnamese Air Force. And the F4 was a Navy design, intended as an Interceptor, to protect the Carrier Battle Group with long range radar guided missiles, original model didn't have a gun, AF versions later adopted a "Strap on" gun pod, was never intended for ACM (I'd tell you but then...) or for Air to Ground.

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

The Soviets flying North Vietnamese planes were not flying obsolete planes.

F4 has been obsolete for 40 years. They would just be targets for IDF or US fighters.

[Frank Drackman]

Tell that to the crew of the USS Stark, nearly sunk by a 1960's era Mirage F1 fighter in 1987

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem with the F-4 in Vietnam is that the plane had designed to shoot down radar targets at many miles distance -- and the Rules of Engagement required visual verification before firing. Hence the NVA planes were too close for missiles and the F-4 lacked guns.

Al least that is what I was told.

[Drewski]

I think youve confused Iran with the Riddler. Iran is probably not hiding clues in messages that Brent Batman can solve to save the day.

[DaveM]

Apparently, the three big things are air superiority, ballistic missile defense, and logistics support, according to https://breakingdefense.com/2023/10/menu-of-options-what-the-ford-carrier-strike-group-brings-to-israels-defense/

The anti-ballistic missiles I think are the big ticket item. Hamas only has short-range missiles, and the Iron Dome can handle those. But if Iran or Syria decide to start attacking, the US Carrier Task Force is perfectly situated at sea to detect and deter.

Hopefully, that should help keep the madness from spreading.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hamas has already demonstrated the capacity to overload Iron Dome by launching a lot of missiles at once, and they're now using fairly advanced missiles supplied by Iran, not the old fireworks some people like to talk about. So Iron Dome is only moderating even the short range missile attacks, some of which are still getting through.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What do you think Obama is up to, Dr. Ed???

[Kazinski]

It's a warning to Iran not to get involved.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Israel is again supplying water to Gaza, and while Israel only supplies 10% if the water, it is better quality than the "brackish" water that Hamas supplies. For those who don't live along the coast, "brackish" means mixed with salt water, but not as salty as the ocean itself --- contaminated with salt water.

Isn't it nice of Israel to give Gaza water that is fit to drink (the Israelis do a lot of desalination) .

And they are being repaid by a Hamas government that is digging up the water pipes and making them into rockets they shoot into Israel. Yes, rip up the water pipes and use them to kill the people who are giving you the water in the first place, and then cry about how your people don't have clean water to drink.

[apedad]

Gee...I wonder why the Gaza water is unfit to drink.

Oh...Israel.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/11/the-occupation-of-water/

[Frank Drackman]

It's cause the A-rabs piss and shit in it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's not just that -- as even the above-cited amnesty article concedes, they have pumped so much out of the aquifer that the ocean is infiltrating it, hence the brackish water. NYC did the same thing in the 1950s with water-cooled air conditioners -- and passed an ordinance that the water had to be pumped back into the ground.

All the evil Israelis are doing is saying "no mas" -- preserving what exists by saying no more wells, no bigger pumps, etc. The US EPA would do the same thing -- HAS done the same thing....

The cisterns are destroyed because terrorists are using them for nefarious purposes -- whose fault is that? And if these A-holes ever decided to make peace with the Israelis -- to truly make peace -- there are enough socialists in Israel to subsidize a Gazian desalination plant.

[Don Nico]

Sure, that Hams has used the $100M to build tunnels rather than to provide adequate drinking water has nothing to do with it.

[Martinned]

It appears that Israel is not, in fact, supplying water again: https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-civilians-humanitarian-crisis-shortages-fuel-water-937b474fa16970f36ac44615e9797fbc

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe next time don't attack the guys who control your water.

[OtisAH]

Collective punishment is a war crime. No “maybes” involved.

[Frank Drackman]

Stick that bullshit up your asshole, like you do with everything else. Maybe don't murder babies sleeping in their cribs.

[OtisAH]

You are human garbage. You, that loser Bob, and every other piece of shit around here delightedly calling for genocide and the murder of children. Not a one of you worthless cunts actually gives a shit about even the Israeli deaths, you just enjoy telling the world what absolute gutter trash you are. The only satisfaction I get from even engaging around here is the knowledge that your lives suck and you will die alone.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm for killing every single Ham-ass Member, pulling their living guts out and using them to grease the treads of the Israeli Tanks, Use their Eyes for marbles, and make dice out of what teeth they have left, and if "Women and Children" are in the General vicinity, it might not turn out good for them.
And the same for Jizz-bollah, and the Ear-Ronians, Reagan should have nuked Terror-Ann in 1981 and saved us 40 years of this shit.
Why can't they be like Japan? or Italy? or even fucking Germany? when's the last time they attacked anyone?? 80 years ago Because we killed millions of their military age men, hundreds of thousands of women and children (where do you think Military age men come from?)

Frank

[Don Nico]

nice screed.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's right, refusing to supply the enemy in war is "collective punishment". [/sarc]

[Nige]

No, refusing to supply water to innocent civilians is a war crime.

[Bob from Ohio]

Prove it. Be specific.

[Nige]

You have innocent civilians.
You have water to the innocent civilians.
You cut off that water.
War crime!

[Bob from Ohio]

Blowing smoke out your but as usual I see. Its not a war crime.

[Nige]

Are you pretending the status of the act as a war crime would make the blindest bit of difference to you?

[Kazinski]

That's how sieges work.

You unconditionally surrender then you get food and water.

[Nige]

And it's a war crime.

[Bob from Ohio]

No international "law' requires you to supply your enemy.

Its not a punishment, its denying your enemy access to your resources.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Does this “enemy” include all the children in Gaza where the median age is 18? How many child deaths from dehydration are acceptable to you?

[Bob from Ohio]

Hamas is the government and has the obligation to provide services. They pulled up internationally supplied water pipes to make rockets, bragged about it in a video.

There are wells and private desalination plants too.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Didn't answer the question. Also electricity is cut so desalination doesn't work. And fine Hamas has failed in their governmental responsibility. I agree. Now that blame has been apportioned the question still remains: what is going to happen to the dehydrated children?

[Drewski]

Hamas could get water to those children simply by surrendering. The suffering is Hamas's fault, and within their power to stop. Every gallon Israel send them is potentially a fighting man sustained for a day, ready to murder babies by hand.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Again: we've blamed Hamas. Now what? Let the kids die?

[Bob from Ohio]

Hamas stole supplies from the UN today. But they would totally let any water go to the kids.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So that means Israelis and NGOs shouldn't even try?

[Drewski]

"Now what? Let the kids die?"

Well, yeah. There is no scenario here where kids don't die. The question is whether Israel protects Israeli children by killing Palestinian children or protects Palestinian children by letting Hamas kill Israeli children. Their first duty is to their own people.

[Nige]

So the moral formulation 'there's no justification for the killing of children' is fake.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't know, maybe the same number of baby deaths from Abortion that are acceptable to you, nearly a million per year, last time I checked, disproportionately "Peoples of Color"

[Don Nico]

"children in Gaza where the median age is 18"
LTG,
How old are the oldest children?As I said previously 13 year-olds are perfectly capable of wielding and killing with serious weapons

[LawTalkingGuy]

Or another question: if you were in front of child you considered an "enemy" who was dehydrated and you had water...would you deny it to them? Would you watch them die? What would you feel as you watched them suffer and die? Would you feel good about it? Would you still consider yourself pro-life?

[Bob from Ohio]

We just had the actual mass murder of babies and other children. You made no comment about that at all.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes. And that's why Hamas must be defeated. That doesn't absolve Israel or anyone else with power and resources from the moral responsibility of ensuring children don't die from dehydration.

Now that I've condemned it, answer the question.

[Bob from Ohio]

I don't respond to ultimatum questions, as you know.

You should have condemned it without my shaming so I award you no points.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I didn't need your shaming to condemn it. And even if I did: that makes me the better man. I have the capacity for shame and moral growth and you don't.

"I don’t respond to ultimatum questions, as you know."

Is it because you are deeply ashamed of your honest answers?
If I can respond honestly why can't you? Imagine being too big of a coward for the internet.

[Bob from Ohio]

You have no right to demand anything from me.

To think anyone is afraid of you!

[LawTalkingGuy]

"You have no right to demand anything from me."

Actually I have every right to question you and ask for honest answers. It's a comment thread online. And you have every right not to respond or to equivocate or whine or lie or come up with some childish insult. As you do regularly. I have the right to make inferences about your character based on that interaction and tell you about it. That's all that's happening.

And I don't think you're afraid of me! You're scared of yourself!

You're scared that typing out what you think is an admission that's what you believe! And it can mean one of two things:

Either:

1) you actually aren't as hard-hearted as you like to pretend be and you believe an admission of something resembling empathy or care for others makes you look weak, or
2) you actually are extremely uncaring and bloodthirsty and an admission of that makes you look like a psycho and part of you isn't ready to confront that.

[Bob from Ohio]

I decline to continue wresting with a tar baby after a while, it gets tedious.

Don't your arms ache from the constant patting on the back regarding your claimed moral superiority?

[LawTalkingGuy]

A pathetic non-response from a pathetic person.

[Armchair]

Foreign Policy Scorecard. Trump v Joe.

1. Russia and Ukraine
---War explodes under Joe. Relatively quiet under Trump.

2. Israel and the Middle East.
---New peace treaties under Trump. War explodes under Joe.

3. Afghanistan.
---Major Blunders in the withdrawal under Joe. No major blunders under Trump.

4. China and Taiwan.
---To Be Determined

Seriously though, is there anywhere Joe hasn't screwed up in terms of foreign policy yet?

[Nelson]

"War explodes under Joe. Relatively quiet under Trump"

Thank God, from the Ukrainian point of view. Putin would have played Trump for a fool, like he did every other time they met.

"New peace treaties under Trump. War explodes under Joe"

You mean the worthless, irrelevant Abraham Accords? The one that changed exactly nothing, but earned Jared Kushner a $2 billion investment?

"Major Blunders in the withdrawal under Joe. No major blunders under Trump"

I noticed how smoothly Trump's DOD got us out of Afghanistan when he made the call to get out. Oh, wait ...

"China and Taiwan"

If Trump is as savvy with China as he was in real estate and his dealings with Russia, we'd be lucky to get out without giving up Hawaii and invading Taiwan for them. Complex thinking isn't Trump's strong suit.

[Michael P]

Trump didn't get suckered by Putin. Certainly Trump was more effective than Obama, who famously promised to pay back Putin for holding off on action before the 2012 election.

The Abraham Accords were so successful that Iran had to get Hamas to commit a full-scale assault on citizens to keep Israel and Saudi Arabian from normalizing relations.

You are a sad, sick liar.

[Nige]

That makes the Accords sound like a complete fucking disaster.

[Tom for equal rights]

Michael P 2 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Trump didn’t get suckered by Putin. Certainly Trump was more effective than Obama, who famously promised to pay back Putin for holding off on action before the 2012 election."

Of course - most every leftist is claiming trump was putins puppet, not withstanding actual evidence of who was the actual puppet.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's easy enough for you to dismiss the fact that these wars didn't happen under Trump, isn't it? You just need to imagine some counterfactual about how the Trump in your imagination would have responded if they had.

And yet, they didn't...

[grb]

No. People just have to look at Trump’s pledge to “end the war in Ukraine in one week”. The only route to that pledge is to cut-off all U.S. support to Ukraine and insist they capitulate to Putin.

That isn’t supposition or theory, but cold hard fact. It’s simply the only way Trump’s promise can be fulfilled. Given that he did the same thing in Afghanistan (see my comment just below) just makes that more certain. There, Trump negotiated a side deal with the Taliban in talks where our Afghan allies weren’t included or wanted. He gave the Taliban everything and got almost nothing in return. But that allowed him to be the “Man”, which was his major policy goal.

If elected, he’ll follow the exact same route with Zelensky and Putin. This time it will fracture NATO as well, but I doubt Trump will care. (Putin will, of course…)

[David Nieporent]

People just have to look at Trump’s pledge to “end the war in Ukraine in one week”.

My favorite thing is that Trumpkins don't realize what a monster Trump is revealing himself to be with that pledge even if he has some idea other than capitulation. According to Trump, he's so smart that he knows how to end a brutal war with a snap of his fingers, but he's refusing to tell anyone how to do it unless we agree to elect him president again.

[Bored Lawyer]

I am far from a Trump fan. But I don't think that's a fair criticism. He is saying he could end it if he had the power of the presidency, which he does not have now. Presumably, he would use that power to pressure both sides to end the war.

[Nige]

Yeah, he also said he could fix the health care system, ban Muslims and jail Hilary.

[Mr. Bumble]

“Yeah, he also said he could fix the health care system, …”

I thought Obamacare did that. Is it still broken?

[Nige]

So long as it's private insurance-based, it's broken.

[Krayt]

Any changes that get rid of the profit motive to develop new drugs slows that development, mass murdering, like continuously compounded interest.

"Hi! We give out for free (shit which would have been invented decades sooner in a free society)! Praise me!"

[Nige]

You're confusing the healthcare system with the pharamceutical industry. Are the pharma companies that didn't bother to develop a malaria vaccine for decades because it wasn't profitable mass murderers?

[David Nieporent]

He is saying he could end it if he had the power of the presidency, which he does not have now. Presumably, he would use that power to pressure both sides to end the war.

No; he said he could end it in one day if he was elected. Somehow I don't think presidential pressure works that quickly.

[Bored Lawyer]

You underestimate the power of Trump's delusions about himself.

[Don Nico]

I don't see evidence that Mr Biden has been pressuring BOTH sides to end the war. In fact he has done the opposite, trying to fight Mr Putin to the last Ukrainian

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. Biden is not fighting Putin. Ukraine is.

Why the fuck would Biden be pressuring Ukraine to surrender?

[Don Nico]

David,
You really have lost it.
I did not say he should tell Zelensky to surrender. That BS is in you emotionally rattled brain.
I have said that he has actively promoted the war by $100B of weapons, by pressuring German to fly German planes (presumably on intelligence missions).
Get a grip on yourself.
And stop distorting what people say to make an asinine point.

[David Nieporent]

I did not say he should tell Zelensky to surrender. [...] I have said that he has actively promoted the war by $100B of weapons,

Are you actually not smart enough to understand that these two statements are contradictory? Either you want Ukraine to be able to defend itself or you want Ukraine to surrender.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

There he is. There's Mr. Russian Propagandist in all his delusional glory!

Go fuck yourself, Don.

[grb]

Don Nico : “… trying to fight Mr Putin to the last Ukrainian …”

Strange how I never hear someone parrot this bit of Putin propaganda without the strong impression they don’t give the slightest damn about Ukrainians, alive or dead. It’s all just crocodile tears for the cause of Holy Mother Russia.

And I never hear someone provide this bit of service to Vladimir (whose boots must be kept polished!) without wondering why they don’t give the slightest agency to Ukrainians. After all, they’re the ones fighting and dying. Given that sacrifice, you’d think they’d amount to more than someone’s anti-American hot-take bullshit.

And Russia launches the first new full war of conquest on the European continent since they did it to Poland back in ’39 (with their ally Hitler). An outgunned smaller country fights back heroically. The war is fought to determine whether Ukraine can turn to the West or be vassal to a mafia-style gangster regime.

Yet there are people whose empathy is dead, their imagination is shriveled down to nothing, and they really, really want to make sure Putin’s boots stay properly polished. So all they can produce is the tired old shtick that everything is all about the U.S.

[Don Nico]

"It’s all just crocodile tears for the cause of Holy Mother Russia."
Horse-hockey. It has nothing to do with Holy Mother Russia.
All your distortion of history does not change the facts of the present driving NATA to the edge of the Russian frontier.
The Us would not accept a similar action by China in Mexico. It has long punished Cuba for have a Soviet communist regime.

"Biden is not fighting Putin."
No? What else is send nearly $100 B in arms and calling for regime change in Russia?
It is Biden's proxy war.

[Sarcastr0]

NATO is not an offensive organization.

You are indeed parroting RT talking points if you blame Russia's offensive and aggressive war on NATO.

At least pretend not to swallow that nonsense uncritically.

The 'Biden's proxy war' thing is also unsupported Russian propaganda. One clue is making it about Biden when there are plenty of others in and out of the US who agree and are taking action.
Look at the equipment we are sending over before you trust that valuation as well - it's not what we use.

Really a bad show of uncritical repeating of talking points by someone who once knew better.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
Like a good bureaucrat nuzzling the government tit, must be stomping his feet that it is not a "proxy" war.

[grb]

Don Nico : " .... not a “proxy” war ..."

Two questions that attempt to penetrate your thick shell of obstinate stupidity re this:

1. Dozens of countries have provided support to the Ukrainians. Are they all fighting separate "proxy wars" with the Russians, or do you rely on a special U.S. exception to peddle Putin's line?

2. Does any support for Ukraine trigger Don Nico's "very, very bad proxy war" formulation? Over on the anti-American fringe Left, figures like Chomsky permit the United States to offer support as long as it's too limited to be effective. So what's the outlook on the anti-American fringe Right? Same or different? Give us your front line report, Don. Let's have the inside scoop.

[Sarcastr0]

You can say proxy war all you want, but most folks would like that kind of statement supported.

Beyond the fact that Russia started this war, and the number of supporters of Ukraine is hardly limited to the US, America doesn’t seem to have a lot of motive here; Russia is hardly our biggest threat.

Also my job has not much to do with my opinions about US foreign or military policy.

[David Nieporent]

The Us would not accept a similar action by China in Mexico. It has long punished Cuba for have a Soviet communist regime.

It "punished" Cuba by not trading with it, not by invading. (Even if you count Bay of Pigs, that was over six decades ago.) Nobody is saying Russia can't refuse to do business with Ukraine.

[Don Nico]

"Are they all fighting separate “proxy wars” with the Russians, or do you rely on a special U.S. exception"
They are doing what the US and the UK is leading them to do. They do have interests in seeing Putin's efforts defeated. But none have driven the war effort like the US and the UK have.
As for your question about the US, yes, it is an exception. Only its leader has called for regime change.
Not everyone sees the world like you do. That is not be cause they are stupid.

I have not called you stupid. I'd appreciate the same level of respectful argument

[grb]

Last year I did about 160miles backpacking above the Arctic Circle in Sweden. My hiking companion was far Left, but remarkable similar to you. Everything was always about the U.S. and everything the U.S. did was vile. We tricked the Ukrainians into fighting for their country. It would have never occurred to them otherwise.

And we forced European support for Zelensky. Absent our arm-twisting, the Germans, Poles and French wouldn’t have even noticed the 150K army trying to topple a neighbor state. Maybe they would have briefly looked-up if the Russian got too beastly loud raining missiles on schools, hospitals and markets. But the snippy rudeness of actually objecting to the invasion? That’s on the U.S. alone.

And what about the war’s continuance? All on the United States. Without our yucky influence, Ukraine would have long ago willingly gifted a quarter of their country to Putin. Being openly touched by the gesture, his heart would have warmed. From that day forward he would become a gentle and loving ruler to all the new vassals he'd conquered. On the former fields of war, herds of playful purple unicorns would romp and graze peacefully under a blazing sky full of rainbows.

I understand your frustration, Don. It’s infuriating the U.S. alone stopped all that from happening....

[Krychek_2]

If Trump were still president, the Ukraine war would have been over in a week and Putin would now control all of the Ukraine.

[Armchair]

How do you figure that? Just curious....

You know Trump did authorize lethal aid going to Ukraine, the same lethal aid that was critical for Ukraine to hold against Russia in the first week.

[Moderation4ever]

The fact is that Trump was likely to give Putin whatever he wanted. He loved authoritarian leaders and hated democratic leaders. And the authoritarians knew just how to play Trump, he was a sucker for a complement.

[Michael P]

Projection isn't just a movie theater trick.

[Krychek_2]

Then maybe you should stop doing it.

[Armchair]

"The fact is that Trump was likely to give Putin whatever he wanted."

It's interesting that all these responses are generally what they think Trump "would have" done, rather than what Trump actually "did".

[Krychek_2]

What Moderation4ever said. Also, there was no actual war in progress at the time Trump authorized the aid.

[David Nieporent]

Trump didn't authorize diddlysquat; Congress did! This is the very aid that Trump refused to send to Ukraine unless they made up a fake investigation of Biden. Trump only sent it after he was caught.

[Armchair]

So, you think the Trump administration didn't seek lethal aid to Ukraine?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sources-trump-expected-announce-approval-plan-sell-anti/story?id=51957745

I mean, you're a bit deluded here.

[Don Nico]

"Trump didn’t authorize diddlysquat; "
David, you can't actually believe that.
Such actions are not taken without the approval (or in most cases instigation) of POTUS.

[Armchair]

David has TDS

[Armchair]

Mmm.... Check your history books. There was quite the conflict in Ukraine before Russia "formally" invaded Ukraine. For example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_war_in_Donbas_(2017)

[bernard11]

You're full of shit, as usual.

See DMN below.

[Armchair]

Mmm... No.

The Trump administration did seek to get Ukraine lethal military aid, and succeeded in it. Something the Obama administration never did.

These are facts. Ignoring these facts is delusional.

[Frank Drackman]

Good!

[Tom for equal rights]

Krychek_2 2 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
If Trump were still president, the Ukraine war would have been over in a week and Putin would now control all of the Ukraine."

Krycheck - have you ever considered that it would be better to deal with reality instead of your partisanship delusions

[Krychek_2]

Since you know nothing of reality, how would you know?

[grb]

Armchair : " Afghanistan : —Major Blunders in the withdrawal under Joe. No major blunders under Trump"

Interesting formulation. Trump signed a deal with the Taliban that agreed to withdraw U.S. forces by 40% within three months and 90% within a year. He agreed to close five military bases within 135 days and end economic sanctions against the Taliban. He agreed to severe restrictions on U.S. air support for the Afghan government, both in number of strikes and the distance or range they could be launched from. He agreed to the release of Taliban prisoners.

In exchange, the Taliban agreed to stop foreign terrorist organizations from operating in areas they control and to talk to the Afghan government. Whatever that "talk" was, it didn’t translate to the field. In the months after the agreement, government casualties doubled while the Taliban's own losses were cut in half. These are numbers compared to the corresponding stats of a year earlier.

As for Biden? He inherited a U.S. presence just over 2000 troops, hostage to the pledge they too would soon be withdrawn. He decided to fulfill the Trump agreement rather than repudiate it and begin rebuilding U.S. forces in the country. I’ve heard some claim he should have waited until fighting season ended to make the final withdrawal, but given the Taliban didn’t have to fight to seize the country, that seem a moot point

[Krayt]

Biden fucked this up, plenty of blame to go around. Trump would have, too.

[Sarcastr0]

The chaos was minor, and he got us out of a war that Bush, Obama, and Trump had failed to manage to get us out of.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : "The chaos was minor..."

Kevin really emphasizes this.

[grb]

Two Things :

1. First, I completely agree that Biden must suffer politically for the withdrawal visuals. It’s just like a president’s fate often rising or falling on economic facts he has almost no control over. Whether it’s fair or not is irrelevant given it’s almost as sure as a law of physics.

2. That said, Biden fucked up how? Where on the decision tree do you see his mistakes? Yes, he could have diched Trump’s one-sided agreement and started pumping servicemen back into the country, but was that realistic?

Or he could have left the plus-minus 2K servicemen in-country, but the Taliban had only promised Trump not to target them on his (DJT’s) commitment to withdraw them all.

Further downstream you get into tactics. I noted one unpersuasive objection above, and here’s another: The U.S. should have staged the withdrawal from the greater security of Bagram Airfield, not Kabul Airport.

But that would have required a significantly longer convoy system to reach that higher security – which would have itself been unsecure. Any other objections, Krayt?

[Ben_]

Also Trump defeated ISIS and thereby solved one of Obama's blunders.

Thoughtful people like Chamath Palihapitiya are figuring it out:
https://twitter.com/ImMeme0/status/1713413678765126062

The comparisons will only keep getting better. Biden disasters keep piling up and the only response from the dumb Trump haters is made up stories about what might have happened.

[Don Nico]

Most seriously, US relations with Russia and China are the worst in 30 years.

[bernard11]

This is true.

I suppose relations with Russia would be better if Biden had simply let them annex Ukraine (which I suspect Trump would have done.)

Relations with China have been deteriorating for a long time. How do you think Biden could turn that around; how do you think Trump would have?

[Don Nico]

"I suppose relations with Russia would be better if Biden had simply let them annex Ukraine (which I suspect Trump would have done.)"
I doubt that actually. But not acting at every steo like Putin must be deposed would have helped.
There could have been a cease fire brokered by Turkey a few weeks in, until Boris J steps into pressure Zelinsky not to come to an agreement.
Putin likely would have agree to semi-autonomy for Donbas (similar to Sicily in Italy) and NO more talk of Ukraine in NATO.

[grb]

Don Nico : “Putin likely would have agree to semi-autonomy for Donbas (similar to Sicily in Italy) and NO more talk of Ukraine in NATO”

Oh? So it’s the “talk” that caused Putin to send his armies across the border? Because there’s never been the slightest chance Ukraine would be accepted into NATO. Not before the invasion. Not during the invasion. Not after the fighting ends. Odds of absolutely zero.

And that doesn’t depend on the vote of Putin’s toady Orban. It doesn’t depend on the vote of Erdoğan. There is no government of France – Right or Left – that would ever vote to admit Ukraine. It’s next to impossible to see any government of Germany voting to admit Ukraine. So here are the questions:

1. I know that, so why don’t you? Are you that uninformed?<
2. Do you think Putin doesn’t know that?
3. So why would Putin launch a war to prevent the impossible from happening?
4. Ever consider the chance “NATO membership” was a red herring?
5. If you didn’t work that out on your own, why the hell not?

[Don Nico]

"4. Ever consider the chance “NATO membership” was a red herring? If you didn’t work that out on your own, why the hell not?"
This complaint about NATO expansion has been on-going for 20 years. Open your eyes. There is a reason for the downward slide in US-Russia relations. As for other EU nations opposing Ukraine membership, the US and UK have been applying relentless pressure to do just that. Again, just look ask the evolving posture of Germany in France to providing weapons and intelligence aid to Zelensky.
Again I'd tell you to wake up and smell the coffee

[Sarcastr0]

There is a reason for the downward slide in US-Russia relations.
Yeah - Putin.

Open your eyes.
Spoken like all conspiracy theorists.

[grb]

Pretty funny. I address your claim war could have been stopped or peace now achieved by satisfying Putin’s demand Ukraine never be admitted to NATO. I point out there is no chance whatsoever Ukraine can ever get a unanimous membership vote. Absolutely none. All your US/UK “pressure” hasn’t moved the needle one bit. There isn’t just one vote to block Ukraine, but four, five and six. And it’s strange how all that “pressure” hasn’t been able to nudge little Hungary off blocking Sweden.

Speaking of odds, what’s the chance you’re actually so ill-informed as to not know that? What are the odds all your talk is blind oblivious stupidity vs an obsession with parroting Putin’s line?

Dang if I know. Obviously I’m more knowledgeable than you, but that still doesn’t make me a mindreader.

[Don Nico]

"obsession with parroting Putin’s line"
that is just a lame insult.
Try seeing the world from several points of view not centered in DC

[Don Nico]

"So it’s the “talk” that caused Putin to send his armies across the border? "
It has been a sore point in US-Russia relations since the 2nd Clinton administration. The US help in toppling a pro-Russia government in Ukraine did not help.
You raise an interesting question. What was the proximate cause of Putin attacking Ukraine? I simply don't recall a single straw that led to war. If you do, I am interested to hear it.

[Nige]

Relations with China were great when Trump was introducing anti-China tariffs that were entirely paid for by US industry and consumers.

[Don Nico]

"Relations with China were great when Trump"
Who are you making excuses for?
The tariffs were just another cut in the life of US-China relations

[Sarcastr0]

The tariffs were just another cut in the life of US-China relations

Compare and contrast this with your analysis above of US-Russia relations, which you lie at the feet of NATO via ipse dixit.

Shameful.

[Don Nico]

The biggest issue with US-China relations is the economic and military rise of China under a strongman with more power than anyone since Mao. China will continue to be assertive backed by its huge economic, military, and political power. It is determined to exert soft power in Africa to develop client states there.
Tariffs were one blow to the relationship. The Huawei dispute was another. The recent US semiconductor restrictions, which the NYT has called an economic act of war are yet another. The Chinese actions to squash democracy in Hong Kong hurt. The present expansion of China's nuclear arsenal does not help
I am not saying that those actions by the US were a mistake, but they have continued a downward spiral in the relation between the countries.

[Martinned]

Israeli air strikes are still preventing the Rafah border crossing from opening: https://www.reuters.com/world/egypt-us-israel-agree-ceasefire-southern-gaza-opening-rafah-crossing-0600-gmt-2023-10-16/

[Michael P]

Such a shame your Hamas buddies can't smuggle in arms over land, huh?

What's really preventing the Rafah crossing from operating is Egypt. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/15/rafah-border-crossing-could-egypt-open-it-to-fleeing-palestinians
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/14/world/middleeast/gaza-egypt-border-crossing-israel.html

[Frank Drackman]

Egyptians don't want those murdering fucks either, they've enough of their own murdering fucks.

[John F. Carr]

“The safety of our schools and students is and always will be a top priority,” said police in Uxbridge, Massachusetts, after they arrested a man for dressing up as the killer in the Friday the 13th movies on Friday the 13th. We can only imagine how many arrests they will make on October 31.

[DaveM]

And now for something completely different.

This being my birthday month, I like to give myself a little treat by going out to eat. However, now that I am retired, I have found that once you take away the convenience factors — setting, ambiance, not having to wash the dishes — when it comes to the actual food, you can easily cook meals better and fresher at home. In fact, I deeply suspect that most restaurants shop at exactly the same food distribution warehouse as I.

So it turns out that, for me, going out to eat was a treat only when it saved time.

Huh. Didn’t see that one coming.

[Moderation4ever]

I suggest that you consider going out for things that you may not want to cook at home. There are some things that are better left to the professionals. So, rather than not going out, go out for those things you would not cook at home. When you worked you ate out to save time. Now retired go out to try new and different things to eat.

[Don Nico]

Good advice.

[DaveM]

+1

[Kazinski]

Sushi is a good example, Thai and Indian food too.

But yeah if you want a steak or a burger you are better off at home.

When I do go out it’s for the view gazing down the bar at 15 or 20 taps to pick from.

My wife was an assistant chef at a higher end restaurant, until she quit the middle of the summer. Before the restaurant changed management the head chef would make her any thing she wanted from the menu to bring home at closing. She was the pasta chef so that was all available too, to take home or make.

[santamonica811]

Kaz,
What Indian dishes do you think are beyond the ken of the average American enthusiast home cook? I guess Tandoori chicken (or Tandoori anything), as most of us don't have this specialized oven. But other than that . . .

I picked up about 10 sachets of spices. And I'm now set, in terms of having stuff on-hand for 98% of the usual Indian vegetarian recipes.

[Kazinski]

As I was driving down to Arizona last spring I stopped by an Indian grocery to stock up on Indian spices packets and sauces, but that wasn't exactly what I was thinking.

My wife is Cambodian, when she was growing up her mother sold street food, and later opened a Thai/Khmer restaurant. When she cooks, she doesn't use spice packets, she uses fresh ingredients and a mortar and pestle to combine them. You can tell the difference.

A good Indian or Thai restaurant isn't going to use spice mixes.

[grb]

DaveM : " ... when it comes to the actual food, you can easily cook meals better and fresher at home...."

I'm not sure that works when the food is uncooked (as with my beloved sushi).

[Michael P]

Here in northern VA, supermarkets (I usually go to Wegmans) have decent tuna, salmon and sometimes hamachi that are suitable for sushi, and the price per serving is much better than a restaurant. Those are sold from the sushi case; salmon roe (ikura) is even easier to find. Restaurants have a better variety, though.

[SRG2]

A supermarket selling ikura?! I am missing out!

[Commenter_XY]

Wegman's sushi is 'meh'. But truthfully, how many stores even make it daily? Decent selection. I'll get it occasionally. 'Meh' Kosher section. Organic choices are halfway decent.

Wegman's overall as a chain is tough to beat. Great chain.

[SRG2]

As we're kinda on the subject, do you know of any brand selling any kind of schmaltz or pickled herring that doesn't add sugar? There are kosher and deli sections in my local StopnShop and ShopRite but all the herring varieties have added sugar.

[Brett Bellmore]

People add sugar to schmaltz? That's weird.

[Commenter_XY]

SRG2, it depends where you are. If you can get the the Lawrence NJ Shop Rite on Rt 1 near Princeton, you'll find what you are looking for in the Kosher Experience section. If anyone will have reduced or sugar-free herring, it will be there.

Lakewood and Philly are alternates (for exotic 'tribal' groceries).

[SRG2]

I’m in LI – Merrick, which is next to Bellmore, the town not the man.

Good sized Jewish community, but the herring in jars has added sugar everywhere. I used to start my post-YK meal with slivovitz (or other eau de vie) and schmaltz herring, but in recent times have been forced to make do with smoked salmon.

[Kazinski]

Well their is Uwajimaya in Seattle. Not that their sushi is restaurant quality, but their fresh sushi grade tuna in the fish section is as good as you could get.

I used to work 10 a minute walk from there before Seattle died.

[Don Nico]

For sushi, one is definitely better off going to a good restaurant (and being prepared to pay the price) But it sure is worth it

[SRG2]

There used to be a sushi place called Isé on Pine Street, around the corner from Wall Street that I said was the best value sushi in Manhattan. Lunch at the sushi bar with the chef's selection - he'd keep bringing stuff until you said, "enough!" - would be $120; but nowhere cheaper had sushi that came close, and to get anything better, the prices would be stratospheric.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Near my office! Too bad I missed it!

[Mr. Bumble]

You can't afford it.

[BrotherMovesOn]

You are just a nasty pest, aren't you?

[John F. Carr]

On average you may be right. The more expensive restaurants can get their hands on better ingredients and hire cooks who are better than you. I remember a dish of fava beans that was much better than any beans I have been served in a house.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's what I was going to say: I can produce a steak dinner at about Outback or Arizona quality, and certainly cheaper, at home. But Saturday for our wedding anniversary we ate out at City Range, and, no, I can't do a steak THAT good. Largely because I can't get that quality of meat easily, I suspect.

I can reliably match mid-grade restaurants, at a better price point, like the duck comfit I made for dinner yesterday, but I'll gladly admit I can't match the high end places.

[apedad]

" . . . but I’ll gladly admit I can’t match the high end places.

Totally agree and will add it's not even a suitable comparison when you add in the satisfaction of cooking for yourself and family, the home setting you don't get in a restaurant, etc.

The last three Sundays (for the London football games), I've made some really good breakfast set ups (Breakast Taco Ring, cast iron skillet cinnamon roll, German Pfannenkuchen, etc.).

[Frank Drackman]

Try Chicago Steak Co.

https://www.mychicagosteak.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIpIid8tf6gQMVClhyCh22pAnjEAAYASAAEgJg6_D_BwE

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

My family's favorite is smoked trout quiche, which I'll make some Sunday mornings. Usually ends up being finished off for lunch.

[SRG2]

I think that when it comes to curing or smoking, often enough, with a little practice, you can have significant savings over store bought or restaurant-served products. For example, gravad lax is an expensive restaurant item and won't necessarily be made with wild salmon. You can buy farmed salmon for $7 or $8 a pound - or less, no doubt, and with some curing salt and four days in the fridge, you've got a dish that restaurants will charge an arm and a leg for. The only other things you need are a sharp knife and some suitable dressing, mustard or whatever.

[bernard11]

Right.

The best seafood places send employees down to the docks very early, to buy the best-looking catch, and serve it that day.

Good luck accomplishing that at the grocery seafood department.

[Kazinski]

Hilarious.

That's maybe true in Thailand or Vietnam.

But in the US fishermen know what they are catching and how to get the best price and how best to distribute it.

As an example I know somewhat about, about 1/2 the Alaska fishing fleet is based in Seattle, most of the catch has spent at least a week on ice before it comes into port, and then its sorted graded and its destination is pre determined before it even hits the docks.

Sure maybe small scale fishermen catching seasonal fish stocks, but hardly the highest grades of fish like Yukon Chinook, maguro, or a 100lb halibut.

[Commenter_XY]

You know DaveM, you make a good point. Also, food quality at home is significantly better. I am sure that the steak or leg of lamb or salmon you get at a restaurant isn’t pasture raised, grass finished or wild caught quality (unless specifically stated and then...who knows. Is it?); home beats any restaurant.

It is the time and hassle factor that makes us go out. Even at that, only organic which really cuts down the choices. Makes it simpler, in a way.

[Don Nico]

"home beats any restaurant."
There I have to disagree with you. It may beat many restaurants, but not "any."

[Mr. Bumble]

I can take or leave most restaurants but the one thing that they can do that you can't do at home is the Sunday brunch.
Unfortunately they are becoming harder to find.

[Commenter_XY]

You're right...I mean, House of Prime Rib on Van Ness Avenue in SFO simply cannot be beat by any home chef. No way, no how.

[Frank Drackman]

I sort of like the Mickey D’s Quarter Pounder, I know I can cook one at home that's bigger, juicier, (hey now!) with a King’s Hawaiian Bun, Bread/Butter Dills, but something about that Mickey D’s Beef I’ve heard it’s not 100% “Beef” whatever it is, I love it. And I ate a Mickey D’s every week during a 6 month Vacation, I mean “Deployment” to Italy in 1996, later turned out all the Beef was from the UK and infected with the Mad Cow, But I still feel fine,

Frank

[Jmaie]

Anyone with even rudimentary skills can match their prime rib, assuming a source for quality beef**. Yorkshire pudding is trickier. Their best dish is actually the salad – and I detest beets.

**assuming you don’t mind serious leftovers ;<)

[Kazinski]

Prime Rib I agree with you because you have to cook the whole roast to cook it right. And that will set you back about $200, hard to do right and if you don't have a houseful the leftovers are never near as good on the second and 3rd day.

Cut it into rib eye to cook at home.

[Ridgeway]

Cooking a standing rib roast at home is not difficult as long as you have a meat thermometer. The only trick is that you have to take it out well before you hit your desired end temp -- for medium rare, you need to take it out around 110-115. Because of the mass, it will keep cooking for a while.

[bernard11]

when it comes to the actual food, you can easily cook meals better and fresher at home.

Depends on the restaurant, of course, but what if you don't eat alone, and different people would like different dishes?

Also, you may see something on a restaurant menu that looks appealing, but that you never thought to cook at home.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just remember the motto of the Texas Restaurant Association: "Eating Out Is Fun".

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The only restaurants I've sworn off of because I can easily do as well (or sometimes even better) at home are steak houses. I have access to good USDA Prime beef, so they have no advantage when it comes to product quality. And properly cooking a steak is far easier than most people think, especially when you have the right tools at your disposal. My go-to method is a generous application of kosher salt and freshly ground pepper then 4 hour in a sous vide bath at 129ºF, followed by a complete pat-dry and about 20 seconds of searing with a 340,000 BTU torch. This yields a perfect medium-rare all they way through with no discernible temperature gradient, and a well-crusted exterior. If you don't have such a heat source you can do almost as well with a cast iron skillet heated to around 700ºF.

The exception to this is a my occasional yet for a proper dry-aged steak, which I lack the equipment to do myself. You can get part of the way there using one of the several so-called "dry age bags", which are semi-permeable membranes that allow moisture to escape, but no microbes to enter. This will produce the significantly concentrated beef flavors due to the reduction in moisture content, but does not allow for the "funk" (in a good way) produced by the introduction of beneficial molds. That requires open-air aging in a carefully controlled environment that I'm not willing to devote time, space and money to.

[DaveM]

“Is that a 340,000 BTU torch in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?” LOL

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I had my wife take a brief video of me using it once to sear some steaks on the grilling grate I have on the outdoor fire pit I built out back, overlaid a track of Tim Allen doing his famous grunts on it and shared it with some friends, family and neighbors. I had at least 2 neighbors run out and buy one for themselves after that.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

Biden is a stupid and lazy fool.
I see among his followers two things (and I've watched for over 30 years) : Unhinged hate , as if the world isn't great because of those who don't like BIden; and a nihilism that celebrates the fireworks of America's downward slide.
Look at the several utterly childish public statements of Kamala over the last month and tell me there isn't something wrong with people who can't see it.

[grb]

Religion and Politics, my life : "Unhinged hate....."

Pretty epic projection there, dude!

[gVOR08]

Projection.

[Frank Drackman]

Anyone catch the Clint Eastwood interview on 60 Minutes last night?
Boy, he's got some Dementia,

Frank "Do you feel Lucky?"

[Magister]

Did Clint Eastwood interview another empty chair?

[grb]

Another two works of architecture - both inns by Todd Saunders (links below) :

Saunders is a Canadian architect whose firm is based in Norway. The man is twice blessed, both for a strong creative vision and the opportunity to build in starkly beautiful places. First among those is Fogo Island – located in the North Atlantic off the coast of remotest Newfoundland. Reaching the site requires three flights with a drive and ferry ride that dumps you off in the complete middle of nowhere. That’s where Sauders built a series of small artist studios and one very well-known inn, accounted by some one of the top hotels in the world. It’s an unabashed luxury destination on an island where 2000 residents live a hard-scabble life – now made worse due to a declining fishery. But the building’s client was a local charity, and all profits go back into the community. And profits there well should be. I lusted to stay there until I checked the room rates (then barely recovered from the shock). Saunders is modest about the inn’s architecture, describing it thus:

“And I was like, OK, this is my material palette. It’s like clapboard and kind of like not fancy windows and very rough interiors. I started going back to the language of traditional architecture in Newfoundland. It’s not pretty, but it’s like this ugly pretty. The French have a word for it.”

That word is “jolie laide”, which Merriam Webster defines as a “good-looking ugly woman” or “woman who is attractive though not conventionally pretty”. Now I find the building beautiful, but think that of many a jolie laide too. Across the ocean, Sauders designed another hotel for another troubled community in another stunning site, this time on the Norwegian coast. The images of that are all renders, but these days who can tell the difference?

https://www.saunders.no/fogo-island-inn

https://www.saunders.no/fedje-hotel

[Brett Bellmore]

The first looks like it was built of shipping containers and rusty sewer pipe, using a plasma torch. And I don't mean that in a good way. I think if I were building in such a cold place I'd go for a 'warmer' interior.

The second one somehow comes across better.

[grb]

So I take it you're not going to pay 2-5 thousand dollars a night to stay at the Fogo Island Inn, Brett?

[SRG2]

“jolie laide”

As the joke has it, "she's not pretty, she's not ugly, she's pretty ugly".

[grb]

Hate to say it, but I suspect the French would find your joke déclassé.

Actually, I was just introduced to the term “jolie laide” and find it charming. The world is full of women who are viscerally inspiring in unconventional ways, and God bess’em.

Plus my google search of the phrase found the ladies using it to their own ends, though sometimes with questionable results. One suggested Steven Buscemi, which has to be taking matters too far.

Add the fact it can be used as architectural description, and I think the Frenchies hit a home run with this one. I’ve read all the spy novels of Alan Furst and they’re often drenched in Parisian atmospherics the locals must see as the crudest cliché. I now see that one or two dozen of his woman characters are jolie laide.

[SRG2]

I too went a-googling, and found some odd ideas about what constitutes jolie laide (Angelina Jolie? Far too obviously good-looking to count.) Ellen Barkin, though, seems to fit.

[grb]

SRG2 : "I too went a-googling, and found some odd ideas about what constitutes jolie laide"

True enough. There was a long forum on fashion models so described, but at that rarefied level the term seems way beyond the point. Ellen Barkin, definitely. There was a time circa Sea of Love/Big Easy where she had quite an intense presence.

That said, you mustn't get distracted. You should be googling your architecture assignments to better develop your fledgling palate. I'm beginning to worry about Brett, who seems the classic case of one step forward, two steps back.

[SRG2]

I have already made up my mind on architecture. It's not sufficient to have a biophilic location. The building itself must have biophilic qualities - all too often lacking in the designs I've seen, which for example have large areas of unblemished and untextured white interiors and exteriors - the Philip Glass or even John Cage of design. Mid-century modern often gets close then completely fucks it up through horrendous layouts and vile decor.

Nor should they be AI designs with impossibly cantilevered levels.

[grb]

Three Points:

(1) Don’t knock Glass. He may have a limited range but has done very well with it. I saw him perform his solo piano pieces in Camden, N.J.

(2) Below are two examples of mid-century modern, with one being the second contribution to modern architecture by Edgar J Kaufman Sr (the first being Fallingwater). The Albert Grossman House of 1964 by Raphael S. Soriano is a bit more typical than Neutra’s luscious design, but both are good.

I personally get neither of your quibbles. Layouts of these houses are clean, clear, simple and lucid. What’s the issue with any of that? And the decor may be dated, but its a fun funky perky look. My only regret is there’s no bakelite phone, but then I pine for the good old days of rotary telephones.

3. I’m still not sure what scorecard you’re using to qualify/disqualify a work of architect. I just know its wrong. You only have to consider any other art to realize your error. I like the aching humanity of a Rembrandt self-portrait. The swirling buzz of a Cezanne landscape. The essential simplicity of a Chardin still life. The proud idealism of an ancient Greek statue and the mysterious alchemy of High Cubism, with it pared-back colors of greys and browns.

There’s no test that captures all that range. Anyone that tries would be analogous to writing-off half of life, or giving up four senses in favor of the fifth. It wouldn’t just be a needless sacrifice, but uselessly & criminally so.

https://crosbydoe.com/address/11468-dona-cecilia-drive-studio-city-california-91604-raphael-soriano/

https://www.marmol-radziner.com/kaufmann-house-architecture/

[SRG2]

I don't dismiss MCM - some examples are very fine, but I have seen all too many examples where the shape of the exterior leads to bizarre shapes for interiors, or the flow makes little sense, as though the architect was striving to be different for the sake of being different.

Philip Glass is agreeable in small doses, and I saw Akhnaton at the Met, which was superb - but would have been unlistenable purely as a musical experience.

There are many ways, indeed, to design a house, but that does not mean that all are equally livable. To continue with your art case, there are very many examples of paintings that are excellent and that I appreciate. but that nonetheless I would not want hanging at home, like Francis Bacon, say. Would you really want the "Raft of the Medusa" in your main hall even if your house had room enough for it? I'd be very happy with good examples of pronktstilleven on my walls, but not equally well executed portraits of Dutch men and women wearing ruffs. I never came across a Max Ernst I wouldn't want, but would be more selective about Malevich.

[grb]

SRG2 : "Would you really want the “Raft of the Medusa” in your main hall even if your house had room enough for it?"

Well, yeah. But I read your quote above and the issues seems to run deeper than that. It's like you are into paintings, but have a master checklist of what colors are and aren't acceptable.

[SRG2]

How about a master checklist of what paintings would pass muster depending on certain criteria - e.g., any painting that consists of nothing but a single colour background and words painted on is a big no 🙂

[SRG2]

I like the Kaufmann House, and wondered whether it was the same Kaufmann who commissioned Fallingwater. And lo! It was so.

The house has many biophilic features - aside from the setting itself of course. Large windows, that chimney, wood panelling, etc.

[grb]

SRG2 : ” …. it was the same Kaufmann …. ”

Of course Frank never forgave him. When it comes to commissions, architects definitely carry a grudge. There was a famous architect who designed a school near where I lived. He subsequently got a viral infection that left him wheel-bound and paralyzed.

I mentioned the school to my then-boss, and found his previous firm had been in line for the project until Famous Architect swooped in and stole it. And (he said, a religious gleam in his eyes), only a few weeks later Famous got sick and became paralyzed.

Clearly God smote the guy for poaching from brother architects. (it’s one of the lesser-known Commandments)

[not guilty]

The hearing in D.C. on whether to limit Donald Trump's extrajudicial statements should be beginning about now. I doubt that the judge will rule from the bench, but coverage of the hearing should be interesting.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As should be the inevitable appeal.

[not guilty]

A ruling restricting what Trump can say will in all likelihood be appealed. If the District Court modifies the conditions of pretrial release to impose such restriction, the defense can appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c). See, In re Stone, 940 F.3d 1332, 1339 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 2019). If the District Court issues a stand alone order applicable to Trump and also to counsel, that would likely be appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 as a collateral order. United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415, 422 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Ford, 830 F.2d 596, 598 (6th Cir. 1987).

That having been said, I doubt that Trump would fare well before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

[Mr. Bumble]

... but is that the last stop? How fast would an appeal be heard?

[not guilty]

The appeal shall be determined promptly, per 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c). SCOTUS, whether it grants or denies review, is likely to act on an expedited basis. There would be no need to delay proceedings before the District Court during the pendency of an appeal, although the trial and appellate courts would have discretion to grant a stay.

[Commenter_XY]

Didn't Judge Cannon admonish the DOJ in court last week for allegedly 'wasting the Court's time' with new arguments never presented previously in the on-going saga otherwise known as: As The Trump Legal Cases Turn?

I am just curious. How often does that actually happen...where a new argument is made on the spot at the appellate level, not raised at the district level. Is there a rule or standard for when that is allowed? We know it happens, did it not happen to SCOTUS last term? Is there a way to measure it?

[John F. Carr]

There are three standard situations where appeals courts review arguments not raised below and admit they are doing so.

A question of subject matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo whether or not raised before the trial court.

In a criminal case, if an issue is not raised properly in the trial court the appeals court reviews for plain error only. So search for "plain error".

In a civil case, the appellee may make new arguments on appeal to defend the judgment below. There must be some words you could use to narrow down the search for such cases.

If they don't admit they are reviewing an argument that was waived or forefeited (two words that tend to be confused in legal writing) it would be hard to measure. You need to read a lot of words. "We exercise our discretion to ..." is a signal.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I do a CLE on this.

The general rule is that you can raise a new argument on appeal if it's not unfair to do so -- in other words, if, had it been raised below, it could not have been countered with additional evidence or legal countersteps. But it's always discretionary with the appellate court.

I've done this several times myself, as an appellate attorney where the trial-level attorney missed something.

Cannon is not an appellate judge so that analysis does not apply here. It's a different matter where, as here, you raise a new argument before the same court. You'd better have a good reason you didn't raise it earlier.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, so it does happen, but it is rare, and it really is the discretion of the Court to entertain those new arguments.

[not guilty]

It appears that Judge Chutkan has ruled from the bench and issued a gag order. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/16/us/trump-gag-order-election-case-news I haven't seen the order yet.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's grounds for impeachment -- and under the precedent set with the second Trump impeachment, the Speaker can send it to an immediate pro-forma vote along party lines. Hence depending on how the Speaker election comes out, and if the GOP stays together (which fear of Trump may do), the judge could find herself in a Senate Impeachment Trial.

She'll eventually win, but there is no precedent for truncating that (and a constitution that states it must be an actual "trial").

So what happens to her being the judge in the Trump case?

[not guilty]

Uh, how is ruling from the bench (with a written order to follow) grounds for impeachment?

I doubt that a House of Representatives which is too dysfunctional to elect a Speaker is going to be impeaching anyone, but I’ll bite on the hypothetical. If Judge Chutkan were impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate, she would continue to preside over the trial of Donald Trump.

And FWIW, the word "try" in Art. I, § 3, cl. 6 of the Constitution may, but need not, involve proceedings in the nature of a judicial trial. Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224, 229-30 (1993).

[John F. Carr]

She is not going to be impeached over a gag order. There are not enough Trump fanatics in the House. If there were enough Trump fanatics they would go after Jack Smith first.

What about threatened impeachment? Decades ago a judge in New York made an upopular ruling on a motion to suppress evidence. Congress, probably Republicans in particular, grumbled about impeachment. The judge reconsidered and reversed his earlier decision.

Confident that the Senate and Biden administration will take her side, judge Chutkan will not be swayed in a case she thinks is important.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You’re probably thinking of United States v. Bayless, 913 F.Supp. 232 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), where Judge Baer suppressed a stop of men who had run when the police arrived at a crime scene: “Residents in this neighborhood tended to regard police officers as corrupt, abusive and violent. Had the men not run when the cops began to stare at them, it would have been unusual.” Which anyone who lived in that area at the time (not far from where I was) knew was true. Under political pressure Baer later reversed himself.

[Kazinski]

"Chutkan asked Trump’s lawyer Lauro if she thought it was appropriate that the presidential candidate called D.C. “filthy” and “crime-ridden.” He defended Trump by saying that it was a political statement against his opponent, Joe Biden."

At one point, Chutkan told Lauro that his client doesn’t have unfettered First Amendment rights after he kept deriding Smith’s efforts to gag Trump as “censorship.” The judge shot back, “There is no question that a court is entitled to draw restrictions on a def[endant]’s behavior and a def[endant]’s speech pending trial.” The judge continued, ” You [Lauro] keep talking about censorship like the def[endant] has unfettered First Amendment rights. He doesn’t,” she lectured."

Looks like the Judge is going way to far. I think the judge is going to be slapped down and the order at least narrowed significantly.

I'll point out that a fair trial.for.the defendant is a bedrock legal principle, but not necessarily for.the prosecution. I'll point out most states don't allow for a prosecutor to ask for a change of venue as an example.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I say Grounds for Impeachment -- which we all know is whatever a majority of the House says it is.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"I think the judge is going to be slapped down and the order at least narrowed significantly."

Given your previous legal insights, I'm going to go ahead and tell you right now that you're wrong.

Trump has been given far more leeway than any other defendant in any similar circumstance. It's past time for the noose to tighten.

[Kazinski]

The DC Circuit and the Supreme Court take freedom of speech very seriously, especially when it affects the national discourse far outside the courtroom for better or worse.

What possible excuse does she have for.statements like this:
"Chutkan asked Trump’s lawyer Lauro if she thought it was appropriate that the presidential candidate called D.C. “filthy” and “crime-ridden.”

How could calling DC filthy and crime ridden be sanctionable?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

What possible excuse could she have? How about asking defense counsel what they thought of the DOJ's request? You know, like a judge is supposed to do when ruling on motions?

As to your concern about comments related to DC: Considering that it isn’t part of the gag order; it won’t be.

“The order restricts Trump’s ability to publicly target court personnel, potential witnesses, or the special counsel and his staff. The order did not impose restrictions on disparaging comments about Washington, DC, – where the jury will take place – or certain comments about the Justice Department at large, both of which the government requested.”

Unlike you, I’m also going to actually give you the source of my quote.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/16/politics/trump-gag-order-chutkan-hearing/index.html

[not guilty]

Here is Judge Chutkan's written order. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.105.0_2.pdf

It is less restrictive than what DOJ asked for. It sets forth the evidence that it is based on, and it indicates that the Court considered alternative measures such as careful voir dire, jury sequestration, and cautionary jury instructions, finding them insufficient to remedy only some of the potential prejudices that the government’s motion seeks to address. The order looks bulletproof on appeal.

[not guilty]

More coverage from the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/16/trump-court-hearing-judge-gag-order-jan-6/

[Bored Lawyer]

So Rep. Ilhan Omar has been caught peddling fake information about Israel.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/ilhan-omar-promotes-photo-falsely-showing-dead-palestinian-children

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) promoted propaganda over the weekend that falsely portrayed children as having died from Israeli military operations when, in reality, they died a decade ago from fighting in Syria.
The false claim that Omar promoted on her X account originated from self-described “investigative journalist” Sulaiman Ahmed.
“CHILD GENOCIDE IN PALESTINE,” the post, which included a photo of dead children, claimed. “614 Palestinian children murdered by the Israeli IOF Forces.”
Omar then shared the false claim to her nearly three million followers on X.
The reality is that the photo is from an August 2013 article in National Geographic and it shows children in Damascus, Syria, “shortly after they succumbed to chemical weapon poisoning.”

The term Fifth Column is apt.

[Bored Lawyer]

And BTW, this episode highlights another aspect. The 600 dead children were gassed to death in Syria in 2013. How many people protested that? How outraged was Ilan Omhar or anyone else in her camp about that? Did the same people protesting Israel today have anything to say about it? Or were even aware of it?

So excuse me if I steeply discount "human rights" protests. The 600 children in Syria were as human as any Palestinian, and the atrocity that lead to their deaths was met with a collective YAWN by most of the world.

[Nige]

'How many people protested that?'

As I recall there was enough outrage over it to generate some persistent misinformation about the gas attacks either not happening at all or actually being a false flag operations by insurgents funded by the US. Of course Musk wasn't in charge of twitter so it didn't quite get to flood the social/media sphere as effectively as dis- and misinformation (from both sides) is now. Support from Assad was not coming from the West, so there was hardly much point in objecting to it, but there was plenty of attention paid to Syria at the time.

[Nige]

'The term Fifth Column is apt.'

Why? What does that even mean? People were sharing pictures of Israeli children in cages, except they turned out to be Palestinian children in cages. There's no reason to suppose most of the people sharing them weren't sincerely caught out, though a public rep like Omar should be way more careful, if this is true, but it is the Daily Wire, so...

Disinformation is rampant, and a significant part of that is because twitter has gone to shit.

I hope a trawl through Republicans' feeds wouldn't throw up similar gaffes. Would that make them fifth columnists, too?

[Sarcastr0]

The term Fifth Column is apt.

Are...you calling for the execution of Ilhan Omar?

There is a *ton* of mininformation being circulated from both sides. I'm not beleiving any photos I see shared from any sources at the moment. LOL if you think this is not a symetrical game at the moment.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Are…you calling for the execution of Ilhan Omar?"
How about just her defeat next year and prosecution for tax and immigration fraud?

[Ed Grinberg]

How about just her defeat next year

Even the notoriously "liberal" Minneapolis Star Tribune understands how pernicious Omar is. But they still won't endorse her Republican opponent!
https://www.startribune.com/fifth-district-no-endorsement-in-ilhan-omar-lacy-johnson-race/572746461/

[Nige]

It just struck me how much of right-wing policital commentary is smearing people, repeating something over and over again until it gains traction. Just smear machines.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, like accusing a country of murdering 600 children when your proof is 10 years old and from another country is not "smearing."

[Nige]

So you admit you do nothing but smear political opponents? Because the picture is wrong, but the death toll in Gaza is mounting past 2,800 and you know a lot of those are going to be children.

[Bored Lawyer]

Nice try. I admitted nothing. I smear people who deserve to be smeared. Someone who peddles blatant lies deserves it. I can discuss policy till the cows come home, but I will call a liar a liar.

As for the death toll in Gaza, every single one of those are the responsibility of Hamas. Which, BTW, apart from perpetrating barbaric atrocities in Israel, has also actively prevented Gazans from leaving or going to safer areas. Wrap your head around it: they want their own people to die for propaganda purposes.

[Nige]

If someone 'deserves' to be smeared presumably there are actual substantive criticism that can be made rather than resorting to lies.

'every single one of those are the responsibility of Hamas'

When people say that nothing can justify the killing of civilians and then on the other hand provide an absolute justification for the killing of civilians.

'Wrap your head around it: they want their own people to die for propaganda purposes.'

Yeah, I've noticed that somehow when people like that are involved all agency in other actors vanishes completely.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This movement conservative blog
has operated for no more than

SEVENTEEN (17)

days without publishing a
racial slur; it has published
racial slurs on at least

TWENTY-EIGHT (28)

different occasions (so far)
during 2023 (that’s at least
28 different discussions,
not 28 racial slurs; many
of those discussions
featured multiple racial slurs).

This assessment does not address
the broader, incessant stream of
gay-bashing, misogynist, Islamophobic,
antisemitic, racist, transphobic,
and immigrant-hating slurs and
other bigoted content published
daily at this blog, which is presented
from the receding, disaffected
right-wing fringe of modern legal
academia by members of the
Federalist Society for Law
and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this blog’s obsolete and ugly thinking, here is something worthwhile.

Related: This is a good one, too.

(It can be difficult for two bass guitarists to avoid a muddle, but Garry and Mike seem to have navigated deftly. Garry, of course, has always been a Tallent -- his parents were Tallents, and his children are Tallents, too.)

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, sound's like some disgraced Foo-Bawl Coach has got a "case of the Moon-days"
I'd thought you'd still be celebrating the Nittily Lions thrilling 63-0 Victory over that Perennial Power House, the Massachusetts Minute-Men
Speaking of "Minute" the Minutemen's 2 yards per completed pass is bad, but it's better than their average 1.6 yards per rush,
Love those Big -10 (that has 14 teams) Organized Gang Rapes

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I most recently had any positive opinion concerning Penn State, Frank O'Harris (or so I thought) and Lydell Mitchell were in the backfield.

Becoming a teenager improved my judgment in that context.

I today consider Penn State to be similar to Baylor, the Catholic Church, the Republican Party, Trump supporters, the Ku Klux Klan, the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters, the National Religious Broadcasters, and the Country Music Association in respectworthiness.

[apedad]

Rev!

You forgot to add Liberty University where, " . . . the U.S. Department of Education launched a program review of Liberty University’s compliance with the Clery Act between 2016 and 2022. During the review, Liberty identified historic gaps in compliance, which the University both acknowledged to the Department and took timely action to remedy by strengthening its Clery Act compliance program."

In 2020-2021, Liberty University received $874 million for student loans and grants from the Education Department (ED).

The Clery Act requires all colleges and universities that participate in federal financial aid programs to keep and disclose information about crime on and near their respective campuses. Compliance is monitored by the United States Department of Education, which can impose civil penalties, up to $67,544 per violation, against institutions for each infraction and can suspend institutions from participating in federal student financial aid programs.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I do not respect institutions that teach nonsense and suppress science to flatter superstition and dogma. Neither do credible rankings of our strongest research and teaching institutions.

It was an inexplicable mistake for mainstream America to recognize accreditation of nonsense-teaching schools.

[SRG2]

I was hoping the Clery Act had something to do with Corinne Clery

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Racist references to rural whites persist - including "human residue."

[NvEric]

This latest little spat in the Middle East is horrific and pointless. All involved there, here and everywhere must stop and think clearly - for the first time.

Hate solves nothing. Violence solves nothing. Doing nothing solves even less than nothing. Everything tried has done nothing. AEnema

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It depends on what you mean by “solve.” If you mean causing permanent peace to break out in the Middle East, you’re probably right.

But if you’re talking about smacking down a particular terrorist organization – Hamas – then hopefully violence *might* solve something.

[Nige]

Ah yes, the old smackdown. Smack smack smack smack. Rememember how Bush smacked down the evil Saddam Hussein and ended up unleashing Isis on the world? What a fantastic resolution. How anyone can have gotten through the century so far with the belief that big military operations actually solve anything or make anything better, as opposed to make everything immeasurably worse is a mystery. Israel has the right to defend itself, no question, as has Ukraine. But some grand crusade to wipe out Hamas is not just beyond futile, it will make everything worse.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So, you Janus-faced dickweed, Israel has the right to defend itself – which it’s doing – just so long as they don’t try to smack down Hamas?

Or maybe you’re saying Israel’s exercising its right to self-defense won’t solve anything?

Who knows what your facing-both ways comment means.

[Nige]

It's not very complicated, I can see why you find it difficult to comprehend. The more fighting there is, the longer it goes on, the more people die, the worse the outcome will be, not just in terms of dead people and destruction, but in terms of the overall conflict and the general state and stability of the area. That's just always how it goes.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future." /attributed to Yogi Berra, who strikes me as wiser than you in more ways than one.

[Nige]

It's not so much a prediction as history repeating, yet again.

[David Nieporent]

Violence solves nothing.

Since we were discussing it earlier in this thread: Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.

[Longtobefree]

There was a great scene in one of the Mary Tyler Moore episodes where she tells Lou violence never settles anything.
He replies "Mary, violence, raw unbridled violence, settles all football games, most boxing matches, and three marriages I know of".

[grb]

On the other hand, this is the all-time GREATEST cartoon on the subject of religion-based wars.

https://condenaststore.com/featured/an-army-lines-up-for-battle-paul-noth.html

[Nige]

Violence rarely settles anything properly or effectively. Sometimes, when the violence is done with, or paused, you can reach settlements, but those are fragile and take hard work and compromise. But those ain't as sexy as a bit of the ol' ultraviolence, especially for spectactors living vicariously through their fantasies of righteous revenge and just war.

[Bob from Ohio]

Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan disagree.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Violence ended the war but hard work, compromise, understanding and setting hard feelings aside built the peace.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just like after the Civil War, right?

[Nige]

Are you agreeing or disagreeing? Because post-Civil War only saw a resolution of violence and conflict if you weren't black.

[Don Nico]

Indeed, to every thing there is a season

[Nige]

World War 2 is what happened when the violence of World War 1 was not resolved. Germany and Japan post WW2 are what happens after a complete and utter commitment to establishing peace and not letting things fester for a third war to break out, ie, by resolving bitter enmities. Millions of people died in the most brutal and ugly ays imaginable, and all for nothing. The idea that the lesson of World War 2 is that violence resolves stuff is grimly farcical.

[DaveM]

The problem is that Hamas insists on death or victory. It's a death cult. They would rather die than live, and they won't stop killing people for their cause until they are met with lethal force.

No one wants this, other than them.

We are forced into an unconditional surrender posture. There is no negotiating possible. It's us, or them.

[Idihax]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/16/politics/trump-gag-order-chutkan-hearing/index.html

This defective angry negro is making it very clear that she should be removed for bias.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Where are the usual suspects who try to deny that the Volokh Conspiracy is a racism-soaked cesspool of right-wing bigotry?

Carry on, clingers . . . so far as conservatives' paltry mix of bigotry, backwardness, ignorance, and superstition could be expected to carry anyone in modern, improving America.

[Idihax]

Do you think Americans are going to allow themselves to be replaced by these people?

[SRG2]

Let me guess, by "Americans" you mean, "decent law-abiding white folk just like you"

[Frank Drackman]

No need to "Allow" thanks to Roe v Wade there's easily 60-70 million fewer African Amuricans, hard to "Replace" people with a dead baby.

Frank

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"On October 11, the Forward Party submitted its petition for party status in Utah. It requires 2,000 signatures. This is the first time the Forward Party has completed a petition for qualified status in any state. Although Forward is also recognized in Florida, Florida does not require a petition for party recognition."

https://ballot-access.org/2023/10/11/forward-party-submits-petition-for-recognition-in-utah/

Of course, Florida's liberal model of ballot access should be shunned, because there were problems with ballot configuration in an election a quarter of a century ago. /sarc

[Longtobefree]

And it led to lawsuits and allegations of election rigging and all manner of insurrection.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

My point still stands - to find their Florida horror story, enemies of equal ballot access have to reach back to the age of dialup, when many popular musicians of today were just learning to walk, if they'd even been born.

[Mr. Bumble]

Life (and death) is just not fair. Jimmy Buffet, Suzanne Somers among others gone and Madam Cankles is still here prattling on about deprogramming.

[Martinned]

You wish Hillary Clinton was dead? Classy!

[Mr. Bumble]

I did not say that. Isn't it time for you to hit the pub or your local wine bar?

[Frank Drackman]

Nah, I hope she and Bill live to be as decrepit and miserable as Jimmuh Cartuh (who once murdered his neighbor's cat by accident, shooting it with an Air Pistol to discourage it from hunting birds (Jimmy, that's what Cats do)
https://hotair.com/bryan/2007/11/07/jimmy-carter-cat-slayer-n150880
Typical Jimmuh, Technically inept, disastrous results (for the Cat anyway) but eager to make it better

Frank "Never killed any Cats"

[Idihax]

Edit

[Idihax]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/16/politics/family-separations-lawsuit-settlement/index.html

One DOJ should not be allowed to enter into an agreement that binds a future DOJ. This was the main problem with the Flores settlement, which is what led tot he separations in the first place.

[not guilty]

A consent decree is an alternative to trying the underlying lawsuit. Proceeding to trial would result in a judgment which binds the executive department in the future, as well. Would you prefer to have a life-tenured Article III judge, who is accountable to no one, decide the case?

[Idihax]

Yes, because that would be appealable, and could be stopped that the SCOTUS level.

I don't think the fat rice and beans eater on the Supreme Court would have a majority.

[Mr. Bumble]

No government agency should ever be allowed to enter into a consent decree under any circumstances.

[David Welker]

Regarding Trump’s gag order, I don’t recall the word “thug” being exempt from the protections of the First Amendment.

This court order is an example of how Trump has caused liberals to lose their minds. All sorts of exceptions to principles they once advocated must be abandoned because of Trump.

It is FREE SPEECH for Trump to refer to the lead prosecutor as a thug. That isn’t a call to violence. It is a statement of opinion. The judge, for her part suggests that Trump could criticize the prosecution with less “charged” language. I don’t recall that the First Amendment distinguishes between language based on how colorful or “charged” it is. Specifying the adjectives that Trump may or may not use to describe the lead prosecutor is clearly a content-based restriction which deserves the highest skepticism.

As far as Chutkan saying that other defendants would be forbidden from calling a prosecutor a thug, I am not familiar with such restrictions. But if it is true that criminal defendants are routinely having their ability to use colorful language to describe prosecutors curtailed, then THAT practice and not the use of such language is what needs to be curtailed.

[Ed Grinberg]

Trump has caused liberals to lose their mindsforced "liberals" to reveal their true colors.

[Idihax]

That's why I say liberals belong in gas chambers.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No you say that because you have a severe personality disorder.

[Idihax]

No, you are the sicko that wants to destroy western civilization so you can pat yourself on the back.

[not guilty]

"The outcome of a criminal trial is to be decided by impartial jurors, who know as little as possible of the case, based on material admitted into evidence before them in a court proceeding." Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1070 (1991). SCOTUS there quoted Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966):

The courts must take such steps by rule and regulation that will protect their processes from prejudicial outside interferences. Neither prosecutors, counsel for defense, the accused, witnesses, court staff nor enforcement officers coming under the jurisdiction of the court should be permitted to frustrate its function.

501 U.S. at 1072 (emphasis added).

[David Welker]

Your theory is what? The jury pool in the District of Columbia will read Trump’s post calling the prosecutor a thug and will then not listen to the actual evidence because they will perceive him as just too thuggish?

If that is theory, that really is far-fetched.

Alternative theory: Trump supporters will use violence against the prosecutor.

But the speech didn’t call for violence. In general, Trump is known for his hyperbolic statements.

Sorry dude, but this is a loser. The judiciary preferring to drink tea and eat scrumpets doesn’t trump the First Amendment. Especially in a Presidential election. I believe Trump should ignore the unconstitutional orders of this judge, which fails to respect our Bill of Rights.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump has a sordid history of stochastic terrorism. King Henry II did not expressly call for Thomas Becket to be killed when he asked, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?", but that was his intended outcome.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Imagine this: At his next rally, some intoxicated wingnut starts screaming for the prosecutor to be murdered — and Trump calmly responds that “I can not say anything because of the gag order.”

He’d be right — she ordered him not to comment on the prosecutor…

And if she were to put him in jail, there'd instantly be 30-40 million pissed off individuals in the street. It would get very ugly, very fast.

[not guilty]

I haven't seen the written order yet, but I doubt that Trump declining comment in your hypothetical would violate any ban that the Court orders, so Trump would not be jailed therefor.

Do you fancy that you were making a point?

[Nige]

Bit like Hamas.

[Life of Brian]

Donald Trump has a sordid history of stochastic terrorism.

Ah right -- that new pet theory from wishful thinkers with too much time on their hands. "We can't actually identify any terrorist acts, but here's a bunch of stuff that isn't that we pinky swear may on some statistical level occasionally result in something that might be considered terrorism." You should be embarrassed signing your name to such tripe.

King Henry II did not expressly call for Thomas Becket to be killed when he asked, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”, but that was his intended outcome.

'

All analogies break down eventually, but some fail right out of the box. That's exactly what "rid me of" calls for.

[not guilty]

"Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" Donald J. Trump, December 19, 2023.

[Life of Brian]

Precisely my point re how silly this shiny new theory is. If encouraging people to attend a protest is now tantamount to an act of terrorism, there is beyond doubt a large swath of people in the country that must be detained immediately. (And hey, it's not all bad -- maybe you can come out of retirement to represent some of them!)

[David Welker]

Stochastic terrorism?

I think that concept is much more problematic than the actual threat of stochastic terrorism.

Terrorism in the future might become a synonym for “an excuse that government officials make to curtail fundamental rights.”

Now, you don’t need actual terrorism, just a speculation that some violence might occur with some unknown probability?

Not buying it.

[Life of Brian]

Same here. It's a roughly 5-year-old solution desperately in search of a problem that outweighs the multiple others it creates.

I think of it as the next level of abstraction beyond the already non-falsifiable, non-debatable "you IMPLIED!" -- a subjective meaning that has no clear effect but supposedly will someday, somehow.

Really dangerous territory to flirt with imo, but perhaps not notably more dangerous than the many other avant-garde initiatives these days to muzzle unpopular speech.

[David Welker]

For sure. One thing that would be helpful is if people would think carefully enough and be cautious enough to ensure that their solutions don’t have more costs than benefits. This is especially true when it comes to legislation passed in response to perceived emergencies.

[Brett Bellmore]

"“The outcome of a criminal trial is to be decided by impartial jurors, who know as little as possible of the case, based on material admitted into evidence before them in a court proceeding.”"

The requirement for a jury of one's peers, from the district where the crime took place, was actually based on the hope they would know as much as possible of the case. But the modern legal system is built on the aim of reducing the input of jurors to the absolute minimum possible without outright violating the right to trial by jury.

Well, yeah, sometimes even outright violating it. The Court hasn't had much use for that "all" in the 6th amendment, has it?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

[comment deleted]

[Ben_]

Putting first amendment rights second to a judge's convenience seems unconstitutional. The defendant is innocent during the trial and should retain all constitutional rights.

[Magister]

So requiring the accused to pay bail is unconstitutional? Or is it just that bail conditions are unconstitutional? Should there be a single fee for keeping all your constitutional rights, or can you just pay for the rights you want, cafeteria style?

[Ben_]

Not interested in changing the subject. Speech is not in any way analogous or comparable to bail.

[Magister]

There are plenty of constitutional rights that are precluded by remaining in jail awaiting trial: freedom to peacefully assemble, freedom of association, freedom to travel, freedom to keep and bear arms, for example. Freedom of speech is also limited to the extent that social media is inaccessible.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/6-year-old-boy-killed-anti-muslim-attack-illinois-police-say-rcna120543

Guessing this put a smile on the faces of a lot of commenters here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Landlord stabbing tenant -- I'm thinking other issues might be involved.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Your brain is broken.

[Frank Drackman]

At least he still has one

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’ve seen nothing but unequivocal condemnation (though admittedly Dr. Ed has yet to chime in) for this monstrous crime.

Edit: Even his dumb take isn't that bad!

[LawTalkingGuy]

No you haven't. No one posted about it here. I am pretty sure the people who want Gazan children to die of dehydration are actually quite pleased there is one less of them here too.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It actually is quite bad btw. Only someone fundamentally broken would think landlord tenant issues would result in a brutal stabbing of a six year old.

[Idihax]

A six year old today is a terrorist in 12 years.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You're a bad person.

[Frank Drackman]

You're a sucker. You wouldn't shoot a 12 year old Hitler in the Head?? I'd shoot a 12 second old Hitler in the Head.

Frank

[Idihax]

He's definitely a sucker when it comes to teenage boys.

[Mr. Bumble]

Time Traveler Frank?
Don't think 12 year old Hitler did anything to deserve death. That came later.

[Mr. Bumble]

You're an idiot. No one here posted anything about being happy at the death of a six year old, you demented fuck.

[Frank Drackman]

I'd be happy if a 6 year old Hitler had drowned in the Donau

[Dr. Ed 2]

I sought to explain it, not justify it.

And the fact remains that the landlord at some point rented to her, which discounts racism as an intent because he'd been a racist then as well.

[LawTalkingGuy]

This is extremely dumb. Even for you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, punch "landlord" and "tenant" and "murder" into Lexis and see what you get. If you do the search right, you likely will be surprised.

Landlord/tenant violence is not unheard of....

[Noscitur a sociis]

To be clear: not that bad compared to what I would have expected Dr. Ed to say.

[Bob from Ohio]

LTG was silent about Jews being murdered. Now he cares.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You think I don't care about Jews being killed? Fuck you. I grieve for Israel and the hostages and want them returned safely . You think I don't have close friends who are Jewish and have ties to Israel who are faced with anti-Semitism? I do. So again Fuck you.

I care. I care deeply. I just also don't think starving or stabbing children to death is an acceptable response. Do you?

[Bob from Ohio]

Yeah, I don't believe any of the bull you just screamed out.

[Nige]

Of course you don't. You have a violent power fantasy to maintain.

[Bob from Ohio]

Another idiot chimes in.

[Nige]

Now you're sulking.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Once again you demonstrate your inability to fathom that other people are capable of caring about many people at once. That other people are empathetic, caring, and honest seems fake to you. How could other people not have the same hard heart and weak spirit as you? You take the simple fact that you are fundamentally broken and dishonest person as a sign that others are similarly ill-equipped. But they are not. And I am not. I don't need to care what you believe because I know the truth about what I believe. And so do the people in my life.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, starving children to death is a legitimate military tactic when their government -- and Hamas was popularly elected in Gaza as the government -- has engaged in a Pearl Harbor style act of war. They have about 200 kidnapped victims and starvation is a legitimate means to pressure either their release or the overthrow of the government.

I'm not talking doing a Holdimur -- which no one talks about because it was Stalin (not Hitler) who did it -- but it takes at least 10 days to starve to death and this is not a war that the Israelis started.

War is not pretty.

And let us not forget what Janet Reno did in Waco, Texas....

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : I’m not talking doing a Holdimur — which no one talks about because it was Stalin (not Hitler) who did it

I mentioned the Holodomor four days ago, noting Stalin’s engineered famine killing millions of Ukrainians occurred only 8-9 years before Barbarossa. And Waco? Really, Ed ?!? Why try to be such an ignorant crank?

That aside, the celebration of crude blood lust on the Right is painful to see. After 911, there was a determined effort by all U.S. politicians to insist our retaliation must be by military means on military targets, terrorists included. George W. Bush led the way on this. Now we see DeSantis trying to seize advantage from Nikki Haley by objecting to her statement civilians shouldn’t be targets.

Of course DeSantis is pretty unique, even on the Right. We know much of Trump’s misdeeds are because he’s a broken human being. In the end, a lot of it is simple mental illness.

But the ethical void know as Ron DeSantis is loathsome and unprincipled by calculation. He choses to appeal to the absolute lowest common denominator on any issue because lack of morals is his selling point. Has there ever been so putrid a political whore as Ronald Dion DeSantis?

[Bob from Ohio]

"MIAMI — The first round of flights organized by Gov. Ron DeSantis, carrying Americans stranded in Israel, arrived in Florida Sunday night, highlighting his state’s response to the war in the Middle East.
The flight carrying 270 people landed in Tampa, where DeSantis and Florida first lady Casey DeSantis greeted passengers. Another flight carrying seven people landed in Orlando." politico

Yes, he is so bad.

The only thing putrid here is you.

[grb]

Yeah, sure Bob. I bet he adores baby puppies too. They say Hitler couldn’t abide cats on Berghof grounds because they hurt the cute little birds. So sweet and warm-hearted!

So, yes, Ron found a political stunt that isn’t his usual Esther Williams-style choreographed water ballet in raw sewage. I applaud this. But as I note above, this noble act was simultaneous with Ronnie eagerly seizing the low ground on killing civilians.

So who the hell the hell is fooled by all your bullshit?

[Bob from Ohio]

Like I said, the only thing putrid is you.

[Nige]

'Actually, starving children to death is a legitimate military tactic'

All the worst people in history agree.

[David Nieporent]

Holdimur — which no one talks about

Because there was no such thing? But people routinely talk about the Holodomor when appropriate.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, so I'll see your Fuck You and raise you a Go Fuck Your Mother back. She's dead? then Go Fuck your Dead Mother, up her Ass preferably.

[Armchair]

"You think I don’t care about Jews being killed? "

First time I've heard of it. I don't remember any comments from you before this on the massive number of rapes, murders, and other tragedies in Israel, let alone the US. But maybe you can point me towards such a comment.

"I just also don’t think starving or stabbing children to death"

While this case is a tragedy, I find it interesting that you need to also put "starving" (alluding to the Gaza issue) in there as well. Almost like the only reason you're making this a point is so you can point to Gaza and "how bad" the Israelis are. Maybe it's just coincidence, and you point out all the other times people are tragically stabbed, including Palestinians and Jews. But I can't seem to recall those times. Perhaps you can point me towards them.

[Sarcastr0]

This is some real low antisemitism-baiting.

Don't do this.

It devalues accusing actual antisemites of stuff when you use 'I never heard you say you didn't love Jews being killed' bullshit.

Seriously, fuck off with this tendentious shit.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its been 9 days. Only now LTG asserts his deep grief, armchair is completely right to call him out.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Oh I’m sorry! I didn’t realize I had to announce my thoughts immediately on an internet blog.

You consistently claim I have no right to “demand” answers from you when you demur on difficult questions. You whine and pout when I take a negative inference from that refusal.

Yet here you are believing I hate Jews, am evil and not actually saddened because I didn’t post it on some blog. You’re basically “demanding” I say things to satisfy you not even in response to a question.

Absolutely unbelievable hypocrisy

[Noscitur a sociis]

Oh I’m sorry! I didn’t realize I had to announce my thoughts immediately on an internet blog.

I mean, you were just dogging on them for not commenting on your story…

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. I was saying what some people probably think. And well, based on their known character. You tell me: was I wrong?

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’m sorry I didn’t post on your schedule. I’ll let my Jewish friends know that I’m actually an antisemite because Armchair Lawyer and Bob from Ohio said so.

[Armchair]

My schedule...your schedule...anyone's schedule....

You just posted on this one item, then immediately linked it to Israel's actions in Gaza....despite there being very little in common between the two.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“ despite there being very little in common between the two.”

Other than the fact that he was killed for being a Palestinian Muslim and the perpetrator was apparently recently radicalized due to the recent war. But sure bury your head in the sand and pretend it doesn’t matter why he was killed.

And yeah I’m gonna post about Palestinian deaths. Because there are going to be a lot of them before this is done. A lot. Mostly kids. And the people here? They’re not going to give a shit. And that’s the best case scenario. I mean Bob can’t be shamed into saying he feels bad here. Not for the American nor for the kids is Gaza.

Can’t even pretend. Which means he probably is happy.

So yeah I’m gonna confront fake online tough guys going rah rah rah for the war and dead kids. Maybe it’ll give them pause. I doubt it, but I’m going to try.

[Armchair]

"And yeah I’m gonna post about Palestinian deaths"

Mmm Hmmm...

And remember. Every time a Palestinian child dies in the crossfire between Hamas and Israel...it's Israel's fault.

Every time a random act of violence elsewhere in the world occurs...well, ignore those due to the "Global day of Jihad". Not on your schedule. But a nut kills a Palestinian? It's because he was "radicalized"

Every time Hamas kills another hostage? Not on your schedule.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/10/09/israel-hamas-hostage-death/

But sure.... you're not anti-israel.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I am not a fan of the Israeli government, yes. Their heavy handed tactics have made things way worse and the Netanyahu government is filled with extremist thugs. Do you know who Baruch Goldstein is? Well
He’s a terrorist who murdered 29 praying Muslims in a Mosque. You know who had a picture of him on his wall prior to entering government? Israel’s current national security minister. But yeah, he’s a “good guy” so it’s okay.

The government against the bloodthirsty terrorists is supposed to be the right side. But that only works if they are actually upholding the dignity of their fellow humans. So far the Israeli government has failed at that. And people like you and Bob cheer them on no matter what. And then they pretend that all that cheering has nothing to do with why an American man would want to murder a Palestinian kid. It’s all connected. This isn’t a fucking video game. Everyone. I repeat EVERYONE has moral duties here. That Hamas is evil is not an excuse to disregard our moral duties. And it’s not an excuse for Israelis either.

So for the record: I hate Hamas I don’t like the Israeli government, and I don’t like assholes like you and Bob who can’t seem to move beyond tribalism and even pretend to be empathetic for the thousands of dead from Israeli tactics. I want to support Israel but they’re making it so fucking hard with all the damn killing and the “WHO ME?!?” Response to legitimate questions about the harm of their policies.

[Sarcastr0]

You called LTG anti-Israel and now a stooge of Hamas.

All without actual evidence.

I hope you're not this toxic outside the Internet.

[Dr. Ed 2]

LTG is insulting everyone's intelligence when he instantly presumes that this was a hate crime without even considering other possibilities.

It may well be -- but he doesn't know that and has no basis to say it was, not when there are other equally-likely possibilities.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I presumed it because of all the evidence pointing in that direction.

[Magister]

The police alleged it was a hate crime, as reported in the linked article. The police may be wrong, but they don't generally choose one explanation out of many that are equally likely.

[Dr. Ed 2]

REALLY?!?

Google “Charles Stewart” sometime….

Cops see what they expect to see -- and what they are told to expect to see -- and they often are tragically wrong...

[Magister]

I say "generally" and Dr. Ed 2 says "specific case!"?

I'm guessing Dr. Ed 2 meant "Charles Stuart", from over 30 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Carol_Stuart

What other explanations does Dr. Ed 2 consider equally likely in the stabbing a six year old?

[Idihax]

1 down, 1.9 billion to go.

[LawTalkingGuy]

@Noscitur a sociis

[Idihax]

Yeah but I'm a troll.

[LawTalkingGuy]

A troll who actually believes these things and is representative of the extreme right.

[Idihax]

Do you have the Rev Kirkland have orgies with little boys? If so, who usually pops first?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Extreme right wingers love to graphically think about child sexual abuse.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

So long as they don't use mean words to describe conservatives, these guys calling for people to be gassed or hung from lamp posts, or accusing others of being pedophiles, have nothing to worry about from the Volokh Conspiracy's Board of Censors.

[Ben_]

Here’s another similar story:

https://x.com/lauraloomer/status/1713913296875622480

When does the victim Olympics end? Are you winning?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Another disgusting act of hate. Thank-you for sharing.

[Sarcastr0]

Fucking Laura Loomer?

Good lord, man.

[Ben_]

That’s what is important to you about this story

[Bob from Ohio]

Charles Lister@Charles_Lister
1h
BREAKING - 2+ dead in gun attack in #Brussels.
"The purported gunman has since recorded a video post claiming association with #ISIS & presenting his actions as revenge for the oppression of Muslims."

No Loomer cooties on this one.

[Magister]

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/sweden/article/2023/10/16/two-swedes-fatally-shot-in-central-brussels_6179647_213.html

Unlike the Loomer link, where a motive has not been reported by anyone responsible, this one has their terror alert level raised to its highest level. Neither of these links seem like what a decent person would post in response to the original story.

[Ed Grinberg]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
If a jihadi commits a terrorist act, but law-enforcement and the media refuse to talk about it, did it really happen?

[Ben_]

It definitely happened. There’s a question of the motive and whether the authorities are lying about it and why. And who ultimately ordered them to lie, if they are in fact lying.

After the last few years and the pandemic, the general assumption has to be that all official communications to the public are lies.

[grb]

Ed Grinberg : “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”

Here’s my solution :

1. If you define sound as the vibrations which produce a neurological response in biological creatures, yes it does.

2. If you define sound as that neurological response, no it doesn’t.

Sorry if that drains the fun from one of those questions great to ponder over bong hits in the dorm, but that’s pretty much it.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, that pretty much ruined it for me for the foreseeable future. Thanks for that.

[Don Nico]

Get serious, LTG.
But seriously, there has been little or no comment about Israel needing to get its West Bank settlers under control. The present rash of assaults and murders without apparent forceful action by the government undercuts Israel's moral position vis-a-vis Gazans

[Martinned]

I mentioned Yuval Noah Harari the other day. He has now come back to The Rest Is Politics podcast: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0XE8ax8Xp3AnesAzPSbYbI?si=03h32rCYTHWc_g86rPjsQg

[Ben_]

About 98% of Americans are ignoring the government’s recommendation to get a Covid booster:

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/only-2-americans-have-received-new-covid-vaccine-cdc

Why would healthy people get a vaccination for something about as severe as a bad cold that they already have partial immunity to? Why would the government recommend such a vaccination?

[Ed Grinberg]

That's why we have to make it mandatory!!!
/sarc

[David Nieporent]

Why would healthy people get a vaccination

Quoted for particular stupidity.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Why would the government recommend such a vaccination?"

Follow the money....

[John F. Carr]

In addition to money we have the desire of government officials to do as much to the people as possible. Before COVID the government changed its advice on flu shots. The old advice said get one if you need one. The new advice says everybody gets one.

[NvEric]

Feral Judge Tanya Chutkan
Sinister counsel Jack Smith
“You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.”
Chuck Shummer

The People can not be silenced

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You will continue to comply with the preferences of better Americans, like all right-wing culture war casualties.

You get to whine and whimper about it, just like the Volokh Conspirators, as much as you like, though.

Until replacement.

[Idihax]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/16/politics/ghost-gun-regulations-enforcement-supreme-court/index.html

Not even Alito or Thomas dissents. Statist charlatans, all of them.

[Frank Drackman]

Funny how none of these College age Spooks seem to knew who sold their Great-Great-Great-Great-Great (how many "Greats' to get back to the 17th Century? 16?) Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great- Grandparents into Slavery.
It wasn't any of my Ancestors, it was bad smelling guys wearing Turbans and worshiping Moe-hammad

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

UPDATE:

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This movement conservative blog
has operated for no more than

ZERO (0)

days without publishing a
racial slur; it has published
racial slurs on at least

THIRTY-TWO (32)

different occasions (so far)
during 2023 (that’s at least
32 different discussions,
not 32 racial slurs; many
of those discussions
featured multiple racial slurs).

This assessment does not address
the broader, incessant stream of
gay-bashing, misogynist, Islamophobic,
antisemitic, racist, transphobic,
and immigrant-hating slurs and
other bigoted content published
daily at this blog, which is presented
from the receding, disaffected
right-wing fringe of modern legal
academia by members of the
Federalist Society for Law
and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this blog’s obsolete and ugly thinking, here is something worthwhile.

This is a good one, too.

[bernard11]

So it looks like "I know nussing" Jordan will likely be Speaker.

I think there are some interesting court cases in process.

Just curious, does anyone think the assistant wrestling coach knew absolutely nothing about what Strauss was up to?

[Don Nico]

"So it looks like “I know nussing” Jordan will likely be Speaker. "
God help us.

[M L]

A condominium document says "each owner shall be responsible for . . . the interior of his unit and any limited common element appurtenant thereto."

Does "interior" modify "unit" and "limited common element" or just "unit"? What canon of construction is this again?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Well, that would depend on the habeas corpus of the res ipsa loquitur. And does the condominium fly American flags with gold fringes?

[M L]

We can make that flag bit mandatory while we're at it.

[Life of Brian]

I'm not the one to ask about schmancy Latin phrases, but here I think the broader document might provide important context. For example, does it define or discuss limited common elements elsewhere? When it discusses responsibility for exterior repairs (presumably the COA), does it mention limited common elements?

Just nosing around a bit, limited common elements typically cover a wide array of indoor and outdoor elements for use by a specific owner and include things that don't even have an interior such as parking spaces, so if your agreement either directly or implicitly uses the term in that vein it would surprise me a bit if "interior" was meant to modify more than "unit."

[M L]

You're right of course. Unfortunately many legal documents are just poorly drafted.

[John F. Carr]

Politico this morning has a book excerpt about an incident I hadn't heard of, a perceived order by President Eisenhower to assassinate Patrice Lumumba, head of the newly independent Congo. Eisenhower's exact words were not recorded. They were probably along the lines of Henry II ("will no one rid me of this turbulent priest") or Joe Biden ("this man cannot remain in power"). At the height of the CIA's urge to meddle, ambiguous words became an order.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/10/17/patrice-lumumba-congo-washington-00121755

Nothing came of this particular CIA plot. Belgians or at least pro-Belgian forces got Lumumba first.

[Magister]

You're claiming that the CIA is planning to assassinate Putin, based on a public statement by Joe Biden?

[John F. Carr]

According to the British tabloids Putin is already dead, replaced by a body double.

[M L]

Joe Biden promised they would stop the Nord Stream pipeline and then they blew it up.

[Brett Bellmore]

Looks like both parties have a large faction of dangerous people. Just dangerous along slightly different lines.

Center For Politics: Voice of the voter survey (Looks like their survey population skews a bit Democratic, comparing "voting intentions" to other polls I've seen.)

Some high points:
74% of Democrats would support gun control even if it was in violation of the Constitution.
69% of Democrats would require corporations to have 'diverse' leadership.
56% of Democrats would redistribute all wealth above a certain level.
47% of Democrats think the government should restrict expression of views through to be discriminatory or offensive.
31% of Democrats think it's necessary to restrict rights such as freedom of speech to protect the feelings of 'marginalized groups'.

At the other end,
50% of Republicans think laws should require citizens to show respect to national symbols and leaders.
45% think the law should limit protests and demonstrations deemed to be potentially disruptive.
37% think the President should have the power to disregard Congress on national security decisions.
37% think the law should limit expression of unpatriotic or disloyal views.
30% think elections should be suspended in time of crisis.

Interesting that the only right-wing violation of democratic norms that even reached 50% was basically mandatory saluting the flag, while several left-wing violations easily topped 50%, and one reached 3/4s of Democrats.

[Frank Drackman]

It was. Almost as good as Parkinsonian Joe's "Chevy Chase" impression, funny, it almost looks like he's actually stumbling over and falling hard, he's a really good stunt man.

[Krayt]

This is a profoundly ignorant statement.

"Freedom? Look what happens (in societies with no freedom)!"

Those are your buddies, waiving away freedom and enslaving slaves, child workers, etc .

[DaveM]

What I was thinking there was the underlying motivations. Biden's motive I think is just the Benjamins. Trump is all about vanity.

[Frank Drackman]

Why is the idea of a bunch of Spooks fucking my mom so funny? I could see if it was something really funny, like "What was the last thing that went through Kobe Bryant's head before he died??" or
"Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm the Xth, and Floyd George walk into a Redneck Bar, the Rednecks Shoot MLK Jr, and Malcolm, and kill George with a Fentanyl overdose" (rim shot)
but I kid MLK Jr....

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Wow!

[not guilty]

Speaking of slaughtering babies, how many of Planned Parenthood's critics have a similar problem with Yahweh, the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? He put a targeted hit on Bathsheba's firstborn, letting it suffer for seven days before offing it. Through the prophet Samuel, He ordered King Saul to kill Amalekite children and infants. The Great Flood and the Tenth Plague did not spare babies.

Any cognitive dissonance there?

[Frank Drackman]

Martin Lucifer King started as Martin Lucifer King Sperm

[Frank Drackman]

My Bad, the joke is,
"What went through Martin Luther King's head before he died??"
"A 180gr 30:06 Jacketed Hollow point"

Frank

[Idihax]

At least he's not a retarded female beaner like Sotomayor.

[Frank Drackman]

He's got big lips and nappy hair too, most of you do. Still a great Judge, they can't all be Pretty Boy Gore-Sucks

[Idihax]

She's not a judge. She's a stupid jogger.

[David Welker]

I am not obligated to respond to trolls, Queen.

In fact, what I am going to do is mute him.

Do you really need me to reassure you that I think the gas chamber remark is stupid??? Like really?

For future reference, if I don’t comment on something someone says, that may be because I think it is so stupid as to not be worth a comment. OK? You shouldn’t waste your time either, IMO. Some of these trolls are just looking for attention, I think.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure tp Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, UAE...all the nearby Muslim countries that don't want them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, if we had some reliable way of telling them apart.

At the beginning of WWII, we turned back a refugee ship full of Jews, as Hitler was starting a genocide of them. That was pretty dodgy, and if we turned back Jewish refugees from any of the Middle Eastern countries that are currently doing clean up on their largely complete genocides of Jews, (Today, the main target for genocide in the Arab countries is Christians, the supply of Jews having gotten so slim.) that would be similarly dodgy.

But turning back Palestinian refugees? When the Palestinians ARE the genocides? Not nearly so dodgy.

You know, until we have a mind reading machine, and can sort them out...

[Frank Drackman]

Who does?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You don’t realize that you’ve confirmed my point. The defective ballots (not in all counties) of a quarter century ago are irrelevant to ballot access, but they keep getting trotted out as if they *were* relevant.

You can’t even agree with me without an insult. Consider a more constructive approach.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes actually, and guns are one thing they do seem to be afraid of.
I mean besides Ghosts, Haints, the Po-Po, Soap, and a Job.

Frank

[Idihax]

It's not a limit on guns. It's a limit on the Constitution, and done so outside of the legislature to boot.

[Frank Drackman]

Queenie's never heard of Tuskegee

[Frank Drackman]

We get it, you think Niggers have insatiable sexual appetites, then get upset when some conscientious White cop take's a knee on Floyd George's Larynx

[Kazinski]

I thought you said you'd try to do better throwing around gratuitous sexual insults when the professor called you on it a month or two ago.

[Bob from Ohio]

I don't "both sides" good and evil. You do, I see.

One side is good and its the side LTG first attacked.

[Frank Drackman]

Not crying exactly,
you want to destroy your next generations, go for it. Fewer of you to fuck my mom/wife/daughters

[Bob from Ohio]

The reason doesn't much matter, does it? Murder is bad.

But it was brought up for bad reasons. To show that "this put a smile on the faces of a lot of commenters here."

Denounce that.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You’re letting the point sail over your head. Your understanding is indeed childlike.

Just about every time I mention Florida’s equal ballot access, someone mentions 2000 and the butterfly ballots. If the problem were recent and persistent, maybe they’d have a point, but it’s not and they don’t.

Some historical lessons remain valid even if they come from the era of the Roman Empire, but this just ain’t an example of such a lesson – or rather, the lesson goes the other way, in that they can only find an example from a quarter-century ago to make their case against equal ballot access. Given the frequency of elections since then, they're still hyperventilating about 2000.

Stop insulting children with the poor quality of your arguments.

[LawTalkingGuy]

One side is give water to children. The other is not to. I took the first side and you think that’s evil.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“The reason doesn’t much matter”

It only doesn’t matter to you because of who was killed and why. If it was a different person for a different reason, perhaps someone you identified with it would actually matter a great deal.

“But it was brought up for bad reasons. To show that “this put a smile on the faces of a lot of commenters here.”

Showing how morally bankrupt people here are isn’t a bad reason. It’s good actually. And I got one explicitly endorsement, two hedges, and you who think the reason doesn’t matter and that posting is more worthy of denunciation than child murder.

[Brett Bellmore]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/right-to-trial-by-jury-historical-background

" Trial by petit jury was not employed at least until the reign of Henry III, in which the jury was first essentially a body of witnesses, called for their knowledge of the case; not until the reign of Henry VI did it become the trier of evidence."

Why did you think they were supposed to be from the same area? Carefully selecting jurors for ignorance is a recent thing.

[Idihax]

I'm pro-life for whites only. Not Palestinians, Africans or any other subhumans.

[Dr. Ed 2]

War is hell. Deal with it.

[Idihax]

That's how you ensure your store doesn't get looted. Put a "Help wanted" sign and these genetic defectives won't get within 100 yards.

[David Welker]

This is superficial Queen.

People’s worth isn’t based on accomplishments.

I think a lot of people have wasted time chasing accomplishments to make themselves feel better. The smarter move is to realize you already are worthy without them.

THEN when and if you do chase accomplishments, it is for fun, not some desperate and dead end quest for meaning in the wrong place.

[David Welker]

Please feel free to explain this point about a mask. It sounds like a potentially troubling accusation, but I am not going to put words in your mouth.

[David Welker]

I am no longer a liberal. That is because of the evolution of my own belief’s having nothing to do with Trump.

I have to admit, the hypocritical liberal embrace of cancel culture by powerful corporations that liberals used to be skeptical of did contribute. But that is far from the only factor.

I don’t necessarily consider myself a conservative either. That will really depend on how the GOP evolves in the future.

[Bored Lawyer]

There's plenty of both discussed. And plenty of smearing on the left side of the aisle.

[Magister]

No need to go back more than two elections (2022 apparently did not have Florida ghost candidates "potentially because those involved in the 2020 races are facing criminal charges").

https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/12/05/integrity-florida-ghost-candidates-elections-funding/

Government watchdog group Integrity Florida on Monday released a report on the use of so-called “ghost candidates” to affect elections, with the group’s research director saying the use of such candidates in three state Senate elections in 2020 “crossed the legal and moral line.”

The report in particular detailed a 2020 Senate race in South Florida won by Republican Sen. Ileana Garcia, saying that a “ghost candidate” in the race spoiled the outcome by intentionally diverting votes away from the Democratic incumbent. Garcia ultimately won by just 32 votes.

In the 2020 Senate race ultimately won by Garcia, no-party candidate Alex Rodriguez ran and received more than 6,000 votes despite not campaigning. He had the same last name as the Democratic incumbent, Jose Javier Rodriguez.

Alex Rodriguez later admitted to taking $45,000 in bribes from former Miami state Sen. Frank Artiles to run in the race. Artiles is facing criminal charges.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Runoffs (instant or otherwise) would deal with this issue, rather than cutting legitimate candidates off the ballot.

Also, the article you linked has this:

“Integrity Florida says it didn’t see evidence of any ghost candidates in statewide races in this election cycle [2022], potentially because those involved in the 2020 races are facing criminal charges.”

So it seems the ghost-candidate schemes were already illegal, and prosecuting violators scared off potential violators in the next election cycle.

Just to be clear – in those states which limit ballot access, the motive isn’t political purity or exorcising ghost candidates, but limiting *actual* candidates.

Perhaps, instead of cutting independent candidates and third parties off the ballot, we can cut major-party candidates off the ballot on the ground that they might cheat? That would solve that problem. /sarc

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Oh, I see you already cited the part about criminal charges frightening off the ghosts in 2022.

Well, then, you're granting up front that your source is fairly weak sauce.

[Magister]

Margrave, master of not reading the entire post before firing off his reply. Republicans have no shortage of dirty tricks, but Margrave is happy to ignore them and to make bad arguments, as long as he can pivot to a new bad argument when they fail.

* "enemies of equal ballot access have to reach back to the age of dialup" - Margrave was wrong. Apology accepted, Margrave.
* "Florida’s liberal model of ballot access" - Margrave still hasn't looked up filing fees for actual candidates in Florida.
* "So it seems the ghost-candidate schemes were already illegal, and prosecuting violators scared off potential violators in the next election cycle." - Margrave did not read the part about a possible spoiler candidate in 2022, and the use of write-in candidates to keep voters out of primaries for uncontested general election races. Also Margrave ignores that it took over two years for Integrity Florida to report the 2020 issues, and that in the meantime the people were represented by the candidate they did not actually choose.
* "Runoffs (instant or otherwise) would deal with this issue" - Margrave continues to ignore that the Republican party favors banning ranked choice voting, a ban they have already passed in Florida.

Margrave, the Republican party's useless idiot.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Some random rebuttals –

-I wondered if you’d be dumb enough to drag in the open-primary issue, which is irrelevant to general-election ballot access. You are presumably aware (since I’ve said it before) that I believe the parties should nominate candidates without state aid or involvement. If state regulation of primaries has bad results, that *reinforces* my point that party nominations should be privatized.

-I reply to the actual arguments presented – and until your response all I got when I mentioned Florida was “Gore wuz robbed in 2000!”

-I didn’t say the Republicans supported runoffs or ranked choice. In fact, I’ve repeatedly insulted the Republicans by saying that, all across the board, they’re almost as bad as the Democrats and are rapidly catching up with the Democrats on the few issues where they currently profess to disagree. It doesn’t get more insulting than that.

Magister, apologist for election misinformation and vote suppression.

[Magister]

Margrave engages in projection again with "apologist for election misinformation and voter suppression" while making excuses for the Republicans and their dirty tricks and disenfranchisement. Responding to the actual arguments presented is laughably far from anything Margrave ever does. The last time Margrave touted Florida's accomplishments in ballot access, I pointed out that their filing fees are higher than those he had railed against; no response still. Keeping illegal ghost candidates off the ballot would require greater restrictions on ballot access; Margrave is happy for candidates to take office on the strength of dirty tricks, as long as they are Republicans.

[Drewski]

Martin Luther King died of a heart attack at age 84.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you expect the professor to say anything about that gratuitous racial slur?

Related points: How much longer will he be a professor? Why the early “retirement?”

Carry on, clingers. So long as your betters permit, of course.

[VinniUSMC]

Showing how morally bankrupt people here are isn’t a bad reason.

The only person that you've outed as morally bankrupt here is yourself. You should feel shame for what you posted. It's disgusting. Congratulations, you are scum.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I should feel shame for brining attention to a hate filled murder to all the people who have hate in their hearts and don't think through the consequences of that hate? Yeah, sorry I don't.

Maybe you should feel shame for thinking I am scum instead of all the blood thirsty people?

[Armchair]

LTG,

You know who really smiles when they see this type of story? Hamas.

There’s almost nothing they don’t like better than this type of story. Because then they can post and promote it as propaganda to support “how bad” the Israelis (or westerners) are. Hamas LOVES a good story where an innocent Palestinian kids gets killed. They promote it endlessly, and use it to gain more support to justify killing the Jews.

So, when you post such a story…then instantly link it to Israel for some reason (Why? I’m not sure. Israel didn’t order the kid’s death. Or have anything to do with it…but you did link it to Israel with the immediate comments afterwards about water).

Well…Congrads.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Where did I link it to Israel? Where did I blame Israel for this?

[Armchair]

"LawTalkingGuy 2 days ago
Flag Comment Mute User
No you haven’t. No one posted about it here. I am pretty sure the people who want Gazan children to die of dehydration are actually quite pleased there is one less of them here too."

Let's not pretend here. You wouldn't have posted this story about an isolated death of a Palestinian child in the US if you didn't want to make a point about Gaza and Israel.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You were implying I linked it to the Israeli government or actually blamed the Israeli government. I did not. If you continue to insist that, that would be a lie. They ARE linked in that the same people who are cheering and defending the Israeli government as they deo everything possible to make the humanitarian crisis worse are also probably at best indifferent and at worst gleeful about their "pick a side" rhetoric leading to the death of this child.

And indeed, the silence speaks volumes. Bob from Ohio can't even pretend to feel bad. You know what that means? It means he likes it. He's happy about it, and he wants more of it whether here or overseas.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Every day is Right-Wing Bigot Day at a white, male, faux libertarian, conservative blog.

[M L]

Not sure about that. I guess, if you had a potter's wheel and you made some pots, would it be immoral for you to destroy the pots you made? Or perhaps some video game characters you created like Mario and Luigi, or a robot or AI program. Just spitballing here. But then also, if you are going by the Bible, Yahweh welcomed Bathsheba's baby into the everlasting arms and eternal heavenly bliss, whereas if the child had continued living there may have been negative/deadly consequences broader and politically as well as for the child.

[not guilty]

"But then also, if you are going by the Bible, Yahweh welcomed Bathsheba’s baby into the everlasting arms and eternal heavenly bliss, whereas if the child had continued living there may have been negative/deadly consequences broader and politically as well as for the child."

Think so? Solomon, another of Bathsheba's offspring, succeeded his father as king.

[M L]

Yes but that was after Uriah's death and Bathsheba's marriage to David.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, how exactly can Israel give water to children, in Gaza, without having taken over control of Gaza first? All they could do at the moment is give water to Hamas, and hope that Hamas would let the children have it.

[Nige]

'When the Palestinians ARE the genocides?'

Collective guilt is a helluva drug.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's already got the Benjamins. Remember? Joe, by contrast, was conspicuously poor by Senatorial standards. Though he's been doing great at playing catch up since Hunter got busy.