Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Martinned2]

The prime minister of Denmark explained to Donald Trump that he can't just take bits of other countries, and he did not take it well.

https://www.ft.com/content/ace02a6f-3307-43f8-aac3-16b6646b60f6

[Dr. Ed 2]

For US national security, yes you can...

[santamonica811]

When I see Ed's lips move; I can hear Putin's voice, as Putin justifies his invasion of Ukraine by invoking Russia's national security.

Whore away Ed, whore away.

[Martinned2]

Also interesting, I'd have thought this Trump nonsense would be unhelpful for his friend north of the border. But the most recent polls I can find are more than a week old, and don't show a dent. All there is is stories about possible developments like this: https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2025/01/22/Why-Liberals-Hopes-Not-Dead-Yet/

[GreenLanternCorps]

Changing Leaders might help the Grits mitigate the damage and lose fewer seats. But, Freeland was hip deep in every Liberal policy over the last nine years.

Carney isn't even in Parliament and won't be when the Government falls in March. (No time for a by-election in safe seat to get him into Parliament, and Liberal safe seats are becoming scarce...)

The Tories are running in the high 40's nationwide, and over 50% outside of Quebec. Baring Poilievre being found in bed with the proverbial dead girl or live boy, the Conservatives are going to a have a solid majority in the next election.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Canada should have told Quebec to leave in the 1970s...

[myself]

If Carney is a remotely competent campaigner he wins the leadership contest in a walk.

And I have to say, I think Canadians are going to get tired of Poilievre real quick, I'm fairly engaged and had never seen more than him in question period and clips from his prerecorded videos. Watching him in an interview I've never seen someone so insufferably smug.

His only appeal is his "I'm an asshole because I'm so much smarter than you" shtick. But that really only works against Trudeau. Carney dominates him on the economics which has always been Poilievre's calling card.

I don't know if Carney can win, but I don't expect Poilieve to be more than a 1-term minority PM.

[Frank Drackman]

Russia's invading You-Crane for the same reason the US invaded Virginia

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, kinda. If the US had peacefully broken up several decades earlier, and a Northern warlord had set out to forcibly reassemble it.

Virginia was minus the peaceful breakup decades earlier.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Putin has a point -- The Ukraine is where the railroad gauge changes from American 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in to the wider Russian gauge. Once you have transferred your stuff to to trains than can run on the (almost) five foot gauge, you can roll all the way to Moscow.

Greenland is like Switzerland once was -- France, Germany, & Italy could live with a neutral Switzerland, but not one controlled by another power. We can live with a Danish Iceland, but not one controlled by China or Russia.

[SRG2]

Modest point: standard gauge is not "American gauge". It didn't originate in the US

[Dr. Ed 2]

Europe has it because the Americans rebuilt Europe's railroads after WWII, providing American-built equipment using the American standard gauge.

[SRG2]

...which they got from Britain.

[Martinned2]

No, Europe has standard gauge because it has always had standard gauge because that's how standard gauge became standard.

[Paladin_44]

Danish Iceland????

[Ridgeway]

Forget it, Pal, he's rolling

[John F. Carr]

So Trump should offer say $10 million for a right of first refusal on any sale of Greenland.

[Martinned2]

The UK already has dibs, sorry.

https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/sorry-trump-this-pact-says-britain-has-first-dibs-on-greenland-nhzvdmk5j

[not guilty]

"For US national security, yes you can..."

Uh, no. And the United States has existed securely for a quarter of a millennium without possessing Greenland.

[Martinned2]

Threatening to invade Greenland is an excellent way to get the existing US military base there booted out...

[RedheadedPharoh]

Good. I hope the rest of Europe boots our bases too.

[DixieTune]

Seriously. The Western European countries that constantly brag about providing "free" health care and education can try to do so when they have to actually spend money on defense.

[Krayt]

This is not good stewardship of western dominance that's kept rolling dictatorship at bay for 80 years now.

Places like Venezuela, Phillipines, Turkey don't "pivot" away because of deep philosophical reasons, but to receive help locking down their own new dictatorship.

I want that US big brother's hand on these smaller countries' shoulders, with bases there and surfeit of rights inculcated to multiple growing generations now, natural received wisdom.

[Sarcastr0]

A lot of folks, myself included, think that's how they all ended up with such fucked up politics in the first place!

[Brett Bellmore]

Over the broad sweep of history, "fucked up politics" are the default, that a few countries have risen above, not the exception.

Just like it's not poverty that needs explaining, it's wealth, it's not despotism that needs explaining, it's liberty.

So, we did screw up in that we didn't successfully pass that liberty onto them. I think that's because our own leaders don't really understand why we had it in the first place; Being government leaders they thought liberty was a product of government, rather than of severely limiting it.

[DixieTune]

They also thought liberty was completely detached from the religious and cultural makeup of the people

[Sarcastr0]

Latin America's fucked up politics is a particular way of being fucked up.

Socialist populism; thin pretextual democracy; military posturing...those can, in my opinion (and conventional wisdom) be traced to effects and reactions to our covert imperialism.

If you want to make portentous pronouncements that No One Understands Liberty, why not apply to the guy who posted "I want that US big brother's hand on these smaller countries' shoulders"

[Krayt]

I'm willing to entertain that as an argument, but I'm also loud that "We have no right to interfere in other countries, so new dictatorship, your 15 million people? Take them away!" is asinine. Murderous. And if I were someone living there, to see people in the West fret and decide they had no right to free me, as I lie with a boot on my face, screw you.

Free people have every right to free other people. More accurately, their dictators have no right to be dictators.

[ducksalad]

The only one of those three (Venezuela, Philippines, Turkey) we can take any blame for is the Philippines. We owned and ran it for almost 50 years.

The others never were inclined to let us tell them what to do internally.

[ThePublius]

Who said "invade?" I thought Trump said he wants to buy Greenland.

[Michael P]

"Trump again demands to buy Greenland in ‘horrendous’ call with Danish PM" is only what M2's linked articles say, but all right-thinking, I mean left-thinking, people know that Trump is really planning on a full scale military invasion.

[Krayt]

It's almost like he knows the media will always do the worst possible take on everything and facetiously present it to the nation.

[Martinned2]

Sure, Trump says lots of things.

Trump poured fuel on a tense world waiting with trepidation for his second term on Tuesday when a reporter asked him if he could rule out force to seize back the Panama Canal or to take over strategically important Greenland.

“I’m not going to commit to that, no,” Trump said at Mar-a-Lago. “It might be that you’ll have to do something.”

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/08/politics/trump-greenland-canada-panama-analysis/index.html

[ThePublius]

And in the very next paragraph:
"Canadians were relieved to learn that the president-elect won’t be sending the 82nd Airborne across the 49th parallel. He said he’d only use economic force to annex the proud sovereign democracy to the north and make it the 51st state."

He was keeping force on the table WRT Panama, not Greenland, as I recall from watching the interview.

What I think could happen is that Greenland declares its independence from Denmark, and then sells itself to the U.S.

What could also happen, 'though it's far fetched, is that Trump appeals to the people of Panama to petition to become a U.S. state. Wouldn't that be something? 🙂

[shawn_dude]

So he's willing to invade an ally and start a war to annex land, resources, and its citizens. That's the bottom line. It doesn't matter that he's willing to use this approach selectively and our close Northern ally is only going to be attacked economically. He's willing to invade one of our allies and take their land by force because he thinks its treasure should be his.

[Krayt]

Kane: This guy's wife hasn't been seen for a month. Go down there and demand he produce her. Tell him you're from...

Someone else: The Central Office!

Kane: ...The Central Office!

All: Heh heh heh heh heh
------------------
Say you're gonna annex Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal. Tell 'em, tell 'em...

"The military option is not off the table!"

"...The military option is not off the table!"

All: Heh heh heh heh heh

[bernard11]

He said he’d only use economic force to annex the proud sovereign democracy to the north and make it the 51st state.

WTF. Does anyone,other than Publius, think this is OK?

"Economic force" is just another term for extortion. And what happens if extortion fails?

[Martinned2]

It looks like I'm not the only one who thinks Trump might invade Greenland. Isn't that a great way to improve relations with an ally?

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/27/europe/denmark-greenland-trump-defense-latam-intl/index.html

[Michael P]

And just like that, it was beyond the pale to leave options open, to refuse to prejudge a situation, and to employ strategic ambiguity.

[Krayt]

You run apoplectic at these ideas. Of course they're silly. But sentence 1 suggests mission accomplished?

[Dr. Ed 2]

That was BC -- Before China went there.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "For US national security, yes you can..."

Isn't it a sad dance? Trump does some childish trolling lunacy and his bootlickers swarm out like cockroaches to cover the embarrassment with tinhorn excuses. After a bare week, they're already continuously at work defending the indefensible. Hell, Blackman's sweaty flailing almost has me convinced he deserves the position he's whoring after.

Take this for example : Despite Ed's well-known cognitive issues, even he can't believe Trump's Greenland snit has anything to do with "national security". Instead, it's Trump's pathological vanity and insecurity - with the latter manifested in a weak man's incessant strutting & bullying. This is coupled with DJT's total contempt for his supporters, because he honesty expects they'll be impressed by whining immature cartoon threats. Lastly, it's the kind of fantasy "objective" that would occur to someone empty of real beliefs, principles, ethics, purpose, or direction.

Putin is an interesting comparison. In his quest for power, he strangled Russia's nascent democracy. Wanting complete security, he crushed all rivals and eliminated the country's free press. To enrich himself and his cronies, he choked-off its economy with rampant institutionalized corruption. So having finally achieved everything he wanted, Putin then turned to his legacy.

But what was left? In his vain lust for power, he'd destroyed any hope of Russia becoming a normal prosperous state. The only remaining option was foreign adventurism, sordid war, and all the crippling damage to Russia that has resulted.

Obviously, that's tragedy while Trump is buffoonish farce, but the same rough outline applies. His crap about Greenland is just what you'd expect from an empty shell - someone crippled in his mind, withered in his soul, & completely hollowed-out inside.

[RedheadedPharoh]

This is delusional. You're living in a Truman Show created by Globalists who hate you because of your skin color and want to see your quality of lofe reduced and your children become State chattel.

[santamonica811]

M,
At least for me; your linked article is behind a paywall.

[Martinned2]

Yes, I linked it because the FT had the scoop on this story. Other news outlets have now passed on the news.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/26/world/europe/trump-greenland-denmark.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/25/trump-greenland-denmark

[Martinned2]

And for those who speak Danish or know how Google Translate works, some sources from Denmark:

https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/mette-frederiksen-efter-ny-trump-melding-om-groenland-sammenholdet-i-europa-har

https://jyllands-posten.dk/international/ECE17827939/trump-nedbryder-gamle-aftaler-og-laegger-sig-ud-med-allierede-ingen-toer-spaa-om-hvor-det-ender/

[Brett Bellmore]

Did Trump explain right back that, according to Danish law, the decision is up to Greenland, not Denmark?

[Martinned2]

Explaining to the Danish PM how the Danish constitution works, that seems like a great way to do diplomacy. Either way, it's irrelevant.

[Mr. Bumble]

Explain any claim Denmark has over Inuit people in Greenland.

[Krayt]

Haw haw haw, all that self-flagellation has caught up to them.

[Martinned2]

Explain any claim the US has over any part of the US.

[ducksalad]

Then why was he calling the Danish PM?

[Martinned2]

No idea. It would probably have been better if he hadn't. Any other president presumably calls all of the US's allies, seeking to strengthen ties with them. But that doesn't seem like the Trump playbook.

[SRG2]

From the article, People really don’t even know if Denmark has any legal right to it but, if they do, they should give it up because we need it for national security,

A classic Trump lie, saying something about what people do or do not know that is simply untrue.

It is interesting and entirely expected that his lackeys support this.

But even they should have just enough brains to answer the question, "is this any way to treat an ally?"

BTW why do people think that Arctic routes are opening up and minerals in Greenland may be more accessible? (Rhetorical q_

[Frank Drackman]

Prime Minister probably didn’t recognize the Irony that Vikings conquered Greenland in the first place, we’d just be conquering back, like U2 took back “Helter Skelter” back from Charles Manson who stole it from the Beatles

[bernard11]

Vikings conquered Greenland in the first place, we’d just be conquering back,

Huh?

They didn't conquer it from us, so can we "conquer it back?" The whole business is insane.

[Kazinski]

Trump definitely needs to cool his jets on Greenland, and Congress should make it clear they are not along for the ride.

[Martinned2]

Yeah... But it looks so big and empty on the (Mercator) map...

[Mr. Bumble]

It is big and empty.
836,330 sq. miles with a population of 55, 583.

[No One Of Consequence]

What if Trump offered a million dollars to every Greenland man, woman, and child, if they'd just vote to dump their Danish overlords for American ones? What are the Danes gonna do about it?

There are fewer than 57,000 Greenlanders, so he could get the whole deal done for less than half the cost of a single Ford-class aircraft carrier.

[Martinned2]

Elon Musk gave a speach at the AfD's campaign kick-off event, calling on Germany to stop being ashamed about the Holocaust.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/elon-musks-call-germany-move-nazi-guilt-dangerous-holocaust-memorial-c-rcna189316

[RedheadedPharoh]

Nice.

[Frank Drackman]

I guess as a Half German/Jew I should feel 25% ashamed? Literally (I hate that word but I think I'm using it correctly) no German alive today (and 1/2 of them are from Turkey, at least in my Mom's part of Potsdam) had anything to do with the Horrorcost (I know it's "Holocaust" but this Chinese Pathologist in Med School pronounced it that way* and I loved it)
I'll put it this way, are you ashamed about the Anti-Integration riots of the 1970's in Boston (and Chicago, and Detroit, and Cleveland.....) Putting Japs in Interment Camps in WW2 (for their own protection mostly)
It doesn't bother me, but sure sounds like your Conscience bothers you, (HT G Rossington, E King R Van Zant, all dead BTW and Neil Young still survives)
and because I can follow their rallies in German, AfD is like a more moderate version of the Tea Party, i.e. Mitt Romeney drinking Mosel Wine instead of his usual French.

Frank

* You should have heard him try to pronounce "Howell-Jolly Bodies"

[DixieTune]

He's right. The Holocaust ended 80 years ago. Anyone who was involved in a major way has been dead for decades.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Allegedly there are still 400,000 survivors!

lol

[DixieTune]

There probably are, in the sense that infants were born in Nazi-occupied territories.

Many conservatives have long said that American blacks need to get the hell over slavery, and American Indians need to get the hell over the past.

For the Holocaust, it was different while people who survived the camps were still alive. At this point, nobody who participated in the atrocities is alive, and almost nobody alive remembers anything.

Within a decade or two, the Holocaust will pass into the "get the hell over it and move on" category.

[SRG2]

The South hasn't got over losing the Civil War yet.

[Brett Bellmore]

I live in the South, and I can assure you that's hardly the case.

[SRG2]

Sure you can.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, like I said, I live here. I daily see interracial couples in public, unmolested, for instance.

I have no doubt there are some obnoxious people around, that's true everywhere. But the whole "South" thing is more of a cultural style at this point, like people of Iris descent eating corned beef and cabbage on St. Patrick's day.

[bernard11]

I don't live in the South, but did for a long time, and still have friends, visit, etc.

I think you, Brett, have a point, but are really oversimplifying. There are not many who want to reinstitute slavery, or even Jim Crow, for example, but it's clear that reverence for the Confederacy and its leaders is still fairly high. You don't have to look far to see a Confederate flag.

And don't tell me it's about "tradition." What tradition are they honoring, exactly?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The same "tradition" as wearing green on St. Patrick's Day.

[Martinned2]

Just as invented

[Brett Bellmore]

What tradition am I honoring when I eat cabbage and potatoes on St. Patrick's day? A tradition of my Murphy great grandparents being starving tenant farmers in their own country? Nah, it's just a fun thing to do.

Look, you don't get to pick what somebody else is celebrating when they wave around a confederate flag. You may want to say they're celebrating slavery and Jim Crow, they may just be celebrating The Dukes of Hazard.

As long as somebody has no interest in reinstating Jim Crow, I don't give a damn if they like having a General Lee statue in the town square. I simply do not give a damn.

On the other hand, if somebody is absolutely determined to institute and maintain racial quotas, the fact that they want to tear down that statue hardly renders them innocent in my eyes.

Because, you know what? I care about what's going on TODAY.

[not guilty]

Eating cabbage and potatoes, on St. Patrick's Day or on any other day, has never symbolized treason in service of chattel slavery.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and my point is that waving around a Confederate flag symbolizes whatever the person waving it around WANTS it to symbolize. You don't get to dictate what other people mean when they wave it.

Like I said, I don't give a damn if somebody likes having a Confederate flag on their pickup truck, or enjoys having a statue of some Confederate general on the town square.

I care what they're doing, not what symbols they're waving around that you attribute ugly meanings to.

Make no mistake, there are advocates today for racial discrimination, quotas, collective guilt and punishment, and all that crap. They're not waving Confederate flags, they're running DEI offices.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, and my point is that waving around a Confederate flag symbolizes whatever the person waving it around WANTS it to symbolize. You don't get to dictate what other people mean when they wave it.

Popehat's Rule of Goats.

[Brett Bellmore]

You want me to tell you what Popehat can do with his goat?

[David Nieporent]

I'm telling you what you're already doing with it.

[No One Of Consequence]

Why do you think Gisele's private life is any of your business, Nieporent ? Or Popehat's, for that matter? She did what she did, but now it's long past time to just let her move on.

[bernard11]

Brett,

Gee you can be stupid when you want to be. You see no difference between eating a traditional dish and waving around a flag of treason, a war flag?

Suppose one German has a meal of sausage, sauerkraut, and beer, while another waves the Nazi flag around, frequently and publicly and proudly, and celebrates Nazi leaders. No difference?

waving around a Confederate flag symbolizes whatever the person waving it around WANTS it to symbolize.

Bullshit. A symbol is a message. If the recipient interprets it in a way that seems obvious, even if unintended, that's not wrong.

I don't give a damn if somebody likes having a Confederate flag on their pickup truck, or enjoys having a statue of some Confederate general on the town square.

Well, I do not give a damn whether you give a damn or not.

If they have it on their truck, that is indeed their business, but when I see it I'm fully entitled to draw conclusions about them, including that they are happy to drive around spitting in peiple's faces.

The town square, OTOH, is a public place and should not have a statue of a traitor whose claim to fame is owning slaves, including possibly some of the residents' ancestors, and then leading an army in a war to defend that practice.

Oh, and the number of people who celebrate the Dukes of Hazard is pretty small.

[Don Nico]

Waving the Nazi flag in Germany is illegal.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I know. That doesn't contradict anything I said.

People frequently identify a bad habit, and then fall into something that's just a new variant on it. Like the Democrats going from racially discriminating in favor of whites in return for their political loyalty, to racially discriminating in favor of blacks in return for their political loyalty.

This sort of thing is common when you don't actually understand the exact nature of your mistake.

[bernard11]

Brett,

Your comment is not clear to me. Care to elaborate?

[Brett Bellmore]

I assume you're talking about the habit remark.

I gave one example already: Democrats long had a political model of buying political loyalty from a particular racial group by offering discriminatory advantages.

Along comes Kennedy, and puts a stop to it with his famous executive order 10925 mandating "affirmative action" to refrain from any actions based on race! A good start at breaking a bad habit.

But, shortly, the Democratic party fell back into the same old bad habit, only with the colors swapped around, courtesy of LBJ's executive order 11246, which while it purported to oppose discrimination, actually mandated racial quotas, the exact opposite of Kennedy's action.

Why? Because they'd misidentified their error: They thought it was "discriminating against blacks", when it was really just "discriminating".

Now, Germany has an ugly past, albeit one almost nobody now living had anything to do with. But I think they made the same category of mistake: They decided their problem was "being Nazis", when it was really "being authoritarian".

And so they've drifted into anti-Nazi authoritarianism.

[Kazinski]

Well to the Serbs their crushing 1389 defeat at the Battle of Kosovo is central to their national identity.

It is interesting that the South is not only a reservoir of sentiment for the Confederacy, its also widely regarded as being the most patriotic towards the USA.

Kind of leads one to believe what they are honoring is the spirit and willingness to fight of their ancestors whether in the Revolutionary War or the Civil War, not the discredited racist and authoritarian regime.

[SRG2]

Alternatively, the USA about which they're patriotic is what they hope the USA to become (or what they think it was), namely, an expanded Confederacy, populated by Real Americans.

[Bob from Ohio]

"They are not patriotic to the real US at all, but to a vision of a nation populated by people just like themselves."

No True Patriot!

[bernard11]

the South is not only a reservoir of sentiment for the Confederacy, its also widely regarded as being the most patriotic towards the USA.

What SRG2 said. They are not patriotic to the real US at all, but to a vision of a nation populated by people just like themselves.

[David Nieporent]

There's a Serbian people, so they can have a national identity. They share a common language, religion, ancestry, etc. There is no confederate people.

[Kazinski]

They do have a national identity, but ethnically and linguistically they are pretty much identical to the Croations, Bosnians, Montenegrins, and North Macedonians.

So I am not sure what your point is.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Neo-Confederates can be quite noisy and visible - therefore, to a stupid and unreflecting person, they represent "the South."

And to a stupid and unreflecting person, the only reason White Southerners are patriotic is because they want to reconstruct the U. S. in the image of the Confederacy.

Of course, there are plenty of patriotic Black Southerners, too, but I suppose they simply have internalized Whiteness, or else they wouldn't think the USA was so great.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The point, I think l, is that if you admire a group of people who betrayed the USA for the purpose of holding a race of people in bondage and then proceeded to get their asses kicked by the USA, some people may start to suspect that you don’t actually think the USA is so great after all.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

OK, but the modern dogma says that the USA, too, was infected with racism from the beginning and needs to be purged.

Neo-Confederates believe that they're upholding American principles, and the woke types agree that neo-Confederate-ism is Americanism.

The wokies find the neo-Confederates very helpful, and sometimes it seems like they borrow the neo-Confederate analysis.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

[moved]

[Frank Drackman]

See F Scott Fitzgerald

[Joe_dallas]

Dixie - I dont think we should ever forget the holocaust
that being said,
A) we should not blame the current youth of germany for the holocaust in the same way we should not blame the children in japan for peal harbor
B) NBC in the typical fashion of the MSM, mischaracterized the Musk's statement

[DixieTune]

We shouldn't forget the Holocaust or slavery. However, bad history is just that, history. The educated learn from it and recognize paths that should never be trodden again, while the idiot wears such events like a badge of honor and encourages remembrance only in the name of ongoing guilt.

[Joe_dallas]

dixie - I agree with your comments - my main point in response to your original comment was really in response to the mischaracterization of Musk's comments by NBC and others repeating the distortion.

[KBeckman]

Is it a mischaracterization?

Elon is an outsider. Whether or not Germany still feels ashamed is entirely up to the Germans. It's not his business and anybody would question his motives.

[Martinned2]

I don't think that's right - though it's not a factual question. I think Musk is allowed to talk to random Germans about their country in the same way I'm allowed to talk to people here about the US. The limit is fraud, not talking from abroad.

[Joe_dallas]

It was NBC's mischaracterization of musk's comment, typical of msm

[RedheadedPharoh]

Maybe that explains why there doesn't seem to be any holocaust tattoos that are greater than five digits. Because they're counting all Jews in the area.

[Zarniwoop]

Number 169061: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/id-card/rene-guttmann

Also, the Nazis didn't tattoo the many, many people that went straight to the gas chambers.

[Martinned2]

And as a second example of Trump being the master negotiator in as many days, he said the quiet bit out loud with respect to Gaza, and explained that it would be a great idea if the people of Gaza could be "encouraged" to go somewhere else.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/25/politics/trump-gaza-strip-jordan-egypt/index.html

Troublingly, none of the American press reports I've seen about this story used the correct term for this suggestion - ethnic cleansing - except when quoting Palestinians.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Reality is that there will be no peace until those people aren't there anymore.

[Martinned2]

Which people?

[Commenter_XY]

The Judeocidal terrorists

[Martinned2]

My question was to Dr. Ed. I didn't get the impression that he was making such subtle distinctions in his definition of "those people".

[Commenter_XY]

That's ok M2, my answer was directed to you. The Judeocidal terrorists are the people that can't be in gaza anymore. The arabs in gaza strongly support Judeocide, just ask them (they do, BTW).

More generally, what does one do with an entire society that has been marinated and stewed in Judeocidal beliefs, cradle to grave; from religious institutions, educational institutions, social institutions, and culture? That is the question; it never changed.

Denazification happened. Is De-Judeocide-ification possible? I think that it is. But for that to happen, you need a clear loser, and we are not at that point....yet.

[Martinned2]

Denazification happened.

Did it? I would argue that the old Nazi's mostly ran West Germany until they grew old and died/retired, albeit under the political guidance of some politicians who spent the Nazi era abroad or in a camp.

You can't bomb a people into submission. The more you bomb them, the more they hate you. That's why I've been wondering about Israel's war aims pretty much since the beginning. Dropping lots of bombs on Gaza doesn't make sense as a means towards its stated war aims - killing Hamas fighters. It only makes sense if you want to drive everyone from Gaza, whether they're combatants or not. Trump and Smotrich have now said as much out loud: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/smotrich-says-trumps-plan-to-move-gazans-excellent-will-seek-to-advance-it/

[Commenter_XY]

M2, I have long advocated a humane, non-violent approach: incentivized, voluntary emigration.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : ".... I have long advocated a humane, non-violent approach: incentivized, voluntary emigration"

Once again, Israel has three long-term options:

1. Apartheid - with the continual decay of Israel's world standing and the internal rot that comes when injustice is hardwired into the very purpose of a state. Israel wants the Palestinian's land but is unwilling to give citizenship to the people living there. That is apartheid, pure and simple. In fact, the Israeli government's only defense against a charge of apartheid before a recent international tribunal was they were busy negotiating with the Palestinians on a final peace deal. Yet everyone knows that's a lie.

2. One country for two peoples.

3, Two country for two peoples.

So has Commenter_XY discovered a fourth option? Of course not. He's too dishonest to face the truth, so carries his little plastic fantastic "solution" ready in a back pocket - there to pull-out whenever awkward questions must be ducked & evaded.

It's the kind of thing you'd expect from a child. Instead of confronting the hard difficult choices, Commenter_XY drifts off in a world of rainbow-colored unicorns & magic pixie dust which makes the whole problem magically go away.

What kind of "supporter" of Israel would do that? A fake supporter; one whose so-called support runs as shallow as that of the most casual sports fan.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, obviously, and I DO mean obviously, one country isn't an option so long as the Palestinians are genocidal murderers, because that doesn't just give them easy access to their preferred victims, it would actually give them some political power over said victims, too.

Similarly, two countries isn't an option, because, again, the Palestinians are genocidal murderers, and every time they get some slack in their leash, they use it to accumulate weapons and launch attacks.

Unfortunately, relocation isn't an option, either, because all the countries they might plausibly relocate to already know what allowing entry to Palestinians implies, and won't take them.

So that only leaves totally conquering them, and forcible de-Hamasifcation, which will probably take a whole generation.

[Commenter_XY]

grb, Brett put it well.

Please note, I would spare their lives by offering voluntary, incentivized emigration.

[David Nieporent]

but is unwilling to give citizenship to the people living there.

Why do you keep staying this stupid thing? Do Palestinians want citizenship in Israel? No. This is not like South Africa.

[DixieTune]

For one, nobody cares about the "world standing." That is and should be Israel's last concern. Second, you are begging the question by calling it "Palestinian's" land. The British mandate was very clear. Arabs to Jordan, Jews to Israel. Muslims are not supposed to be in Israel, especially after the Arab world lost multiple wars.

Third, there is no natural right to be given citizenship in a place you're living. "Consent of the governed" assumes a moral, homogenous people.

[ThePublius]

David, maybe I mistook your comment, but you said:
"Do Palestinians want citizenship in Israel? No. This is not like South Africa."
Palestinians in Israel enjoy citizenship, including the right to vote, and this has been the case since 1949, I think. Palestinians in Gaza do not, as they are subject to the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, not Israel.

[David Nieporent]

David, maybe I mistook your comment, but you said:

You did. I was using "Palestinian" to refer not to an ethnicity, but to non-Israeli Arabs. I am aware that 20% of Israel's population is Arab, and that they are citizens. There is actually a deep split among that population as to whether they identify as "Palestinians." (But what there's not a deep split about is whether they're interested in being ruled by Hamas or the PA; they are mostly not.)

Palestinians in Gaza do not, as they are subject to the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, not Israel.

One clarification: they are theoretically/i> subject to the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority; they are in fact subject to the jurisdiction of Hamas, which kicked the PA out almost 20 years ago.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore (genocidal murderers..... genocidal murderers ..... genocidal murderers)

What horseshit. Look, the Palestinians in Israel proper aren't "genocidal murderers". They may be second-class citizens but have some say in the country where they live and therefore live peacefully.

And the Palestinians in the West Bank aren't "genocidal murderers". This, despite the fact they live under suffocating totalitarian rule, the Israeli government continues to steal their land, Israeli settlers violently harass them without any penalty, and they have no citizenship, legal rights, or control of their lives. Here's an illustrative example: Over the five years between 2017 and 2021, Israel only issued 33 building permits to Palestinians in the West Bank. They don't want Palestinians building or making anything in the land they always lived. But - guess what - the Palestinians in the West Bank have cooperated with Israeli security for decades now. So that leaves the ones in Gaza to stand in for your "genocidal murderers".

And so congratulations, Brett. You've just been played. Because Israel has long nurtured Hamas behind the scenes precisely so dupes like you can say, genocidal murderers, genocidal murderers, genocidal murderers. Israeli security regularly escorted Qatar agents across the border carrying millions in cash for Hamas. Sure, Hamas would murder the occasional Israeli citizen, but pre-07Oct, Netanyahu and the Israeli government considered that an acceptable price. Supporting Hamas kept the Palestinians divided and provided a ready excuse on hand against peace talks. (For dupes like you)

But not just pre-07Oct. See, Netanyahu could let the PA into Gaza now. They'd then be pushing Hamas towards extinction. They'd then have a Palestinian security partner in Gaza. They'd then get rid of the "genocidal murderers". But they won't. Because when a reconstituted Hamas kills the next Israeli citizen, that will still be an acceptable cost. Just to keep duping you, Brett. Congrats.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/defense-ministry-33-palestinian-structures-given-permits-in-last-5-years/

[Brett Bellmore]

"What horseshit. Look, the Palestinians in Israel proper aren't "genocidal murderers"."

I wasn't talking about ethnic Palestinian citizens of Israel, and you know that quite well.

I stand by that remark as to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Not every last one of them, of course, but enough of them are that they have to be handled like live explosives.

[David Nieporent]

Here's an illustrative example: Over the five years between 2017 and 2021, Israel only issued 33 building permits to Palestinians in the West Bank.

The problem is that you don't even know what you don't know. This is completely and utterly false. The article makes it clear, but you didn't bother to read it, or to understand it. That figure refers to Area C, not "the West Bank." Israel does not need to issue building permits in Areas A or B, where almost all Palestinians live; those areas are under PA civil authority.

[grb]

David Nieporent : Why do you keep staying this stupid thing?

Don't play-act dumb. If you take territory, the world may bitch and moan yet it's happened before a million times in history. But you can't pretend the people living on the land you stole don't exist. You can't leave them stateless because they're a demographic inconvenience.

Is it possible you don't understand that? Is it possible you think your excuse ("they don't want Israeli citizenship") means anything whatsoever? If so, a rephase : You can't steal the land of millions of people and then refuse its residents all citizenship, political rights, or fundamental say in their lives.

If it's the word "apartheid" behind this willful obtuseness, I hardly know what to say. Because the Israeli government conduct is a picture-perfect example of the term. And remember this : When the Israeli government was accused of "apartheid" before an international tribunal last year, they didn't try your excuse. Not surprisingly, they didn't think it had legs. Instead, their defense was "peace talks" were still "ongoing" so therefore at "some future time" the Palestinians would become citizens of something again after "final negotiations".

Fifteen or twenty years ago, that would have been an effective defense against the apartheid charge. But now it's just a lie.

[grb]

David Nieporent : "The problem is that you don't even know what you don't know."

I fucking well know what Area C is. I also know better when you say "almost all Palestinians live outside it". And I also know how far the PA civil authority goes.

So what do you know that you don't know? Or what you pretend not to know. Or refuse to know.

[David Nieporent]

I fucking well know what Area C is.

Then why did you pretend that an article that said that Israel wasn't granting many building permits there was saying that Israel wasn't granting many building permits in the West Bank?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or --
4: Killing everyone in Hamas....

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, you CAN bomb a people into submission. It 'just' takes more bombing and death than modern democratic nations are usually capable of bringing themselves to do, so they stop at the "hate" stage, and never get to the "despair and resignation" stage where the people give up and submit because they genuinely believe you'll kill them to the last person if they don't.

I don't think Israel is at that stage yet, though. Maybe another October 7th would get them there. I AM pretty sure Hamas would gladly supply another October 7th if they get the chance, though.

[Sarcastr0]

Any evidence for this? Or just vibsing your way into foreverwar?

[Commenter_XY]

The bombing into submission part? I dunno, Germany, Japan?

[Sarcastr0]

Neither of those were conventional bombing campaigns.

The current status of warfare is not WW2.

It's not hard to see where the it leads to insist that Israel needs is *more* intensity and *less* caring about civilians and then they're crack this.

[Michael P]

Is Sarcastr0 having a stroke? (Again?)

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, the current status is that Israel is fighting an existential war for their existence, against a Judeocidal terror group backed by a significant swath of arabs in the area that share their toxic Judeocidal beliefs (and by foreign patrons like Iran).

Not at all like WW2. Nah.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The current status of warfare is not WW2."

Isn't that kinda what I said?

[Michael Ejercito]

The current status of warfare is not WW2.
Then it should be.

[bernard11]

Nice to see no one is continuing to claim we bombed Germany into submission. We beat them the old-fashioned way (with more than a little help from our friends).

[Noscitur a sociis]

Nice to see no one is continuing to claim we bombed Germany into submission

Uhh…

The bombing into submission part? I dunno, Germany, Japan?

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/01/27/monday-open-thread-90/?comments=true#comment-10888144

[Mr. Bumble]

"War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. Other simple remedies were within their choice. You know it and they know it, but they wanted war, and I say let us give them all they want; not a word of argument, not a sign of let up, no cave in till we are whipped or they are."
Gen. W.T Sherman

[Noscitur a sociis]

Actually, you CAN bomb a people into submission. It 'just' takes more bombing and death than modern democratic nations are usually capable of bringing themselves to do, so they stop at the "hate" stage, and never get to the "despair and resignation" stage where the people give up and submit because they genuinely believe you'll kill them to the last person if they don't.

I’m not sure there’s ever been an actual example of bombing a people into submission. The only possible example is Japan in World War II, but I’m not sure it’s a good one, since the surrender came only after a pretty comprehensive conventional military defeat, was accomplished through the use of a brand new super weapon, and followed years of massive conventional bombing that didn’t seem to degrade the will to fight significantly. So to the extent it’s possible at all, it seems to require a level of death and destruction largely beyond the capacity and will of any society, not just the nice ones.

(That’s not to say, of course, that airpower can’t have significant strategic impact on military capability. But getting people to demand their government surrender just by dropping bombs on them doesn’t really seem to be viable, tempting as it’s proven over the last century.)

[Joe_dallas]

Brett - Agreed - look what to japan and germany. Both emerged as peaceful and productive societies after WW2.

[David Nieporent]

You can't bomb a people into submission. The more you bomb them, the more they hate you.

Tell it to Imperial Japan.

[Sarcastr0]

Hey Dr. Ed, almost didn't recognize you there!
;-P

[The novelty of the nuke was what did it - we were more destructive in previous bombing runs over Japan and they were still gonna keep on going.

To be fair, they had a culture very good at persisting when victory was impossible.]

[Brett Bellmore]

The novelty, and that they had no idea how many we had.

[Sarcastr0]

Fair.

Either way, nukes are a tool of persuasion don't work like they used to!

[Kazinski]

They were at the end of their rope anyway by the end of the war, there was already widespread hunger, especially in urban areas, before the bombs dropped.

Besides all the lives of the hundreds of thousands of soldiers on both sides the A Bombing saved it also saved the lives of at least hundreds of thousands who would have starved to death if the war dragged out longer.

And that's only my view because I heard it directly from my deceased in-laws that lived through it.

[hobie]

Cleveland has a lot of beautiful cemeteries. Next to a lot of them are small, crowded plots for blacks and for Jews. Still used to this day. I see Hasidic Jews driving a black Ford transit ferrying new bodies to their graves. White Christians, like yourself, may not have been outright murdering Jews here in the US, but you have been marginalizing them to this very day. Your support of Israel solely for the reason of fulfilling a Christian prophesy rings hollow

[Bob from Ohio]

"Next to a lot of them are small, crowded plots for blacks and for Jews."

Name one.

[hobie]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/RNSbJsrq5FUw1neq9

Note the crowded Jewish cemetery next to the vast, empty white one. Your fellows did this, Bob

[Bob from Ohio]

"crowded Jewish cemetery next to the vast, empty white one"

I know that one. The "white" one is a City one which accepts all races and has for a very long time, the Jewish one is private of course.

[hobie]

I'm sure everything is kosher nowadays. Yet it is amazing how religion divides us to this very day, even in death

[David Nieporent]

Um, what? The thing you observed is not what Christians did. Observant Jews do not get buried in mixed cemeteries.

[hobie]

Tell that to the blacks next to the Jewish cemetery. I also see public cemetery plots for sale with restrictions that only Catholics may apply

[David Nieporent]

Why would blacks "next to" a Jewish cemetery know or care about halacha?

Anyway, I should be clearer: I am not saying that cemeteries were never restricted; I'm saying that this isn't why Hasidic people were burying people in their own cemetery.

[Mr. Bumble]

hobie, the VC's Talcum X.

[Frank Drackman]

East Prussia's certainly been peaceful since they kicked all the Germans out and divided it between Poland and Roosh-a. Losing Wahs has consequences.

[Bob from Ohio]

"East Prussia's certainly been peaceful "

Czech Sudetenland too!

[Riva]

Remember when you idiots were accusing Israel of genocide? Odd genocide when the population goes up instead of down. The world would be a much better place if the Gaza terrorist state was dismantled and its Arab population relocated back to Jordan where they came from in the first place.

[David Nieporent]

This is as helpful as leftists telling Israelis to go back to Europe where they came from. It's not true, and even if it were, it's not an option.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Oh, really?

[David Nieporent]

Really.

[bernard11]

leftists telling Israelis to go back to Europe

What an unbelievable suggestion that is. Even immediately post WWII Europe was not eager to welcome Jewish refugees. And of course Europe, and the US, were even less eager before the war.

First, anyone arguing that the Jews should be happy to go back to Europe is an ignorant fool.

Second, anyone claiming that Israel shouldn't exist is even more ignorant, and knows nothing about the condition of Jews in Europe well before WWII. If you think Israel shouldn't exist then tell us where the Jews should have gone, either before or after the war. And if you can't do that, then STFU.

The thing is, Herzl was right.

[Riva]

To an anti-semitic troll, there is some moral equivalency between expelling Jews from their homeland and sending Jordanian transplants back to Jordan.

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned2 - that is not ethnic cleansing.

[hobie]

Came here to say the same thing. This is the very definition of ethnic cleansing. It's ironic that Jews and their supporters are perpetuating it

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe that would have a bit more bite if it weren't for October 7th, and all the murderous attacks that preceded it.

[hobie]

Oh. Well a conflict changes everything. Leave us please proceed with the cleansing

[KBeckman]

All some people need is just a convenient excuse.

[Don Nico]

Except that is a mischaracterization. Without a large displacement of the population, rebuilding will take decades.
It was also a way to emphasize that Egypt and Jordan have never wanted Palestinian Arabs in their countries

[Martinned2]

Also amusing in its lack of self-awareness:

JD Vance attacks the church: "The US Conference of Catholic Bishops needs to actually look in the mirror a little bit & recognize that when they receive more than $100m to resettle illegal immigrants, are they worried about humanitarian concerns or are they actually worried about their bottom line?"

[Dr. Ed 2]

This needs to be said!

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

USCCB is not at all 'the Church" --- as Pope Benedict taught during tenure of CDF no Bishop can cede his episcopal power to a conference. IF every Bishop but one agrees, that lone Bishop still has his Episcopal power and the rest can only exericise theirs INDIVIDUALLY

[Dr. Ed 2]

Benedict is the anti-Christ.....

[Noscitur a sociis]

What’s the point of posting something like this? You clearly don’t believe it, and you can’t possibly think you’re going to convince anyone else to believe it off of 5at?

[DixieTune]

He's right.

[Riva]

He criticizes the political machinations of some officials. He does not criticize the Church you monumental bigoted idiot.

[hobie]

Look at these comments above. It's 1938 all over again. My dad fought in Normandy to stop people like yourselves

[Frank Drackman]

Americans?

[KBeckman]

I love how nationalists just can't admit to their bullshit.

[Martinned2]

South Korea's president has now been arrested and charged.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/26/asia/south-koreas-president-charged-insurrection-intl/index.html

All of that is distinct from his impeachment trial before the constitutional court, which is yet to take place.

[John F. Carr]

My hypothesis: Countries that remember military rule are quicker to act against rogue presidents. Peru, Chile, Brazil, South Korea.

[Martinned2]

True, but it's also evidence that South Korea hasn't been a democracy long enough for all the kinks in the system to have been worked out. Both the declaration of a state of emergency and the confusion about how and whether to arrest the impeached president showed uncertainty about some pretty important aspects of the constitution.

[santamonica811]

1. In the last open thread, the first comment was about Shakespeare. (HT: Dan S.) What followed was fantastic. People chimed in, giving their thoughts about plays they liked, ones they did not, analyses of plot points, . . . it was one of the most enjoyable threads I've followed here over the past few years. I think the site has gotten a bit toxic quite often, and that's a shame--especially for us old fogies who have been around from the beginning.

But this was a nice reminder that, when we discuss something that is entirely unrelated to politics, vastly different people can be civil, and funny, and insightful. Thanks again, all; for everyone who participated in that thread. Not a single example of thread-jacking in it, as far as I can recall.

2. Did anyone else watch the Washington/Philly game yesterday? I'm sad Washington lost, but the better team won. And won decisively. I'm only commenting about it, to highlight one particular play. For those who didn't watch: Washington was trying to defense a play close to their goal line. Against a special play that Philly runs, the ONLY way to defend it is to get the timing of the ball's snap exactly right. So, Washington tried to do this. Over and over, always failing, and therefore committing an "offsides" penalty.

Nothing remarkable there. What was noteworthy was that there is, apparently, an actual rule that says that under certain conditions, the officials can just award a touchdown to the other team, even if they haven't actually scored. And, after endless offsides; the officials made this announcement to the crowd (and TV audience). In effect, "Washington has been told that if this really crappy behavior continues, we may choose to just give Philly the touchdown." [I'm paraphrasing here.] In my decades of watching football games, I've never seen this. I remember a different game, within the past several years, where a team was trying to block an important kick. It also had many many many offsides in a row, but I don't recall the refs threatening to punish the offending team by 'sua sponte' giving the kicking team credit for a successful kick.

I'm labeling this rule the NFL's version of, "If you kids don't start behaving RIGHT NOW, I'm turning the car around and we're going home!!!"

[santamonica811]

[I'll point out, before someone else chimes in, that I *have* seen officials award a touchdown when a player or coach (who was not playing at the time) tackle or interfere with an opposing player who was carrying the ball downfield. I recall seeing it in a college game, and believe that it was also called decades ago in a professional game. I think the usual call is simple Unsportmanlike Conduct, with a 15 yard penalty tacked onto the end of the play; but I think the officials have the discretion to give the TD. Makes sense, since otherwise it would be good strategy, to have some 12th man jump in and interfere, every time a receiver or runner was close to the sideline but was definitely going to score against you.]

[Commenter_XY]

sm811...O/T. Did you see the recipe I posted for you?

[santamonica811]

I did. This website makes it really difficult to keep track of replies to our past comments. I thanked you, there, once I had seen the recipe. But I'm quite happy to repeat my thanks. Very much looking forward to trying it! 🙂

[Commenter_XY]

Step 7.8 really make it, the tahdig is neat.

[Frank Drackman]

If they kept doing that stupid "Penalty is 1/2 the distance to the Goal" Filthy-Delphia would still be on the 1/1, 048,576 Inch Line. It's clear the Commanders lost because of their stupid name, they'll (and the Cleveland Guardians) never win another Championship until they go back to Red Skins

[PaulS]

If one kept going "forever" one would actually get there. Mathematically 0.99999999.... = 1

[Frank Drackman]

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Foo-bawl has to "Break the Plane" and %99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 there isn't there.
It's like going the Speed of Light, which Light has Exclusive Rights to.

[PaulS]

9/9 = 1
1/9 + 8/9 = 1
0.11111..... + 0.888888..... = 1
0.9999999..... = 1

[Martinned2]

That second step (third line) is where it gets dubious. Whether 0.99999999999999.... = 1 or not is a matter of significant debate.

[David Nieporent]

I'm a Potatoes fan, but I was amused at that too. I've never heard or seen anything like that. It kinda made sense, because in the situation they were in, there was no way to actually penalize WFT. In a real life Zeno's Paradox scenario, the penalties just stopped mattering, so there were in a position where if they did time it right they could cause a fumble or knock the Eagles back, and if they didn't, shrug. (I suppose ejecting the player who kept doing it was another possibility.) But I have no idea whether that's in the rulebook or if the refs just made it up.

[SRG2]

In rugby there is such a thing as a penalty try where if a try is unlawfully thwarted and but for the intervention, the attacking team would have scored, the ref can award a try.

A similar proposal has occasionally been made in football (soccer) wrt handballs on the line - just give the goal, rather than requiring a penalty taker to score - a roughly 80% proposition.

[Commenter_XY]

No need to ruin football with an auto-goal rule for a handball inside the box. Half the fun is the suspense on whether the PK results in a goal or not.

Also will say...LaLiga has the best football in Europe. Hands down.

[Satchmo_Lives]

What got me was the use of "intentionally" committing a penalty. The last offsides, the one that received the warning, was not at all intentional. Hey, the offense is trying to keep the defense from guessing the count. The QB is using different cadences, hard counts, and even slight movement all in an effort to trick the defense. Seems harsh to say the defense is intentionally falling for the trick.

I have no problem with a rule saying three consecutive whatevers results in a significant penalty. Just not the idea that refs interpret intentional or not. They have a hard enough time seeing what is actually there. No need to add a determination of mens rea to the equation.

[Dan Schiavetta]

santamonica:

Thanks!

[Martinned2]

I've been catching up on reading the London Review of Books (I was several months behind), and I can recommend this article about the vicious cycle whereby American guns flow to Mexico without obstruction, thus screwing up Mexico more, thus causing more Mexicans to pay the cartels and other criminals to smuggle them over the border, thus causing more Americans and Mexican criminals to buy guns in the US.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/n22/rachel-nolan/on-the-iron-river

[Frank Drackman]

Do the guns just magically dance across the border? Maybe May-He-Co should enforce their own stupid gun laws (one Government Gun Store, in May-He-Co City, Citizens can't shoot the same caliber as the Military which is why they came up with the 38 Super round)

[Michael Ejercito]

https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_sb_exit_001b_03.jpg

[Brett Bellmore]

Are we fantasizing again that the Mexican cartels are armed out of American gun stores, rather than the back door of Mexican army armories? Or, I guess the front door a lot of the time, at this point.

I mean, I know that Obama tried really hard to back up that claim, by conducting a program where gun stores near the border were ordered by the BATF to permit straw purchases, on the pretext that they'd be traced. Where all that they were doing was letting them flow to Mexico so they could be found there.

But he got caught, and the program shut down, before he could feed the cartels more than a relatively trivial number of guns compared to what they already had.

[Frank Drackman]

That was Barry O's Operation "Fast & Furious" that he named after a Movie, unlike Sleepy Joe's "Hotel Where Haitians Eat Dogs" which was not based on the Emma Roberts "Hotel for Dogs"

[Z Crazy]

I heard that it led to the murder of the Border agent Bryan Terry.

Can Obama be prosecuted for his murder?

[David Nieporent]

No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you read the link: "Percentage of firearms recovered at crime scenes in Mexico originally purchased in the US: 70 per cent."

It's not like this being true would change your position (or mine), so why bother denying it?

[Brett Bellmore]

Really, your stupidity level has been climbing exponentially lately.

Sure, 70% of firearms recovered at crime scenes which Mexico asks the US to trace were originally purchased in the US.

Did you bother asking what percentage of firearms recovered at crime scenes Mexico asks the US to trace? You think they recover a firearms with a Mexican armory stamp on it, or domestically manufactured, and ask the US about it?

[Martinned2]

Sure, 70% of firearms recovered at crime scenes which Mexico asks the US to trace were originally purchased in the US.

You added that extra bit yourself, for the record.

[Brett Bellmore]

I added the context that was being omitted. You are welcome to object to context, most people who are pushing bullshit do.

This is a long standing excuse to infringe Americans' 2nd amendment rights, Obama was pushing it. And, as I said, he even had a program to increase the amount of guns smuggled South to make it look like the claim was real, which had to be stopped once it was discovered.

Let me be blunt: Do you really think that if a gun with a Mexican Armory stamp is recovered at the site of a crime in Mexico, a domestically manufactured gun at that, Mexico asks the US to trace it? Why would they? They know where it came from.

They only put in trace requests to the US where there is a significant chance the gun did come from the US, and that is an unknown percentage of guns found at crimes in Mexico.

Even Snopes admitted that Mexico wasn't asking the US to trace all recovered guns.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"I added the context that was being omitted. You are welcome to object to context, most people who are pushing bullshit do."

You mean like Friday when you posted police propaganda and ran away once I provided the context you were omitting?

Sorry, I do suppose that is different, since one has to not run away from the argument in order to object to the context.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Looks like you ran away yet again.

I'm going to enjoy throwing this in your face repeatedly.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It's not like this being true would change your position (or mine), so why bother denying it?"

It's a claim offered without evidence. Why not dismiss it without evidence?

[Sarcastr0]

You want to call the London Review of Books a liar, that says more about you than the.
Feel free to google the stat to validate it if you want.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's in the London Review of Books so it must be true? That's not how evidence works.

OK, I googled and found this:

The GAO found 70 percent of the firearms recovered in Mexico during a four-year period came from the U.S., however ATF's data for thousands of firearms is incomplete, the GAO said, because weapons recovered by state law enforcement officers in Mexico may not be submitted to the ATF.

So it sounds like Brett is correct, and no one knows if the stat is true. Maybe you should have taken your own advice and googled yourself.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And since the London Review of Books doesn't mention the GAO's caveat, I guess by your own standards you have to admit that the London Review of Books is indeed a liar, right?

[Martinned2]

Did you notice this bit in the LRB article? It's separately mind-boggling.

The ATF is not legally permitted to keep a searchable digital database of gun sales, thanks to hysteria that ‘the government will come to take our guns,’ so they only have printouts. When a crime is called in and the ATF is asked to trace a gun’s serial number, it can take a week of rifling through the paperwork to trace the gun. If a gun seller sends in information about sales on a thumb drive, the ATF is required to print out all the data, keep the paper records and destroy the drive.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Not sure what's mind boggling. People wanted to create a background system without creating a de-facto gun registry. IIUC the EU has much stricter restriction on the gathering of personal data.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like 12" said. I'd only add that there's nothing hysterical about it.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it," Feinstein told Stahl. "I could not do that. The votes weren’t here."

She's hardly the only Democratic politician to have admitted in a moment of honesty the desire to confiscate firearms.

[Ed Grinberg]

I get it: The U.S. is to blame for every problem in the world, from global warming to crime in Mexico. And the answer to every problem, inside or outside the United States, is always the same: to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights. Thanks for explaining!

[Martinned2]

Not every problem in the world, but definitely this one.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, I don't really care. I'm not willing to infringe the civil rights of Americans to make it easier for Mexico to deal with their cartels. So even if it were true, there wouldn't be much I'd agree to do, except better control over smuggling headed South, and isn't that Mexico's job anyway? Just like it's our job to stop smuggling headed North across the same border?

[ducksalad]

Just like it's our job to stop smuggling headed North across the same border?

Trump's said dozens of times Mexico needs to stop the northbound flow. He's slapping tariffs on them specifically using their failure to do so as a pretext.

Are you saying he's wrong? Or did you paint yourself into a corner?

[Brett Bellmore]

The northbound flow from countries further south. They're letting people in on their southern border on the condition they continue to America. THAT is what they need to stop, giving free passage to people on their way to illegally enter our country.

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is a sign on southbound Montgomery Freeway, near Exit !A, south of Downtown San Diego.

https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_sb_exit_001b_03.jpg

There definitely are legal obstructions to bringing American guns into Mexico.

[John F. Carr]

"Last exit before gun grabbers"

[Martinned2]

Oh, there's a sign? That'll sort things right out!

[Michael Ejercito]

Yes,. it will.

It clearly shows what is illegal.

[ducksalad]

Surprised more people don't just forget. The signs are big, but like any other sign you've driven past a few dozen times you get to where your brain dismisses it.

Or maybe a lot do forget but just get away with it. The Mexico green light / red light system means more likely than not you won't even stop the car, and even if you do get a red the inspection is usually light duty. Probably crossed fifty+ times and only had one inspection that even got to opening the trunk.

Of course if you did get caught the penalties are remarkably severe.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I still say that there was more to the I-91 shootout.

THREE Border Patrol vehicles to stop one car, and a FBI agent with a background in network security with them. Hmmm...

If they wanted to arrest him for the visa that wasn't actually expired, why didn't they do it 10 days earlier when they had contact with him. Why invest all the manpower in surveillance?

And what's with their computer system?

No, there's a lot of things not adding up here....

[Noscitur a sociis]

More than what?

[Frank Drackman]

1: it was a Maryland State Trooper who let Moe-hammad-Atta off with a warning "make sure you show up for your Court date September 12, or you'll be in real trouble!" so 1:, they're not the sharpest tools in the shed
2: What's the fun in arresting David Koresh in town at HEB when you can use all that Cop Equipment ATF has lying around the ATF headquarters, not like a group of heavily armed End-of-the-Worlders would resist or anything
3: Turns out the guys Visa was still good, and carrying weapons openly is perfectly legal in Vermont
4: Obviously the two were up to some Mal-feasance (HT M. Gunderson) and they were trying to catch them in Flagrante Dilecto

Frank

[Martinned2]

Michael D. Higgins, the President of Ireland and one of the few saints left in European politics, spoke at Holocaust Memorial Day yesterday:

https://president.ie/en/media-library/speeches/speech-at-national-holocaust-memorial-day-commemoration

[Commenter_XY]

His comments were despicable, considering the why they were assembled. Saint? LMAO.

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-839370

The FM of Israel issued a statement.

Even on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Irish President Michael Higgins couldn't help himself and resorted to a cheap, despicable provocation. The biggest murderous attack against Jews since the Holocaust was perpetrated from Jihadist Gaza. Nonetheless, he [Higgins] echoed Hamas' anti-Semitic lies and propaganda at a Holocaust memorial ceremony, leading to the removal of Jews, descendants of Holocaust survivors, from the event

[Martinned2]

I posted a link to the speech. Show me the "provocation". Unless you think that calling for an end to antisemitism and for peace on earth is a provocation.

As the poisons of antisemitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, racism, homophobia and intolerance are once again on the rise in many parts of the world, I repeat those words as they are the words as I described them over the years, we must ensure that the lessons that foundational event, the Holocaust, offers to the world, with such extraordinary but planned cruelty and hatred, based on the regarding of others as lesser, inferior in rights or participation, are heard and understood.

The Holocaust was enabled by a regime of systematic murder that began by the manipulation of language and the spreading of fear. We, in our times, must be alert to the identification and confrontation of hate speech in any of its many guises.

We must work together in our time to ensure that hatred and anti-migrant sentiment, for example, are not permitted to deepen their shadow across Europe and the world.

Hope is an action, not just an aspiration. May we all continue to plant the alternative seeds of hope and peace, seeds that may yield a more harmonious co-existence on this shared, vulnerable planet, enabling us, when we are put to the test, again and again, however unjustly, to choose reconciliation.

May we achieve such an empowering, inclusive, ethical and solemn remembrance as not only reminds us of the depths to which the Holocaust went in building on preceding hatreds, but also make us alert to the rise of xenophobia and the rhetoric of hatred, and encourage us to renew our commitment and our shared responses to human vulnerabilities and possibilities, and may it help in the evolution of our collective consciousness towards one that will share together the joy and fulfilment of peace.

[Michael P]

That speech is full of hate. And stupidity. The lessons of the Holocaust are not that you need to debank and jail anti-immigrant speakers, but that Europe is already too far down the path of being co-opted by genocidal immigrants and totalitarian governments.

[Sarcastr0]

genocidal immigrants
Does this refer to Muslims?

totalitarian governments
Do you mean like Ireland, and not Russia?

[Mr. Bumble]

If the shoe fits...

[Michael P]

A minority of Muslim immigrants are actively genocidal, but an overwhelming majority of the genocidal immigrants are Muslim.

Russia's government is very much in Europe. It merely has a different style of totalitarianism.

[David Nieporent]

As the poisons of antisemitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, racism, homophobia and intolerance are once again on the rise in many parts of the world,

This is the "All Lives Matter" thing that leftists can't help themselves from doing when the topic is antisemitism. It's not that it's false; it's that it's an attempt to dilute the message.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Yep.

The left loves to callout "dog whistles" for the most mundane things (see Musk Nazi salute). I guess because they are masters of it. When Pres Higgins speaks of "human rights," does anybody think he is referencing Oct 7? We know what he means by "root causes" and it is not a pervasive genocidal mentality taught as a virtue.

[shawn_dude]

Is the topic of Holocaust Memorial day just "antisemitism?" Maybe I'm misreading the quoted text above but the Nazis didn't limit themselves to just Jews in the camps. They also included homosexuals and people of other races. (And, lest we forget, the allies released the surviving Jews from the camps but kept the homosexuals locked in.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

The holocaust was very much focused on the extermination of Jews. That’s not to say, of course, that there weren’t non-Jewish victims or that they don’t matter. But acting like it doesn’t embody antisemitism any more than “Islamophobia, xenophobia, racism, homophobia and intolerance” is very much a way of minimizing and erasing (if I can use that term) the very specifically anti-Jewish crimes involved.

[shawn_dude]

Recognizing non-Jewish victims of Nazism doesn't erase the overwhelming number of Jews killed. There is no "all lives matter" aspect to nearly 100K imprisoned homosexuals of which roughly 60% died in the camps. The staggering number of murdered Jews can stand on its own without having to sweep other victimized groups under the rug. The Nazis had a unique triangle-based symbol for every group in those camps--not just the Jews. People who believe the Holocaust happened (cannot believe I had to type that in 2024) are aware of the Nazi's intense focus on Jews, fewer are aware of the other outgroups the Nazis targeted.

Even Niemöller's famous and chilling poem ignores the many homosexuals imprisoned and killed by the Nazis. Mostly, like the Allied soldiers that freed the surviving Jews but not homosexuals, because there was a belief the homosexuals deserved it--even by the "good guys." Niemöller didn't just say "They only came for the Jews." The lesson here is that we shouldn't repeat this. We shouldn't repeat the antisemitism. We shouldn't repeat dehumanizing any outgroup in order to drive the main populous to support authoritarianism and commit atrocities (see: immigrants, blacks (DEI/CRT!), and LGBT (Groomers!) currently.) If all we remember from the Holocaust is that it happened to just one outgroup, we risk repeating it on another.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

—Martin Niemöller

[Absaroka]

Just for perspective, here's an an accounting from wiki (the table right at the top headed 'Estimates of victims of Nazi persecution').

It's an interesting POV, counting Soviet civilians and POWs. Altogether the Slavs total almost 10 million, and Hitler certainly didn't like the Slavs.

But I see 6M Jews, 270k disabled, 375K Romani (midpoint), 80K Freemasons, and 10K gays. If you divide them into Jews, Slavs, and everyone else you get:

6M Jews
10M Slavs
<1M everyone else

The KKK didn't like Jews or Catholics or probably gays either, but I'm not going to bring that up every time someone says the KKK treated blacks badly.

(Spanish Republicans! I thought 'how did that happen?'. Explained in the footnote)

[David Nieporent]

Show me the "provocation"

Calling the Holocaust an "attempted" genocide several times was a tad bit provocative.

[KBeckman]

Ireland is an example of a two state solution. Of course Israel doesn't like it.

[David Nieporent]

For whatever reasons, the Irish have always been antisemites. They were "neutral" in WWII, and during the Cold War the Soviets funded the IRA along with Palestinian terrorism.

[Sarcastr0]

Dunno if I like just talking about a people like that. Especially going after them nowadays for stuff their government did generations ago.

The speech is critical is Israel, but I didn't see anything anti-Jewish? Maybe I'm missing something.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Especially going after them nowadays for stuff their government did generations ago."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

[Satchmo_Lives]

You don't think a speech critical of Israel, using anti-Israel talking points, at a Holocaust remembrance ceremony is anti-Jewish?

Well, it is certainly an opinion.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Dunno if I like just talking about a people like that. Especially going after them nowadays for stuff their government did generations ago.

That’s a bit of a slapdash way of putting it, but the point is correct. Anti semitism is a huge problem in Ireland, and it has been basically as far back as we can detect it. And you don’t, by the way, have to cover for it even though it’s currently largely coded to your side of the aisle.

[KBeckman]

Is it really?
Or is just because Ireland is a successful two state solution.

[Don Nico]

Exactly so, and the mistreatment of Jews who did the mildest of silent protests (Standing with their backs to the speaker) during the Holocaust remembrance ceremony this years smacks of official anti-Semitism in Ireland.

[Sarcastr0]

Anti semitism is a huge problem in Ireland, and it has been basically as far back as we can detect it.
I would have the same issue if people said conservatives were all antisemetic, or Germans.

So should you.

And you don’t, by the way, have to cover for it even though it’s currently largely coded to your side of the aisle.
I don't think it's a crazy to object to that blanket condemnation. I don't know much about Ireland's history of antisemitism, but suddenly everyone's an expert.

[SRG2]

Holocaust memorial day is not the right time to devote a fair proportion of such a speech to the current Israel-Gaza conflict, particularly slanted.

I note that Ireland is one of the most anti-Semitic countries in Europe - and hence the anti-Semitic Higgins is an ideal representative.

https://www.thefp.com/p/the-deep-roots-of-irish-antisemitism

[shawn_dude]

What's the point of remembering things like the Holocaust if not to avoid repeating it?

[Don Nico]

Good question, for which the Republic of Ireland has no answer

[F.D. Wolf]

Among the grotesque orgy of clemency at the end of his term, Biden is releasing from prison one of the most notorious murderers in Connecticut history, Adrian Peeler, who in 1999 ordered the murder of an 8-year-old and his mother in order to prevent them from testifying against him in another murder case. The crime shocked the state and led to the government creating a new witness-protection program for children.

Peeler was convicted and sentenced to death, but then Connecticut abolished the death penalty, and he was paroled in 2021. He then began serving a 15-year federal sentence for dealing crack cocaine (and he was not some nickel-and-dime small-timer, but head of a large drug-dealing enterprise). He would have been behind bars until 2033, but now, thanks to Biden, he'll be headed home in July. Though, to be fair, it's not like he was milling around the Capitol for a few minutes, the one unforgiveable crime.

Apparently, the Biden team just accepted the ACLU's list of "non-violent drug offenders" without any member of his crack staff bothering to double-check it. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said, "someone really dropped the ball on this one".

[Brett Bellmore]

Spiked the ball, really. You think they didn't know that if they didn't bother vetting those people, some really nasty dudes would slip through?

[Sarcastr0]

Or, dude was paroled under normal order and getting angry at some collateral crime getting pardoned is trying for a second bite at the apple.

But sure, go with your 'Liberals love murderers and that's why Biden did this on purpose.'

[Brett Bellmore]

It's more like "Liberals don't care about murderers." Or else they'd have done due diligence.

The failure in that regard does sort of demonstrate that this was a last minute FU out of the Biden administration, not something they'd had planned for a while. Because they'd had plenty of time to catch stuff like this if it had been an orderly effort.

[Sarcastr0]

1. No proof there wasn't due diligence done.
2. The murderer got out under parole, under normal order.

this was a last minute FU out of the Biden administration
No proof of that *at all*

[Brett Bellmore]

Get your story straight, Sarcastr0: Was Biden unaware he was pardoning a hard core murderer, or did he not care he was pardoning a hard core murderer? Because if they did do due diligence, he'd have known.

[PaulS]

"Was Biden unaware...." - rhetorical question?

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know. I don't have a story.

I'm just pointing out yours and FD Wolf's are unsupported.

[tylertusta]

Sarcastr0:

Do you think Adrian Peeler should be paroled?

Do you think that Biden should have granted him clemency?

[Sarcastr0]

He got paroled. That's the facts I'm going on.

I'm not going to get into case-by-case relitigating state criminal justice policy, and neither should the federal government.

Neither am I going to relitigate Biden's pardon choices on a case-by-case basis.

Enough that Bret and Wolf are making assumptions to get angry at Biden over a story that they've not supported.

[tylertusta]

So you're refusing to answer. Noted.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not playing your stupid game. So sad for you.

[Don Nico]

Gaslighting at its finest.
He was never non-violent; he was a double murderer. Gosh, even Sen. Blumenthal did not try to make the lame excuses that you have offered.

[Sarcastr0]

He was in jail for a nonviolent crime. He did his time for the murder.

This is a dumb thing to get mad at Biden for.

Gaslighting? Don't join those whose partisanship has rotted their ability to use simple words.

[Sarcastr0]

he was paroled in 2021 seems the issue you have, not with Biden.
I would guess non-violent drug offender may refer specifically to the drug offense that landed the person in prison.

I also see not a peep about Trump and pardoning people for actual crimes of violence that got them in prison. Of course, maybe that's because you'll write up all the violent yahoos Trump pardoned later. But I doubt it.

[Brett Bellmore]

That "not a peep" is because Biden already did worse, and it didn't seem to bother you a bit. (See above.) So your complaints don't carry any weight at this point.

[Sarcastr0]

You didn't read my comment, did you?

The guy was paroled for the murder. Biden didn't have anything to do with that. You need to pretend he pardoned this guy for murder otherwise Trump pardoning people for actual violent offenses is worse.

And until just now you didn't know about this guy. And you were still for Trump and the pardons of violent J6y people. So don't pretend you're not mad at Trump because Biden is worse. You're not mad at Trump because you're an apologist for whatever he will ever do.

[Brett Bellmore]

Gee, he was paroled for the murder, because the state court undid his death sentence, but that didn't make him NOT a murderer.

[Sarcastr0]

As I said above, it is not clear to me whether nonviolent modifies 'drug offender' or 'offender.'

You've made your assumption, but that's not at all clear.
You have a whole 'Dems love pardoning murderers to spite America' thing going, which is a theory only someone fucked in the head by partisanship could have. So assume whatever you want, it's not like reality matters anyhow!

[Bwaaah]

The challenge wasn't to prove yourself to be nothing but a rhetorical weasel. And yet, you succeeded.

[Sarcastr0]

What is unclear about "it is not clear to me whether nonviolent modifies 'drug offender' or 'offender?'"

I note that I'm far from the only one seeing this ambiguity that the MAGA posters are papering over.

And yet, you only got mad at me.

Take things less personal.

[wreckinball]

If you're referring tot the J6ers he pardoned them because they were not given fair trials. They weren't. A conviction of a kangaroo court can't stand.

[not guilty]

The January 6 defendants who went to trial received a full measure of due process. The bulk of the convictions were pursuant to negotiated pleas.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The same full measure of due process that wasn't good enough for Biden's family, Fauci, et al.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It takes a remarkable amount of stupidity to fail to understand causality and the concept of past versus future.

Yet here you are, proudly waiving that flag.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It takes a remarkable about of stupidity to type what you just typed. And an even greater amount of stupidity to click submit after having typed it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I pity you that you're too dumb to understand that what you offered as some kind of effort towards an intelligent response to not_guilty was a complete failure.

I do appreciate the new evidence of your idiocy though, so thanks for that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Says the guy wearing his underwear on the outside of his pants.

I assume.

[David Nieporent]

In what way were their trials not fair?

[Frank Drackman]

Just a guess, does Adrian Peeler look more like he could be Barry Osama's son or "47"'s??

[Michael Ejercito]

It seems that abolishing the death penalty was not such a good idea.

[Frank Drackman]

It wasn't "Abolished" just selectively inflicted on the Unborn

[David Nieporent]

This is just stupid. Does the guy still belong in jail for killing someone? Maybe so, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with Joe Biden or his clemency. He was not in jail for killing anyone. He was in fact in jail for a non-violent drug offense.

[Krayt]

On the other hand, this is the kind of weak thing that lead to longer sentences and 3 strikes laws, coming out of the much more violent 1970s.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you think he should still be in jail, this has nothing to do with Biden arranging for him to no longer be in jail?

[David Nieporent]

If you think he should still be in jail, this has nothing to do with Biden arranging for him to no longer be in jail?

He. Was. Not. In. Jail. For. Killing. Someone.

Whether he should've been in jail for killing someone is irrelevant to this issue. Biden had no power to imprison him for killing someone.

[Absaroka]

Al Capone was in prison for tax evasion, which is a non-violent crime.

Your argument seems to be that if a president wishes to pardon white collar crooks, he should pardon Capone along with Martha Stewart.

A president could do that as a matter of formal logic, but I think it shows poor judgement.

[Bwaaah]

Al Capone?

"He. Was. Not. In. Jail. For. Killing. Someone."

One of the pleasures of DMN's patina of certainty is how Emphatically. Myopic. He. Can. Be.

[Bob from Ohio]

" He was in fact in jail for a non-violent drug offense."

"head of a large drug-dealing enterprise" FD Wolf

A head of a large drug-dealing enterprise is not "non violent".

[David Nieporent]

The federal government did not convict him of any violent offense. He was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute. (Incidentally, it was Donald Trump's First Step Act that caused his federal sentence to be reduced from 35 years to 15 years.)

He had indeed killed someone, but his (state) sentence for that had already been served.

[Bob from Ohio]

"any violent offense"

Ok, but he was a major drug dealer, he was ordering violence all the time, like the boy he had murdered.

Both the state and the US governments left a monster just walk away.

[Frank Drackman]

I think you can measure Peelers life expectancy in NBA terms, he'll probably be dead by the end of this years NBA season.

[Martinned2]

Useful chain on Bluesky about the negotiation tactics of Trump 2.0:

After announcing 25% tariffs on US imports, Petro says "We have never refused to take migrants and we have made efforts to stop migration. ... But do not demand that I accept deportees from the US handcuffed and arriving on military flights. We are not anyone's colony."

Quote-tweeted by someone else, saying:

this is the crux of the problem with Trump’s ludicrous tariff threats: they are so over the top that domestic politics in a lot of countries will prevent them from backing down from a trade war because capitulating makes them look like a vassal state

there’s no face saving available

Reply by a 3rd person, with a chain that starts with:

I think perhaps less obvious from the US, and DC/NY, than perhaps it is outside of it is that (a) domestic politics in other countries exist (b) a lot of countries can and will suffer economic harms in preference to suffering grave indignities on their national identity or perception of independence

https://bsky.app/profile/pwnallthethings.bsky.social/post/3lgonnkrw6k2e

[RedheadedPharoh]

Did they update their criticisms after Colombia totally capitulated?

[Commenter_XY]

Fastest, Trade. War. Ever. 🙂

[Frank Drackman]

You want to see massive Riots, cut off the Hipsters Colombian Connection.
You want to see 1 guy Riot, cut off Hunter Biden's Colombian Connection.

[Michael P]

I saw that he threatened tariffs on the third hole of a round of golf, and Colombia capitulated by the eighth hole. Would that make golf or winning at foreign relations the pastime?

[David Nieporent]

Colombia did not in fact capitulate; Trump did. There's that thing again where Trump declares victory and really stupid people believe him even though he didn't get anything. Like when he pretended China was going to buy lots more American agricultural exports and China did not in fact do that. Like when he renegotiated NAFTA to be exactly the same thing, but renamed it, and declared how great he was at negotiating.

Colombia said no. Colombia's position was, "We'll accept them, but not sent on military transports. We'll even send our own planes if necessary." Trump threatened tariffs. Colombia threatened retaliatory tariffs. And Trump backed down and isn't sending them on military planes.

[Super Scary]

Sooo....Colombia is still taking their criminals back? And this was a...loss for Trump? Alrighty, keep that copium alive you have four whole years to go.

[David Nieporent]

Um, we've been sending people back to Colombia for years. Trump staged a show, got nothing for it, and backed down. Yeah, that's a loss.

[Frank Drackman]

You still relying on Lame Stream Media David Nevercoherent? You got it totally bassackwards, as usual.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Colombia said no. Colombia's position was, "We'll accept them, but not sent on military transports. We'll even send our own planes if necessary." Trump threatened tariffs. Colombia threatened retaliatory tariffs. And Trump backed down and isn't sending them on military planes.

Is that true? According to, e.g., this article (not from a Trump-friendly source), the White House is claiming that “Colombia has agreed to all of President Trump's terms, including the unrestricted acceptance of all illegal aliens from Colombia returned from the United States, including on U.S. military aircraft, without limitation or delay." I don’t see anything from Colombia or elsewhere in the reporting that disputes that characterization.

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/27/g-s1-44876/colombia-deportations-migrants-trump

[shawn_dude]

"The White House" is a "trump-friendly" source even if NPR repeats what they're saying. This doesn't disagree with David's claim that Trump is declaring victory. However, "is that true" is still a good question as both Colombia and the White House have good political reasons for presenting the best face on the dispute.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I agree that the White House making a statement does not resolve the question. But is there some actual evidence that what they said isn’t true? Because if so, I didn’t see it in the reporting as of a couple hours ago.

[shawn_dude]

""The government of Colombia ... has the presidential plane ready to facilitate the return of Colombians who were going to arrive in the country this morning on deportation flights."
The statement did not specifically say that the agreement included military flights, but it did not contradict the White House announcement." Reuters

There is more detail in this Guardian article which include similar issues with Brazil. One additional detail I hadn't read before was that the deportees were put in leg irons in addition to handcuffs. There are also children on these flights.

As for actual evidence, we'd need to see a photo of a US military aircraft disgorging shackled prisoners in Colombia. I have good reasons to distrust White House statements.

[Brett Bellmore]

The crux of the problem is that the deportees were,

1. Columbian citizens which Columbia was not, under international law, entitled to refuse.
2. Handcuffed because they were criminals, not people who'd merely overstayed a visa.

It is incredibly important at this point that we establish, unambiguously, that other countries don't get to refuse to accept return of their own citizens just because they're criminals they're glad to be rid of. Because we're going to be deporting a LOT of criminals in the next few years.

Fortunately, Columbia caved in short order, and are just making a face saving gesture by according their returned criminals a luxury flight back. Because, of course, that's what you do with criminals if you're Columbia.

[Martinned2]

Which part of international law (as opposed to Columbian law, of which I know nothing) prevents Columbia from refusing its own citizens?

[Frank Drackman]

The 1951 Refugee Convention for one, I thought you were supposed to be an Ed-Jew-ma-cated person?
And Ew! Ew! Ew! Mis-tuh Kot-Air,
it's "COL-O-MBIAN" Law, not "COL-U-MBIAN" Law
and "COL-O-MBIA" not "COL-U-MBIA" which is part
of the Ham-Ass Aid & Theory Educators (HATE)
unless you're referring to the Jurisprudence that applies
to Columbia University.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

For starters, Article 12 of the ICCPR:

"4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country."

Denying somebody entry because you don't like the plane they arrived in is pretty arbitrary, when they didn't even have a choice about the plane.

Turns out there's actually a lot of international law on this topic. Columbia was not on strong ground here.

In any case, the matter got settled pretty quickly: Trump threatened sanctions early in his golf game, and Columbia caved before he finished it.

[Frank Drackman]

It's COL-O-MBIA

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I know it, too, but ever since chemo my fingers have been bad about substituting homophones when I type. Never let anybody tell you that stuff doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier, it's a lie.

[Frank Drackman]

"Blood-Brain Barrier" is also what the Surgeons derisively call the "Ether Screen" (OK, Chemically the Volatile Anesthetics, Isoflurane, Desflurane, Sevoflurane, Halothane, and Enflurane are "Ethers" but we haven't used "Ether" (Diethyl Ether) since MASH days) We Gas Passers call it the "Brain-Blood Barrier" because the "Brains" are on one (our) side, and the Blood is on the other. It's similar to Persian/Arabian Gulf.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

I knew that line my oncologist fed me about those drugs not crossing the barrier was a lie the moment the IV went live. Even full of enough Benadryl to knock out an elephant, (Apparently some people go into anaphylactic shock at their first dose of chemo.) it was obvious that stuff was reaching my brain.

[Drewski]

Do you really think the deportees were attempting to assert their right to enter Columbia, or were they being forced? If you're arrested and transported to another state, are you exercising your right to travel?

Also I'm not sure "caved" is the right word for getting exactly what you asked for. Trump was humiliated and gave in.

[Sarcastr0]

You regularly dehumanize illegals, so I suppose their rights being inherited by the US is well in keeping with your worldview.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I regularly tell you that you've got a crazy definition of "dehumanize".

I don't want illegal treated like animals, I want them treated like illegally immigrating human beings.

[Sarcastr0]

Whose right of return is something owned by the US government.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, human beings tend to lose the right to exercise a lot of their rights when they're convicted of crimes. This makes them human beings who have been convicted of crimes, though, not animals.

I know you'd rather not think about it, but everybody on that flight was a criminal in addition to being illegally present in the US.

[Sarcastr0]

Plenty to argue with in this post, but above you argued they have a right of return, just owned by the US.

Now you say they have lost that right due to their criminality.

Illegals don't deserve consistency, it seems.

[Brett Bellmore]

The only consistency criminals are really entitled to is "Sucks to be you!".

OK, I exaggerate, but you seem to consistently want to NOT treat the illegal aliens as criminals. I see no reason you should get your way on that, they ARE criminals.

In this case, they were criminals who ALSO were guilty of illegal immigration. They'd be entitled to be treated like criminals even if they were citizens!

[Bwaaah]

Sarc intimates people have a right to "consistency."

Add that to "due process," "privacy," and "free speech," all terms of art in law that, under treatment of law, bear little resemblance to what any normal person understands those terms to mean. In reality, you get none of those (except when you're by yourself, away from others).

But Sarc, true to his god, calls for consistency. Does he mean that term in a strict legal sense (there is none), a colloquial sense (government does not even pretend to offer consistency), or just, you know, an Il Douche sense? (no shortage of that, nor the implicit lack of practical meaning therein)

[Kazinski]

Its International practice, not just the United States.

I was at the Kuala Lumpur airport two or three years ago when about 30 illegal aliens were led all handcuffed, and chained together through the airport to their departing flight. When the guards leading them stopped at the gate they ordered them all to squat on the floor and await further instructions.

All the illegals seemed to be from other ASEAN countries, which do allow visa free travel among members, but they had overstayed working illegally.

In this case we are talking about actual criminals, who not only entered illegally, but then committed crimes.

[bernard11]

First, Brett, there has been a lot of dehumanization - accusations of widespread criminality, general derogatory comments, claims that they all were released from jail or mental hospitals,etc. Think of the Springfield Haitian business. Was that not dehumanizing, hate-mongering, which continued and was widely supported by Trumpists even after being proven false?

Second, when you see someone as only an illegal immigrant, nothing else, you are dehumanizing them. You are saying that overrides everything, family, personal conduct, whatever, and can treat them how you like. In most cases you are punishing them more harshly than you punish serious criminals.

You basically refuse to see them as human beings, and to think about what you are doing to them and their families. All you see is a big neon light flashing "illegal." That's dehumanizing, and you do lot of it.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I'm going to say this again: That's not "dehumanization". That's how human beings who are criminals get treated.

[Josh R]

People who overstayed their visas aren't criminals. Those who illegally entered one time violated a misdemeanor.

The point is unlawful presence, even when obtained through a crime, is not comparable to the type of serious crimes that justify how you think they should be treated.

[Brett Bellmore]

The point is, you don't consider it serious, but that view of illegal immigration turned out not to be shared by the electorate.

[Josh R]

You are overreading what the people want.

[Life of Brian]

Your poll says only 37% are opposed to "deporting all undocumented migrants." Sounds like pretty firm footing to move forward to me!

(And that's even setting aside your recurring practice of declaring what the voters wanted using polls that aren't limited to voters.)

[shawn_dude]

"What the people want" != "voters want"

LoB is inserting words into Josh's post that weren't there...

[Josh R]

It's a close call on deporting all, not a mandate. I suspect it will become unpopular if Trump follows through on going beyond those with broad support, particularly if the methods are unpopular as hinted at in the poll.

[Life of Brian]

"What the people want" != "voters want"

Of course, if you read one post further back, Josh purportedly was refuting Brett's statement "that view of illegal immigration turned out not to be shared by the electorate."

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that what he presented as a counterpoint actually was.

[Josh R]

The difference in opinion between the electorate and the population at large is likely at most 5%-points. The poll I quoted is sufficient to make my point.

[David Nieporent]

"What the people want" != "voters want"

I agree with this, but I also think it important to note that the president is not the president of his party, or the people who voted for him, or even the electorate as a whole. He's the president of the United States.

I know it's laughable to talk about Donald Trump of all people in these terms, but a president's job is to use his best judgment about what's best for the U.S., not to do what his party, voters, or the electorate want.

[Life of Brian]

The difference in opinion between the electorate and the population at large is likely at most 5%-points.

Have any support for that? You could get a 5% swing just by not weeding illegal immigrants out of your polling group.

And even if it's ballpark close, I'm not sure how only 32% of the electorate being opposed to deporting all illegal immigrants improves your position. Lefty priorities like the ACA have been cheerfully jammed though in the face of far greater opposition than that.

[Josh R]

5%-points is a huge miss in polls that predict elections. In order for 5%-points not to be a maximum miss, you would have to believe the electorate is much further to the right than the rest of America. Not likely.

It's at most 48% in favor. That's not a mandate.

[Life of Brian]

It's at most 48% in favor. That's not a mandate.

Only if you count the ~20% that can't be arsed to have an opinion one way or the other. That would mean that about 60% of people that have an opinion are in favor.

Interestingly enough, that's in the same range as actual results in polls that don't let participants straddle the fence.

[bernard11]

The point is, you don't consider it serious, but that view of illegal immigration turned out not to be shared by the electorate.

So what? In fact, it's not serious, no matter what Trumpist fools believe. Or are you just taking the position that you've got the power now and will use it as you wish, with no other considerations?

That doesn't make you right.

And when did illegal immigration become not just a misdemeanor, but a serious crime worthy of extremely harsh punishment.

[Commenter_XY]

So dehumanizing to return someone to their home...free of charge!

[Brett Bellmore]

It's dehumanizing to treat them in any way different from the way Sarcastr0 wants them treated.

[Sarcastr0]

I say you dehumanize them because *every time* there's a cost-benefit question about policy in this area, you get mad if someone even mentions any costs born by illegals.

And woe betide anyone who calls them undocumented in your presence.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, right, it's dehumanizing to not use your preferred euphemisms. Way to prove me right.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, I call them illegals all the time.

I'm noting how *you* get huffy.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's arguing their rights are something the US can exercise without their consent.

They're returning in chains. In military transport.

Don't pretend this is a benefit they've been given. You don't need to lie.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're returning in chains, in a military transport, to their own country. That last is the critical point. They're in chains because they're criminals.

Colombia is not entitled to refuse entry to Colombian citizens, and we're not going to tolerate their refusal to accept return of their own criminals. And I am not upset at all that Colombia's attempt to refuse to accept them was swiftly beaten back.

[Sarcastr0]

Your issue seems like it's with Commenter, not me.

Colombia is not entitled to refuse entry to Colombian citizens
I have no idea if that's true. I'm not up on international law.
Certainly nothing you've cited so far says that.

[David Nieporent]

Colombia is not entitled to refuse entry to Colombian citizens,

They are entitled to refuse entry to American military planes.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, and we're entitled to levy a 25% tariff on them, too. Next time they'll take that into account.

[Commenter_XY]

Well David, the Colombian Pres did so, and found himself on the losing side of the fastest trade war ever, less than 24 hours in duration. Glad it got worked out, though.

[TextFirst]

It's a pretty big clue that the alien infiltrators are undesirable if their own country wants them back. So the lib position is that Colombia must be allowed to offload its predators into the United States, so they can rape and murder Americans, and if we do anything to send them home it's wrong.

???

[Sarcastr0]

"alien infiltrators"
"predators"
"so they can rape"

You've got issues.

[shawn_dude]

The J6 rioters and insurrectionists are criminals. MAGAts claim they were treated poorly relative to what MAGAts think their crimes were. So it appears MAGAts believe the police should treat criminals differently based on the severity of their crimes. Except here, where simply being in the country illegally, a misdemeanor, requires the same treatment we reserve for the worst offenders.

[David Nieporent]

"4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country."

Um, I don't recall the people on the flight asking, or being asked.

By Brett's logic, the U.S. government arresting him and sending him to prison in New Mexico is okay because, after all, he's got a constitutional right to travel to new Mexico.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, in fact, if the US government arrested me, I would not get any say in where they jailed me, so, yeah.

Per the US embassy in Colombia, "Colombian President Petro had authorized flights and provided all needed authorizations and then canceled his authorization when the planes were in the air. "

Which I think fully justified putting down the carrot and switching to the stick.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and doing so while playing a round of golf.

[David Nieporent]

Well, in fact, if the US government arrested me, I would not get any say in where they jailed me, so, yeah.

Um, yeah, that's exactly the point: this stunt had nothing to do with their right to return to Colombia.

"They have a right to return to Colombia" != "I have a right to send them to Colombia."

[TwelveInchPianist]

"US has a right to expel them" + "they have a right to return to Colombia" = "US has a right to send them to Columbia"

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, no. Not even close. The US doesn't have any right to send anything at all to Colombia.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Now you're arguing with basic math?

[David Nieporent]

If that's what you think it is.

To be fair, the first part of your equation is wrong; the U.S. only has the right to expel someone if there's someplace willing to accept that person. (And if sending the person to that place would not violate the refugee convention; you can't send a person to a place where they'll be persecuted.)

[bernard11]

Way to miss the point, Brett.

[Martinned2]

Fair enough.

Meanwhile, prof. Heller recommends the statement of the President of Colombia. I'm not sure why, but I'd recommend it because it's quite amusing: https://opiniojuris.org/2025/01/27/gustavo-petros-response-to-trump/

[Brett Bellmore]

That is hilarious!

[David Nieporent]

1. Columbian citizens which Columbia was not, under international law, entitled to refuse.

Setting aside the irony of Brett, of all people, touting international law, this is entirely made up. Colombia is under no obligation whatsoever to let the U.S. military fly people to Colombia, regardless of who those people are.

[Kazinski]

You're right, so its a good thing they were convinced to voluntarily change their mind.

[Krayt]

Because we're going to be deporting a LOT of criminals in the next few years.

Deporting? Perhaps. A lot (as in a statistically sizable chunk) I predict not.

This is based on the assumption "they're all criminals" is hot air. I like scientific predictions.

Store it away and let's see what happens!

[Kazinski]

According to this CBS factcheck there are only 660,000 criminal illegal aliens.

That's a good start, I don't know whether you would consider that a lot or not, but there will probably be another few hundred thousand swept up when they are searching for the 660,000 criminal illegals we know about, so lets call it an even 1 million in the first phase.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noncitizens-criminal-records-trump-border-czar/

[hobie]

After reading about the Columbian kerfuffle, I thought to myself, 'Maybe not this week, but there goes another country permanently into the arms of China.' Should probably check if anyone in Trump's inner circle has vested interests in China

[Commenter_XY]

Week 1 is in the books, 207 weeks to go. I have several legal questions from week 1. So many, in fact, I do not know where to start, lol.

Regarding the unceremonious sacking of partisan IGs. Does it stick? Y/N.

I think it sticks. Why? The POTUS has plenary power to remove people in the Executive Branch for any reason or no reason at all.

[Martinned2]

The POTUS has plenary power to remove people in the Executive Branch for any reason or no reason at all.

Says who? In my copy of the constitution it says that the President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

[Commenter_XY]

Does it stick? Y/N

[hobie]

Of course it sticks. But why should I care?

[Brett Bellmore]

And the Supreme court says unconstitutional laws aren't really "laws". So if the President has the constitutional right to fire the people working for him, Congress can't enact a law prohibiting it.

Isn't there some existing precedent on this exact matter? I vaguely recall there is.

[Commenter_XY]

Myers is the precedent (1926). H/T to Bored Lawyer.

[Sarcastr0]

There is not.
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/28-the-removal-power.html

Here is the overview - basically it's back-and-forth and finding a specific throughline is hard.

But what is clear is that under current precedent the removal power is not unlimited.

This is not Trump soberly trying to change the law, this is him saying 'fuck it I do what I want and let them try and stop me.'

[Commenter_XY]

Do the removals stick? Y/N

[Sarcastr0]

'Lets try it an make someone stop us' is how republics fall.

[Commenter_XY]

Sounds like a 'Yes, it will stick' to me. 😉

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know or care about the 30 days notice thing.

Win or lose, it's the never caring about the checks on the executive that's the problem.

[Frank Drackman]

I heard this rumor that there's a process where the House can umm, what's the word?
"Impeach" members of the other Branches, and then have what we call a
"Trial" in the Senate
sounds crazy to me, seems rife for one party to abuse it for Bullshit

Frank

[Michael P]

Biden did exactly that with student loan forgiveness.

[Sarcastr0]

No, he gave plenty of warning and gave the opposition time to get their ducks in a row.

But I also think he abused the process and did something he knew was wrong. And that was bad!

I liked the outcome, but the ends don't justify the means. There was a standing problem with the loans thing that I think requires a dedicated exception to standing.

Sorry to disappoint the purely partisan world you inhabit.

[Kazinski]

Myers v US 1926. The Supreme Court says it, plainly, and its still good law.

"The President is empowered by the Constitution to remove any executive officer appointed by him by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and this power is not subject in its exercise to the assent of the Senate, nor can it be made so by an act of Congress."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/52/#tab-opinion-1931570

[Sarcastr0]

You already got pointed to that being countermanded by subsequent cases.

Here's a good history of the back-and-forth.
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/28-the-removal-power.html

[Kazinski]

What does countermanded even mean in a legal sense?

It doesn't mean reversed.

In fact the most recent SCOTUS decision on the removal power is Seila Law, which held Congress could not shelter the director of CFPB from at will removal:

"We therefore hold that the structure of the CFPB violates the separation of powers. We go on to hold that the CFPB Director’s removal protection is severable from the other statutory provisions bearing on the CFPB’s authority. The agency may therefore continue to operate, but its Director, in light of our decision, must be removable by the President at will."

[Sarcastr0]

It doesn't mean reversed, but it does mean your quoted excerpt is no longer the law.

[Kazinski]

Really? Because CJ Roberts specifically cited Myers in his majority opinion in Seila:

The President’s power to remove—and thus supervise—those who wield executive power on his behalf follows from the text of Article II, was settled by the First Congress, and was confirmed in the landmark decision Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926)."

He does go on and makes it clear the subsequent exceptions to Myers, are narrow, and if you read between the lines, not to be repeated:

"Our precedents have recognized only two exceptions to the President’s unrestricted removal power. In Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), we held that Congress could create expert agencies led by a group of principal officers removable by the President only for good cause. And in United States v. Perkins, 116 U.S. 483 (1886), and Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), we held that Congress could provide tenure protections to certain inferior officers with narrowly defined duties."

I can confidently assert the passage from Myers above is good law.

[Sarcastr0]

Read what I linked.

It’s not cut and dried - the Court has gone back and forth, despite insisting it isn’t going back and forth.

[Kazinski]

Well then its high time we get this issue back to the Supreme Court so they can clear it up.

After all its been 4 1/2 years since the last time the Supreme Court said executive branch officers "must be removable by the President at will."

[Sarcastr0]

The Court has had opportunities to pull the unitary executive cord and has not.
Current law is no to bright line rule because both branches have some say.

[Commenter_XY]

Thank you for demonstrating for the umpteenth time that Sarcastr0 can't punch above his own flyweight.

[Sarcastr0]

Or you could read the entire thread about it from yesterday, which established quite well that you're wrong on the law.

[Kazinski]

It just illustrates when Sarcastro really doesn't want something to be true, then nothing can shake his conviction it can't be true.

And he really doesn't want it to be true that Myers is still good law, despite the SC citing it less than 5 years ago in striking a provision, closely on point, requiring good cause for removing the head of CFPB.

It just can't be, but it is.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't say it wasn't good law - I said it doesn't stand for the bright line you argue it does.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bright enough in this case.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "Regarding the unceremonious sacking of partisan IGs ...."

1. Please cite one iota of evidence any of the IGs were "partisan".

2. Doesn't weaseling to excuse Trump's childish crap get old? You're like the guy in a parade walking behind the elephant with a pan and shovel. Except you'll spend the next four years shoveling his shit - frantically straining & stretching to excuse every lie, criminal act, boorish indecency, ethical transgression, and incompetent bungle. Why, XY? Don't you have any self-respect?

[Brett Bellmore]

I honestly don't know what his motive for sacking them was. If he has explained why, most of the media haven't bothered relating his motive.

I do know that the Republican establishment fed him a lot of nominees during his first term who turned out to be working against him, perhaps he's concerned that the IGs were in this group.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : I honestly don't know what his motive for sacking them was

Nobody does. Per reporting there's no identifiable trend. And it's not just as David Nieporent notes below - that Trump appointed some - but in at least one cas, the fired IG was a fervent ally of Trump.

So let's try my personal theory on for size : It had nothing to do with whether the IG was Republican or Democrat. It didn't matter whether Trump or someone else appointed him. It was inconsequential whether the person supported Trump or not.

What mattered was this : In those positions, Trump wants an Inspector General who won't Inspector General. In those positions, Trump wants someone who will forgo the typical work of an IG of preventing /detecting fraud, waste, and abuse. Sure, some IGs were appointed by Trump, but that doesn't mean they'll turn a blind eye to misconduct. And one may have been a committed Trump fan, but that doesn't mean the person is unprofessional or lacking ethical.

Stories are replete about aides telling Trump what is & isn't legal. Whatya bet he grew tired of hiring that? Remember, this is a lifelong criminal. Here's one example : Not only did he create a fraud charity for criminal ends, but he even used it to pay little Don Jr's $7 boy scout fee. A billionaire who commits charity fraud over seven dollars is someone who enjoys crime. He likes breaking the law. He does so for sport.

Maybe you should consider that as cause the IGs have to go.

[bernard11]

I honestly don't know what his motive for sacking them was.

Funny, you have no hesitation about ascribing (bad) motives for actions you dislike, even in the absence of evidence. It's always a conspiracy of some sort, right?

I do know that the Republican establishment fed him a lot of nominees during his first term who turned out to be working against him, perhaps he's concerned that the IGs were in this group.

Another version of Brett's just so stories.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I honestly don't know what his motive for sacking them was. If he has explained why, most of the media haven't bothered relating his motive.

His failure to explain why is part of the complaint!

[Kazinski]

Yes, but then Congress telling him that he has to explain why he is removing them violates separation of powers, and infringes on core Presidential powers, which is plenty good reason not to explain.

[David Nieporent]

1. Please cite one iota of evidence any of the IGs were "partisan".

Indeed, as noted, he seemed to arbitrarily pick some, including ones that he himself had appointed.

[Michael P]

I think the Supreme Court will strike down the 30-day limit if the case gets that far. It largely removes the president's removal power for the first and last month of his term. Thought experiment: How much longer could that period be made before it certainly violates the Constitution?

[John F. Carr]

It sticks. When notice is a condition precedent to an action a statute is ordinarily more explicit. "No such regulation shall take effect until 30 days after notice has been given in a newspaper of general circulation in the city."

Trump may have broken a law with no consequence. Not all violations of law are criminal. Some impose a burden only on people who feel bad about breaking the law.

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Trump won't feel bad about cutting loose 17 bureaucrats. That, I know.

[bernard11]

Yes you do know that.

And of course that means you're all for it - no further thinking required.

Do you even know what IG's do?

I myself share grb's theory. He wants to protect himself from any accountability whatsoever. We'll see.

[Commenter_XY]

As far as I am concerned, we cut loose roughly ~1K fed bureaucrats last week. A good start. More bureaucrats will leave this week. And next week, and the week after that. They are neither needed nor wanted; they are completely non-essential.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What do you think “bureaucrat” means, exactly?

[Commenter_XY]

Glad you asked that question, Nas. Specific to DC metro (say Columbia MD to Winchester VA; in short, where the non-essential bureaucrats live).

Direct Federal employees
Fed funded NGOs, non-profit employees
Fed funded contractor employees

It is, shall we say, a target rich environment.

Nas, there are way more federal workforce reductions coming. Do not delude yourself thinking these bureaucrats are not expendable, or that they are somehow essential. They are not essential, they are not wanted, and they are very expendable. No one is irreplaceable or not expendable, not even the POTUS.

You'll say 'no way', and I will respond 'we will see'. And reality will unfold over time.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Trump may have broken a law with no consequence."

Assuming he had the power to fire the AG's how did he break the law? He wasn't President 30 days ago.

If Congress had intended to prevent the President from firing AG's within this first 30 days of office, they could have said so explicitly.

[John F. Carr]

I think the law is clear. Trump can't fire them now unless Biden gave notice last month. The power belongs to the office, not the man. The change of office holder is no more important than any other reason the President might change his mind. If an IG starts investigating Trump's friend on Feburary 1 – clearly intolerable in the current administration – the waiting period doesn't expire until March.

[Mr. Bumble]

Clear? Does the Constitution give the Congress this power over Executive branch officials? What (other than impeachment) is the penalty?

[John F. Carr]

The meaning of the law is clear on the point I mentioned. The remedy is another question. Constitutionality is a third question.

[bernard11]

partisan IGs

Some question-begging there.

[Don Nico]

Sometimes IG do a honest job as in conducting spot-check audits. Sometimes they fail whistleblowers by turning the investigation back to the fox in the hen-house. I seen both happen at the same institution.

[Martinned2]

Chris Dillow, an excellent blogger about (macro)economics, just posted some thoughts about the lessons Shakespeare's Richard II might have for Sir Keir Starmer.

https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2025/01/what-the-left-can-learn-from-richard-ii.html

[Martinned2]

Which reminds me, I wonder what will happen to Mr. Bumble's Starmer Tourette's now that Trump has said that Starmer is doing a "very good job".

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-keir-starmer-doing-very-good-job-elon-musk/

(He isn't, pretty much for the reasons Dillow mentions.)

[Frank Drackman]

I think "47"'s referring to Mrs. Starmer, (who's got some Righteous Nipples)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Trump praised North Korea's Dear Leader, too.

The charitable explanation is that you have to butter up foreign leaders if you want them to be friendly and helpful.

[Brett Bellmore]

You got the impression that Democrats expected Trump to lunge across the table and snap Kim's neck Arnie style when they met, instead of saying "Nice doggy" in his best diplomatic manner.

[Martinned2]

That would be the charitable explanation, indeed...

But, as per the above (passim), it's not exactly consistent with Trump's general approach to diplomacy.

[Brett Bellmore]

His general approach to diplomacy is that he defaults to being friendly and diplomatic, even to despots, until doing something else proves necessary.

[David Nieporent]

No, his general approach to diplomacy is that he's a bully, which means that he's a coward. So he's friendly and diplomatic with people he perceives as strong, and nasty to those he believes he can push around — our allies.

[VinniUSMC]

Dave's right and Brett's wrong. Because Dave says so.

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Trump, while in CA on Friday, made reference to waiving all federal permitting requirements to assist in recovery and rebuilding, post wildfire(s).

Can POTUS Trump actually do that, legally?

If Congress passed a law saying you must have a federal permit for X (rebuilding, reconstruction, development, etc) with these requirements, can the POTUS just come along and say, "Nah, not this time. Go ahead, requirements waived".

[Martinned2]

I think that's one of those questions where lots of people's views will have miraculously reversed since we were talking about DACA. (See also: Tiktok.)

[F.D. Wolf]

Naturally, that would depend on the language of the statute(s) in question, though I imagine most allow for waivers under certain circumstances. Of course, he couldn't normally waive state and local regulations.

[Commenter_XY]

Understood = state, local regs

So with any cleanup, theres environmental and hazmat regs. When you clean up after a fire, there is a lot of hazmat laying around, burnt up debris. Congress has passed beaucoup laws on environment and cleanup. What if there isn't the 'escape hatch' (waivers)? Can the waiver of fed regs be subject to an APA challenge?

[Sarcastr0]

"Fuck it, I'll try it and let them stop me."

[David Nieporent]

Can POTUS Trump actually do that, legally?

Probably. Because most laws were not written with an unintelligent autocrat like Donald Trump in mind, they generally provide for some discretion to the president, allowing the president to waive requirements or pause programs if certain circumstances arise. But nobody anticipated when those laws were enacted that there would be a literal sociopath as president, who would act in bad faith not even to accomplish anything, but just to spite his enemies.

[Commenter_XY]

David, I'm not sure I would call helping the cleanup start asap (like today) is doing something to spite his enemies. Although, I will say, POTUS Trump was unsparing in his comments at the CA roundtable, that was notable.

[shawn_dude]

Trump said bad things about California...again. News at 11.

If he'd won California's electoral votes, he'd have been gushing about the state. Trump was his usual boorish self who never met a fact he couldn't ignore.

[Don Nico]

Are you really defending the poor preparedness of the State of CA and LA county?
A state that did not take advantage of a once $93B surplus to do undergrounding of many of its high voltage power lines.

[shawn_dude]

Defending? No. But that doesn't mean Trump's fact-free bloviating has any merit. It had nothing to do with water policies in Northern California or the smelt in the Sacramento delta. In his long laundry list of BS reasons, he never mentions 100mph winds driving a firestorm through residential areas. Nor do you hear much about the folks in the Malibu area voting against water improvements because they've historically used water restrictions to limit growth. They voted down a doubling of water tank storage multiple times. And while I don't know about SoCal, PGE is absolutely burying wires--I have my crazy huge bill to prove it.

California has always had a fire season. Some forests in the state need fires for seedlings to sprout. Fire here isn't an aberation... though it's been getting worse over time as things have gotten hotter and dryer.

[Don Nico]

"Fire here isn't an aberation."
you don't have to tell me; I lived in a fire zone for 15 years and adjacent to a fire zone (and threatened by the Oakland fire in the early 90s) for 25 years.

Sure the winds were too high for aircraft to fight the fire, but LA was not well prepared and water management from North to South has been an issue for more than one hundred years. And undergrounding has been spotty. It was done in my first neighborhood in Oakland 30 years ago. But In my second Oakland neighborhood, it still has not been done even though that second neighborhood is in a fire zone.

[Commenter_XY]

The OPM issued a guidance memorandum on 'The Great Dismantlement' of DEI within the Federal government.

https://www.chcoc.gov/sites/default/files/OPM%20Memo%20Initial%20Guidance%20Regarding%20DEIA%20Executive%20Orders.pdf

My legal question....What is an adverse consequence? We typically think termination, but how does fed bureaucracy work? What are examples of adverse consequences meted out in federal gov, short of termination?

Is the failure to volunteer info you possess (e.g. finger the DEI employees for administrative removal) a fireable offense?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, my bro works for the government, and one of his department managers just got fired over this. So it seems at least some parts of the government are taking it pretty seriously.

"Is the failure to volunteer info you possess (e.g. finger the DEI employees for administrative removal) a fireable offense?"

Per the EO, it would seem to be.

The real question is what's going to happen to people in the federal government who engage in malicious compliance.

Hopefully they get fired, too.

[apedad]

This is exactly what you guys wanted:

The Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (Stasi) from the Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR, i.e., East Germany), where co-workers, neighbors, friends, and family members spied on each other.

You really should pick better role models.

[Commenter_XY]

You were in Fed service....what are examples of adverse consequences short of termination?

Example: The bureaucrat who wrote the code to change a Fed website to change a job title? Is that person obligated to say something?

[Frank Drackman]

Markus Wolf's last years weren't really pleasant for him

[Brett Bellmore]

You understand malicious compliance.

[Bob from Ohio]

"co-workers, neighbors, friends, and family members spied on each other."

Did you miss the post about the Oregon snitch hotline last week? Because that is a lot more like East Germany.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If there’s one thing that terrified people about the oppressive East German surveillance state, it was the way they encouraged government officials to report misconduct.

[Sarcastr0]

Inviting people to report on their coworkers for 'secret DEIA' is trying to create a pretty toxic and paranoid environment.

They dynamics sure are an echo.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (Stasi) from the Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR, i.e., East Germany), where co-workers, neighbors, friends, and family members spied on each other."

A former fed thinks that government employees having to report each other's misconduct is equivalent to neighbors reporting wrong-think to an oppressive government? Color me un-shocked.

[Michael P]

Demotion, getting transferred to another location and change of shift or duties are some examples of adverse consequence short of being fired. Others are harder to arrange or are debatable, like a lateral transfer to a less desirable position.

[shawn_dude]

"finger the DEI employees for administrative removal"

And by "DEI employees" you mean "non-white?" How does one identify a "DEI employee" versus just your normal non-white person doing their job? If the answer is "not doing their job" then you'd think the boss would have taken care of that. "But wait!" you might say, "the boss couldn't because of DEI!" Then, with the removal of Federal support for DEI programs, the boss is now free to do that if it's warranted. I'd say you'd want to "finger" the boss' that aren't managing their teams well since DEI policy is no longer holding them back from purging unwanted people.

[David Nieporent]

There's a lot of rhetoric (on both sides) conflating people who work in DEI offices with people presumed to be the beneficiary of DEI programs. In theory, Trump's order targeted the former, not the latter; if you were the diversity coordinator for environmental justice at the EPA, you'd get fired, whereas if you're an environmental engineer that happens to be black, the order didn't target you.

But of course (a) lots of racist MAGA point to every black employee and say "DEI employee" regardless of what his/her job is; and (b) people who work in DEI offices are probably disproportionately likely to be members of minority groups.

[shawn_dude]

Ah, yes, I see.

I read "DEI Employees" as people assumed to have benefited by DEI policies rather than employees of a DEI office.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Note that the memos don’t say anything about employees: they talk about reporting programs.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, but the mechanism that Trump's EO selected for dealing with those programs is to fire the employees, so that's kind of a distinction without a difference.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Trump did do that, but that’s not what people are complaining about. They’re complaining about the directives along the lines of Appendix 1 to this memo, which tell employees to makes reports (and threaten them with adverse consequences if they don’t). But what they’re being asked to report is DEIA programs, not “DEI employees”.

[David Nieporent]

I'm not sure I read it as a distinction with a difference. I think "program" there includes employees.

In any case, that memo is no longer found at the website — perhaps because people examining the PDF found the metadata showing that it was authored by the Project 2025 people.

[Absaroka]

"that memo is no longer found at the website"

Bummer, I was hoping to read it. I was curious about the practicalities, as in suppose 50K people work at some agency, and they all know the agency has a very visible DEI program. Are all 50K supposed to report it?

[David Nieporent]

You can find it via the Internet archive.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I opened the copy you linked to, and the metadata didn't show that.

It seems to have left the door open for not reporting any DEI offices opened after the election last year.

"No later than 12:00 pm EST on Thursday, January 23, 2025, report to OPM on all steps taken to implement this memorandum, including:
a. a complete list of DEIA offices and any employees who in those offices as of November 5, 2024,
b. a complete list of all DEIA-related agency contracts as of November 5, 2024, and
c. any agency plans to fully comply with the above Executive Orders and this memorandum."

[Sarcastr0]

Someone wrote about this on another forum, and I thought I'd write something similar here:

The NIH is the largest and most successful biomedical and public health research program in the history of the world. Its budget makes it the largest fundamental research agency.
A large chunk of their budget goes via grants to academic research institutes across the US.

A wide range of activities are funded, but it all ties into the goal of making the American people live longer and healthier. It's research results are shared worldwide, and make the world get some of the same thing but having a hand into the seminal research makes the applied research flow that much more easily.

In addition to research grants, the NIH also offers training, resource, and career development grants. These are investments to develop early career health professionals and graduate students into productive researchers.

Last week, the Republicans shut all of these activities down. The NIH is currently not spending any money externally and not communicating with grant recipients.

Science is an international endeavor, and the competition for top talent is fierce. One of our big advantages is our free inquiry. Or was.
1.This is the time in the year when students choose their grad school. We just showed future scientists that the US government is capricious political, as compared to other countries.
2. We showed current scientists that their work is under political scrutiny if they continue to work in the US. This will and likely already has begun creating brain drain from within research institutions either outside the US or to for-profit firms where the research relies on the foundation NIH creates.

We are burning our seed corn.

We're ceding a lot of important ground to China, our main near-peer competitor in the STEM talent arena.
China is churning out STEM students like crazy and they are throwing massive amounts of funding at biomedical research because they know how important it is.
Every minute that our scientists are not working or fretting about the future of their work, is a minute where China gains an advantage on us.

[Commenter_XY]

A wide range of activities are funded.....

Indeed, there is some much needed transparency needed wrt that. Congress will be looking into that shortly. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

I do not disagree with the need for more STEM graduates in America.

[apedad]

The mouthbreathers you voted with do.

[Frank Drackman]

Actually did you see Bill Clinton in the background at the Inauguration? Mouth open like he was trying to catch flies. Sleepy Joe had his mouth open for most of last June's "Debate" (I guess watching an Octogenarian shit his pants qualifies as a "Debate")
Everyone breathes through their mouths, some more so than others, usually it's due to Allergic Rhinitis, Deviated Septums, although can also be due to Congestive Heart Failure (Bill Clinton) or just being old as fuck (that's an actual medical term, we call it "OAF Syndrome") and you do have the Mortimer Snerds out there who are just Stupid (but was Walter White stupid? 1/2 of ever episode of "Breaking Bad" he's got his mouth wide open

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I got a septoplasty done last summer, so that my snoring would stop disturbing my wife. Damn, that was painful! Took me months to fully recover, too. But it worked.

And I still fall back into mouth breathing if I forget to keep my mouth shut. Hard to get over a 55 year old habit.

[Bwaaah]

Yeah. You and your foot-walker friends.

[Sarcastr0]

What transparency is needed? Every dollar is accounted for in the budgets sent to Congress. Every grant is tracked; every subaward reported.

Tons better than the Pentagon can say.

[Frank Drackman]

That's how we find out about the NIH Grant to study "The Masturbation Habits of Chimpanzees" (I think it was an old "Far Side" cartoon where the Chimpanzee Wife is giving her husband shit (which he throws right back) about "That Jane Goodall Tramp")
There's always the excuse about needing to do "Science for Science's sake" when the real reason is Scientists can be Pervs just like everyone else.

Frank

[ThePublius]

Didn't Fauci circumvent U.S. regulations against gain of function research, obfuscate the funding pathway, fund it in Wuhan, and lie about it?

[Mr. Bumble]

Among other things.

[Commenter_XY]

Indeed, Fauci may well have done that. All the more reason for Congress to subpoena him and compel testimony, with K-street counsel at his side, on retainer.

[David Nieporent]

Um, they've already done all that. And he already denied all that. What you mean is that you're still such a pissy whiny little baby about lockdowns that — even though Fauci had nothing to do with imposing them lockdowns — you want to punish him for them by harassing him by subpoenaing him to testify over and over again.

[Commenter_XY]

David, the country is going to benefit from a complete airing out of what happened, and why. Fauci and NIH is just one place where there will be subpoenas and compelled testimony. There are many others.

Had these bureaucrats told the truth in the first place, this upcoming excruciatingly painful and expensive process would not be necessary. But they did not; they lied.

Now the process will be the punishment it is time to let sunshine be the best disinfectant.

[David Nieporent]

There has been a complete airing out of what happened.

Of course, we don't know — notwithstanding the CIA's grandstanding from this weekend — what happened in China, but that would require testimony from Chinese officials, not Fauci.

[Don Nico]

"notwithstanding the CIA's grandstanding from this weekend "
A slur based on zero knowledge except your mindreading

[Sarcastr0]

...slur?

[hobie]

Which is more likely:

1. An American bureaucrat colluded with China to develop a radically new supervirus and release it.

2. None of 1. happened

[David Nieporent]

1. An American bureaucrat colluded with China to develop a radically new supervirus and release it.

A radically new supervirus that was actually just the flu!

(Another Schrodinger's argument for the GOP!)

[hobie]

Yes, you open up the box and see Fauci looking up at you while fiddling with a Rubiks Cube

[grb]

David Nieporent : (Another Schrodinger's argument for the GOP!)

This Schrodinger Thing needs to be developed at length.

[VinniUSMC]

Wait, who thought it was a radically new supervirus? Not the (D)umbasses who thought the entire world economy needed to be locked down? That's one of the most bizarre takes you've put out there Dave.

Fuck that's stupid. No wonder it's hobie, Dave and grb who all think it's clever.

[Don Nico]

"that was actually just the flu!"
Keep broadcasting your complete ignorance about the topic. SARS-CoV-2 was not influenza

[David Nieporent]

Don, do you have brain damage? As I'm pretty sure 100% of people would know both from my posting history and from the context of that very post, I was mocking people who say that. Nobody could in good faith think I was making that assertion.

[Kazinski]

Tell that to the CIA, which says its the most likely explanation.

And Peter Daszak who lied facilitating the grant to the Wuhan lab has been barred from future grants for violating the guidelines barring gain of function research.

"Today, after an eight-month investigation, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cut off all funding and formally debarred EcoHealth Alliance Inc. (EcoHealth) and its former President, Dr. Peter Daszak, for five years based on evidence uncovered by the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. In a new letter, HHS states “that a period of debarment for Dr. Daszak is necessary to protect the Federal Government’s business interests.” This letter also confirms that EcoHealth terminated Dr. Daszak’s employment effective January 6, 2025. EcoHealth and Dr. Daszak facilitated gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China without proper oversight and willingly violated multiple requirements of its multimillion-dollar National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant."

Daszak was suspended from being able to participate in HHS grants last May by the Biden Administration. So this isn't controversial or disputed.

[David Nieporent]

1) The CIA has admittedly not discovered new information; they simply changed their mind about what's "most likely."

2) We are not talking about what Peter Daszak did or didn't do or knew or didn't know. Maybe Peter Daszak is a cartoon movie villain who deliberately engineered covid to kill off the untermenschen. But that's irrelevant to the point; we are talking about what Anthony Fauci did or didn't do or knew or didn't know. What the Biden Administration did in May 2024 or January 2025 is irrelevant to that, given that Fauci hasn't been working for the government since 2022.

[Sarcastr0]

No.

The National Institutes of Health and EcoHealth Alliance Did Not Effectively Monitor Awards and Subawards, Resulting in Missed Opportunities to Oversee Research and Other Deficiencies.

"Federal grant awards and subawards to understand the nature of the research conducted, identify potential problem areas, and take corrective action. Using its discretion, NIH did not refer the research to HHS for an outside review for enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (ePPPs) because it determined the research did not involve and was not reasonably anticipated to create, use, or transfer an ePPP. However, NIH added a special term and condition in EcoHealth's awards and provided limited guidance on how EcoHealth should comply with that requirement. We found that NIH was only able to conclude that research resulted in virus growth that met specified benchmarks based on a late progress report from EcoHealth that NIH failed to follow up on until nearly 2 years after its due date. Based on these findings, we conclude that NIH missed opportunities to more effectively monitor research. With improved oversight, NIH may have been able to take more timely corrective actions to mitigate the inherent risks associated with this type of research.

We identified several other deficiencies in the oversight of the awards. Some of these deficiencies include: NIH's improper termination of a grant; EcoHealth's inability to obtain scientific documentation from WIV; and EcoHealth's improper use of grant funds, resulting in $89,171 in unallowable costs."

Not so exciting a story as the right's been pushing, I know.

[ThePublius]

Oh, so they audited themselves and found no wrongdoing. Got it. 🙂

There's new data on this, BTW. And there's a paper trail obtained via FOIA that contradicts OIG.

It may well be a long time before we know the whole story, the truth. But in my opinion it doesn't look good for Fauci; hence his pardon.

And there's even this, from Sept. 2023:

Fauci Knew NIH Funded Wuhan’s Gain-of-Function Research as Pandemic Began, Email Reveals

[Brett Bellmore]

At least getting around Milley's pardon is fairly straightforward. He's subject to recall to duty, and I've seen a nice proposal to recall him, and give him the job of documenting all the crimes he got pardoned for.

If he refuses the job, he can be prosecuted for that, and if he fails to be accurate, he can be prosecuted for that, too. So his only option is to be frank and accurate, and expose all his confederates who didn't get pardons.

All the while not getting those cushy retirement jobs he had lined up, and his reputation ends up in the mud, with him having to do the work of applying it.

Sounds about right given what he got pardoned for.

[David Nieporent]

Sounds about right given what he got pardoned for.

Trying to keep a mentally ill Donald Trump from starting WWIII?

I should say that that's the pretext; what Trump actually is upset about is that he was previously trying to keep a mentally ill Donald Trump from declaring martial law.

[Brett Bellmore]

Conspiring with other members of the military to agree to violate lawful orders, actually.

[Z Crazy]

I heard he even promised to warn China of any impending attack by the U.S.

That's treason!

[David Nieporent]

Once again: lying to the Chinese government is not treason.

[David Nieporent]

"Conspiring to agree" is redundant, and what agreement did he reach with anyone?

[VinniUSMC]

Trying to keep a mentally ill Donald Trump from starting WWIII?

Did you start hanging out at the corner with sarcjeff?

[Sarcastr0]

Making it an explicit project to obviate Biden's pardons, and then just going off on all the misery you hope gets visited on these people is a great way to excuse Biden's blanket pardons.

[Mr. Bumble]

See this:
https://johnalucas6.substack.com/p/whither-general-milley
"Milley was reportedly concerned the president could “go rogue.”

In the secret meeting, Milley ordered the officials in charge of the National Military Command Center not to take orders from anyone except him.

“No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I’m part of that procedure,” Milley ordered, according to the book. The general then moved around the room and received verbal confirmation from each person.

“Got it?” Milley asked, the book said. The authors wrote that Milley considered the order “an oath.”
From the article.

[Bob from Ohio]

Milley is not in the chain of command. By statute he is the president's principal military advisor but has no authority to order those people at all.

[Mr. Bumble]

That's the point.

[Sarcastr0]

The IG found plenty of wrongdoing! straight to ad hominem without reading a damn thing.

There's a big lesson here about not giving your high-level performers breaks on the red-tape, not that you care about that kind of in-the-weeds stuff.

OTOH, your link does not back up it's title:
“In a January 27, 2020, email, Fauci received talking points from an aide regarding Wuhan Institute of Virology research that was being funded by the disease division of the National Institutes of Health.
...
EcoHealth group (Peter Daszak et al), has for years been among the biggest players in coronavirus work, also in collaboration with Ralph Baric, Ian Lipkin and others,” Fauci’s chief of staff Greg Folkers wrote to his boss and other public health officials.
...
Folkers did not explicitly mention gain-of-function research, but he did note the novel coronaviruses did “cause SARS-like disease in humanized mouse models.”

All these issues came up in retrospect. It doesn't seem likely to me that Fauci was being consulted on subcontractor reporting and compliance.
But may be he was! You need to do more work to establish that, though.

[David Nieporent]

And there's even this, from Sept. 2023:

Fauci Knew NIH Funded Wuhan’s Gain-of-Function Research as Pandemic Began, Email Reveals

And then there's the fact that the story does not in fact support the headline in any way.

[ThePublius]

It certainly does!

[David Nieporent]

It doesn't. Nothing in the article — as elaborated on by Sarcastr0 — says one word about Fauci knowing anything about gain of function research. In fact, the body of the article clearly states that the email referenced in the headline did not even mention gain of function research.

[Michael P]

The email did not *explicitly* name gain-of-function research. Do you understand the difference between explicit and implicit references to a thing?

Explicit: "The gain-of-function viruses cause SARS-like disease in humanized mouse models."

Implicit: "The viruses being studied here cause SARS-like disease in humanized mouse models."

[David Nieporent]

Studying viruses is not "implicitly" talking about gain-of-function research. Every virologist studies viruses; that's pretty much the point.

[Bob from Ohio]

"We're ceding a lot of important ground to China, our main near-peer competitor in the STEM talent arena."

Are you suggesting that scientists will go to China to escape "political scrutiny" and the CCP is not "capricious political,"?

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, I know. Like mega-corps are running to the Chinese to set up proprietary data centers...not.

[bernard11]

OK Bob,

So they go to Europe, say, or Canada, or Japan, or Australia.

Better than China, sure, but I'd still prefer they stay here.

Anyway, Trump is sure trying up "political scrutiny" right here, not to mention the US' research and technology edge.

[Bob from Ohio]

Sarcasto didn't mention any of those places. So take it up with him.

[Sarcastr0]

"having a hand into the seminal research makes the applied research flow that much more easily."

[Don Nico]

S_O,
Last week the acting Secretary of Energy stopped almost all suck activities by DOE Office and its prime contractors pending review with the exception of actions expressly permitted by the acting Secretary.

I suspect that these stoppages are temporary and will be reversed.

Save your pro-CCP propaganda for a month from now.

[Sarcastr0]

pro-CCP propaganda

What the fuck are you talking about?

I suspect that these stoppages are temporary and will be reversed.
The damage is currently happening. This is not some normal order.

[Don Nico]

Sure in one-week. Stop being hysterical
Have you check what is happening in other agencies? Certainly just this same thing is announced for all of DOE including NNSA.
And the Chinese are not going to overtake Us researchers in one week or one-moth. You are just whining and proclaiming that the CCP is made up of superhumans

[Sarcastr0]

Fucking sucks. And it is profoundly damaging both internally and externally. These are not programs you turn on a time.

I like your inquiry is some threshold analysis bullshit as though taking risks like this is no big deal. Just massive complacency.

I don't know what you do, but it's certainly removed from fundamental research grants. Because shit got *fucked* by that recent memo.
Course I could have guessed that when you supported RFK Jr.

This isn't just the hare-like thinking, this is: 'I'm so ahead of the tortoise, might as well shoot myself in the dick!'

[Brett Bellmore]

"Fucking sucks. And it is profoundly damaging both internally and externally."

That's not been my experience, maybe you're doing it wrong?

OK, seriously, google "debt ceiling".

Normally in a situation like this, the media would have nothing else to talk about. Apparently that's not happening this time because the media are too busy freaking out over Trump's executive orders.

But there are freaking REASONS, everything that's remotely discretionary is shutting down. Everything that's remotely discretionary SHOULD be shutting down right now!

[Sarcastr0]

This isn't about the debt ceiling, Brett.

"Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related
to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal."

[Brett Bellmore]

It is not "just" about the debt ceiling, sure, but it IS about the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is just another reason to stop spending money on things we shouldn't be spending money on even if we had an unlimited supply.

[Sarcastr0]

You're purely making it up that it's about the debt ceiling.

You have no evidence. I showed you evidence otherwise; you just keep saying it.

Doesn't make it true.

And the debt ceiling has NEVER caused us to cut down on our spending, so citing it as a reason to is another way you are ignoring reality for what you want to be true.

[Swede425]

Trump should put Columbia through the wringer.
For at least a couple of months. Maybe longer.
See what the real consequences are for not taking your criminals back.
Send the right message to the other commies to our south.
They must not have got the word that Biden isn't in office anymore.

[Frank Drackman]

Goddammit it's
"COL-O-MBIA" if you're referring to the South Amurican Nation who's primary export goes up Hunter Biden's Nose.
although "COL-U-MBIA" University should be put through the "Wringer" also for their just to the right of Julius Streicher Administration and Faculty (actually instead of a "Wringer" I'd prefer what happened to Streicher, followed by disposing of the remains like Israel did with Eichmann)

Frank

[Swede425]

LOL!
You got me. And I'm even drinking Colombian coffee as I type so I have no excuse.

[David Nieporent]

The "real consequences" would be to drive Colombia into China's arms. Seems pretty fucking stupid, unless you know less about international affairs than one would learn from playing a game of Risk™.

[Swede425]

Awww.
It'll be ok, Dave.
I know there's been a flurry of activity this last week and it can all be very confusing, especially when compared to the corpse who occupied the White House until a very short time ago.
But illegal aliens are being rounded up, and they're getting sent home. Shocking, I know, especially after how difficult we were told it would be to do that. Turns out, it's a lot easier than Democrats thought.
Good news, though! Even commies don't want to tank their economy, it turns out. Who knew?
Colombia (spelled right, thanx FD) sure found out.

[hobie]

Columbia's economy won't tank. China will make sure of that

[Swede425]

Lucky for China they won't have to.
The commie cross-dresser lover boy decided that Trump was the voice of reason on this and has now offered his presidential jet to bring his criminals back into the fold.
I'm not even close to being tired of this winning.

[Dr. Ed 2]

China's economy is close to tanking.

[shawn_dude]

China has authoritarian tools in its toolbox that are not available to nations with free markets. Reports that China's economy is close to "tanking" pop up every so often but it never seems to happen.

[Frank Drackman]

Your mom partake in too much of the Hillbilly Heroin?? It's Col-O-mbia, Numbskull.

[Kazinski]

Yes, I can imagine them rescuing the Columbian cut flower industry which employs 130,000, mostly women, and buying up all the Valentine's day flowers they are gearing up for selling now. That might have logistical issues dumping highly perishable luxury goods like flowers in China with just 2 weeks notice.

But I can certainly see China being in the market for Columbian coal, which is one of their top exports.

[James Alp]

If Rep. Ogles's constitutional amendment on presidential term limits became law, the only way a person could serve three terms as president is by leaving office after their first term, either because they lost their bid for a consecutive second term (and of course accepted the loss) or because they voluntarily left office after one term to take four years off before returning to run for a second and then a third term (maybe having a hand-picked successor serve four years as president in name only, sort of like Putin and Medvedev have done). In any event, it would never make any sense at all for a first-term president to seek an immediate second term; doing so successfully would only trigger the earliest term limitation. And it would be particularly irrational to insist that a defeat in seeking an immediate second term was really a win. Ogles has introduced the "Don't Be a Donald" Amendment.

[PaulS]

If a VP takes office and serves less than 2 years it doesn't count as a term so they can serve two full terms (be elected twice - 9+ years total). Question - if a president (who had previously served a full term) were to resign before they served an additional full two years of their next term - would they be allowed to run again/serve for another term?

[Krayt]

Seems cheesy, but probably. The rule is two terms, but the real rule is 10 years minus a day, as in a vp who ascends with just under 2 years to go, then wins two more herself.

I take that back. The 22nd clearly starts with "no person shall be elected to the office of president no more than twice. So, no, no squeaking to 10 years by resigning your first term, then getting elected 2x more.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What would have precluded Reagan from running as VeeP in 1988 and then Bush 41 resigning on 2-1-89?

You can't be elected more than twice - Ford never was "elected."

[Noscitur a sociis]

1. Politics.

2. The twelfth and twenty second amendments.

[tylertusta]

It's arguably possible for a term-limited President to nonetheless serve beyond 12 years, but I doubt many courts would entertain it, and in practice it would be nearly impossible to pull off as it relies too much on being on fantastic terms with too many politicians.

[Brett Bellmore]

I can't see how it's possible; You can serve 10 years minus a day if you're a VP and your President checks out just past the halfway point, and you get elected twice on your own afterwards, but after two full terms you're constitutionally barred from being President OR VP.

[tylertusta]

I say's it's arguable because the 12th's amendment imposes onto the VP the same qualifications for office as the President. However, if you look closely at the text of the 22nd Amendment, it doesn't actually prohibit someone from serving more than two terms. Rather, the 22nd Amendment only prohibits someone from being elected as President beyond the term limits. In other words, if you can find your way into the Presidency without being elected as President or Vice President, then it's arguably doable.

There are two primary ways with which someone who has served 2 full terms could become President again:

1) A former President gets put into the line of succession, and everyone else ahead of them resigns or dies. For example, Former President Obama could win a House election and then be seletced as the Speaker of the House. Upon the death or resignation of the current President and VP, Obama would become President again.

2) A former President could become Vice President through confirmation by Congress according to the 25th Amendment. After being confirmed, the current President resigns.

Such scenarios are highly unlikely to occur even if someone say that it was constitutional, but are useful in an academic sense.

[Don Nico]

Even in your extraordinary case the person may only occupy the presidency for 10 years

[Noscitur a sociis]

How do you figure? Let’s say the person gets elected normally twice, then takes a term off, then gets elected to Congress and immediately becomes speaker. On the first day of the next term, the president and vice president both die or resign. What would stop our speaker from serving out the rest of the term?

[Josh R]

Perhaps the text of the 22nd Amendment (and perhaps not)?

"no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

Does that kick in after two years in the hypothetical? Or does that preclude him from being prospectively (but not retroactively) elected to a second term?

And, it appears a one-term elected president can serve forever so long as they were not elected a second time. Trump should have had Vance at the top of the ticket, promising Vance would resign and Trump (now President) would nominate Vance to be the new VP.

P.S. This is why people hate lawyers.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t think the grammar can really bear that construction. But at any rate, as you say a once-elected president can surely succeed to the office without limit (although I suppose people might start to get a little suspicious after the third or fourth time).

[Frank Drackman]

I prefer the Prohibition Repeal Route (PRR)
Twenty-Eighth Amendment to U.S. Constitution
Section 1. The Twenty-Second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The Article that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once" is Repealed

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

I'd go the Convention Route as Legislators are allergic to Term Limits

[Brett Bellmore]

Once you go the convention route, the members of the convention decide what amendments to originate. It's "a convention for proposing amendments", according to Article V.

But I think it's much more likely a convention would add an age limit to the Presidency, and other federal offices, than get rid of Presidential term limits.

Anyway, according to members of Congress present at the time, Trump was just joking. I mean, obviously, he doesn't want Melania to do a Scalia on him.

[Frank Drackman]

Nope, you can also choose the Convention route as the method of Ratification, limited to the Amendment in question.

[Brett Bellmore]

No constitutional basis for the "limited to the amendment in question" part of that.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. "

See, Congress gets to dictate the mode of ratification if they want, but that's it. The literal job of the convention is "proposing amendments", which really kills the idea that you can call a convention which doesn't get to decide what amendments it proposes.

[Krayt]

At least you acknowledge it would require an amendment. No senator wants the president to hang around when most fancy themselves on the path.

These are the same people who, when faced with congressional term limits, stand there on the floor with a tear running down their eye about the thwarting of democracy.

[Krayt]

I'd go the Convention Route
Once you go the convention route, the members of the convention decide what amendments to originate. It's "a convention for proposing amendments", according to Article V.

Every time an amendment fails to clear the Senate, people always suggest this, but I am terrified of such a thing.

It will be crammed with power mongers trying to expand their power by gaining new power line items. Government gets to do this. Government gets to do that.

The Founding Fathers were trying to restrain Tyrant Kings. Modern pols are chafing at the bit for more, more, more!

[tylertusta]

This fear of a convention never made sense to me.

Any Amendment that comes out of a convention would still require 3/4 of the states to ratify it, and any amendment that could garner 3/4 of the states' ratification would probably have passed Congress easily.

So who cares?

[Brett Bellmore]

Anybody who opposes popular amendments that can't make it out of Congress, obviously. Term limits, a balanced budget amendment, stuff like that, that the general public wildly approves of, but politicians hate.

[Commenter_XY]

Abolish income taxes....that one passes, no sweat, lol.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm waiting to see if Trump can deliver on not taxing SS. That would certainly benefit me personally. But that will require legislation.

[Josh R]

Taxes on SS income are credited to the SS trust fund. Doing away with them will move up the date the fund runs out and automatic cuts kick in.

[Brett Bellmore]

Very, very marginally, sure. At the same time it cushions a bit the fact that the benefits only pretend to be adjusted for cost of living.

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R....There will not be cuts. The seniors, a potent voting bloc, won't have any part of that. Do you want Grandma put out on the street b/c her check got cut 17%? Won't happen.

[Josh R]

What do you think will happen?

[Kazinski]

I have mixed feelings about it, I fear the fiscal impact, but in terms of fairness your social security contributions are fully taxed when you make them. However your employers contribution is fully deductable

Its hard to justifying the the double taxation, however perhaps setting only allowing 50% of your SS to be taxable would lower the fiscal impact, and remove the unfairness of double taxation.

Right now they are taxed at a maximum of 85% of your benefits, lowering that to 50% seems doable.

[Brett Bellmore]

The amount that's taxed is dependent on your income, calculated as half your SS payment plus any other income during the year. Below a certain cutoff, none of it is taxed, but that cutoff is so low that you'd be quite poor.

[Sarcastr0]

Older people want SS to pay them more now, and later can take care of itself.

Shocking.

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R...What will happen instead of cuts to SSA.

Tax increases
Raise eligible income subject to taxation, with benefit cap
Means testing

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What do you think will happen?"

Does it matter? Some sort of hand-wavy BS that will preserve the payment while maintaining the propaganda that SS is some sort of solvent, savings-like program that recipients "paid into" and are thus morally entitled to a continuation of.

[Brett Bellmore]

The proposed amendment.

I could kind of see if the amendment had simply stated that nobody could have more than two consecutive terms as President, but this amendment seems too specifically crafted to apply to Trump and only Trump.

The amendment is going nowhere, and all it has done is to identify Ogle as an embarrassing suck up.

[Martinned2]

Well, a suck up anyway.

[David Nieporent]

an embarrassing suck up.

in other words, a Republican in the age of Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

And here we have it, the reason he's being such a suck up.

I predict the effort to suck up to Trump won't work.

[hobie]

These are the people you support, Brett

[Brett Bellmore]

These are the people I thought less awful than the people you support.

[ducksalad]

I think by your own rhetorical rules ("the Palestinians are genocidal murderers"), it would be quite fair to say the Republicans are trying to give Trump a third term.

We all know how Republican crowds react when Trump tests out the third term idea as a "joke". Also noted that even you are thinking how to make the amendment more palatable now that Ogle stretched the Overton window a bit.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, I don't say that the Palestinians are genocidal murderers because there's one, count 'em, one, genocidal murder among them. Their areas are controlled by genocidal murderers. Their schools teach genocidal murder. Rocket launches from Palestinian controlled territory into Israel have been a regular thing for years.

It's as fair to say that the Palestinians are genocidal murderers as it would have been to say that of Germans during WWII. Imagine Nazi Germany, only they lacked the military power to invade their neighbors, so they settled for cross border incursions and bombing daycares. And this went one for decades.

That's the Palestinians. I don't know that any culture has ever been steeped in genocidal ambition on this scale for this long, previously in human history.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaza solution: Israel and Egypt build a Berlin-type wall, a double wall with landmines in the middle and shut off all contact with Gaza. no electricity, no water, no food, and all relief must arrive by sea.

Every rocket is responded to with a 2000 lb bomb.

[Martinned2]

LOL, why would Israel make the concession of giving Gaza access to the sea?

[Frank Drackman]

I'm for giving all Gaza inhabitants "Access to the Sea" from Up, from Down, from Left, from Right.

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, You do realize the Airplane was invented in 1903?
Seriously, I'd get Mid-Evil, Instead of expensive explosives that mostly just bounce the rubble around, I'd drop tons of their own Shit on them (I know, how would the Ham-Ass tell?) and "Return" their Hostages the same way

[CountmontyC]

I say put the Palestinians in time out. Find an island or island chain with no nearby neighbors( say a 100 miles or more) and let them build their ideal society there.

[Commenter_XY]

Yemen sounds good to me.

[Brett Bellmore]

I actually kind of like that idea, but know of no such island that isn't already populated.

[CountmontyC]

I am certain we could find something in the Indian Ocean somewhere.

[Brett Bellmore]

What sort of population density did you have in mind? We're talking about 5M people. If you dropped them on Easter Island, (Not suggesting that, it's just an example!) you'd have a population density over 30K per square km.

The Gaza strip is currently one of the most densely populated regions in the world, and it only clocks in at a bit under 6K per square km. Manhattan gets up to 28K per square kilometer, and is not remotely self-sufficient.

I really doubt there are uninhabited islands that could fit more than a tiny, tiny fraction of them.

[CountmontyC]

Well that is part of why I included island chain. We could look at that island that had seven stranded castaways to start with.

[Martinned2]

Your empathy for the people you want to ethnically cleanse out of their homeland is noted.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hey, I'm all about the numbers, and if somebody makes a proposal that makes no sense if you look at the numbers, I'm going to point it out.

I've actually said, though you apparently missed it, that you can't move the Palestinians out of the West bank and Gaza, because there's nobody stupid enough to take them.

Nor is there any plausible uninhabited location they could be relocated to. So, while it might be a nice thought to move them out of DIY rocket range of Israeli neighborhoods, it's not happening.

[CountmontyC]

I have zero empathy for rapists and murderers who for decades have wanted to and tried to genocide their neighbors instead of working towards a peaceful solution.

[John F. Carr]

You reminded me of one of the great dystopian science fiction novels: "If you allow for every codder and shaggy and appleofmyeye a space one foot by two you could stand us all on the six hundred forty square mile surface of the island of Zanzibar." Stand on Zanzibar, a 1968 novel by John Brunner about the overpopulated future world of 2010.

[Mr. Bumble]

Cue Paul Erlich, who refuses to die and do his part to combat "overpopulation".

[shawn_dude]

"Every rocket is responded to with a 2000 lb bomb."

Why not a nuke? I mean, if you're willing to murder hundreds of innocents, why not just make it thousands and really drive your point home?

Back in reality... there is no quick fix for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. After the first Nakba, it's gotten worse and more entrenched year after year. How does one undo that?

[Don Nico]

Shawn,
You do understand that the first "catastrophe" was the Arab League declaring war on Israel and losing.
That was the first of several times that the offer of a Palestinian state was rejected.

[Sarcastr0]

How is that relevant to shawn_dude's comment?

Unless you're taking issue with the innocent bit?

[Don Nico]

He mentioned the first nakba which the palestinian have conveniently redefined to be Israel's fault rather than the Arab's own fuck-up.

[Don Nico]

But now that you mention it, "innocents" is also just a shitload of propaganda. Gaza was a fully weaponized society.

[Sarcastr0]

He assigned no fault for the first nakba.

"Gaza was a fully weaponized society" seems to be you arguing that the hypothetical of a nuke and thus murdering innocents is propaganda?

I don't think you're that level of monster; I think you didn't read through the OP enough.

[Michael Ejercito]

https://soc.culture.israel.narkive.com/6yRhpLak/did-filipino-americans-help-trump-win-nevada

Did Filipino-Americans Help Trump Win Nevada?
Swing voters in a battleground state may have leaned right.

Sribala Subramanian
By Sribala Subramanian
December 11, 2024
Did Filipino-Americans Help Trump Win Nevada?
A Donald Trump campaign billboard on Las Vegas Boulevard in Las Vegas,
Nevada, August 18, 2024.

Credit: ID 333882490 © Jerome Cid | Dreamstime.com
“Let’s do a poll.”

Donald Trump was addressing a campaign rally outside Las Vegas two weeks
before the November 5 election. The event was an outreach to
Asian-American voters in Nevada, the “swingiest” of the battleground states.

“Which do you like more?” asked the former president, referring to tax
exemptions. “Tips. Overtime. Social Security?” Tax cuts on Social
Security got the loudest cheer from the crowd.

“That’s amazing. . . the seniors always win,” said the 78-year-old
candidate, who ended the rally with a pretend golf swing as “YMCA” by
the Village People played over the speakers.

Trump won Nevada by 3 percentage points, flipping the state Republican
for the first time in 20 years.

Did Asian-American voters put the former president over the finish line?

A Washington Post report based on exit poll results showed that 61
percent of Asian voters in Nevada cast their ballot for Trump while 38
percent voted for the Democratic Party’s candidate, Kamala Harris.
Asian-American support for the former president was the highest among
any ethnic group in the state, surpassing even white voters (the
Republican base) by 7 points.

As the largest Asian subgroup in Nevada, Filipino-American voters may
have contributed to the “red wave” that swept across the state.

The Filipino community in the U.S. has historically voted for the
Democratic Party and a pre-election poll indicated that Kamala Harris
was their preferred candidate. However, the AAPI (Asian American and
Pacific Islander) election survey released in September found that
Filipino voters had grown disenchanted with both parties.

About 30 percent of respondents identified as independents, a 6-point
increase from 2020. Filipino voters listed the cost of housing, crime,
and Social Security as high-priority issues that would influence their
choice of candidate in the election.

The head of Turning Point Action, a conservative youth organization that
hosted the Nevada rally viewed the community’s growing non-partisan
profile as an opportunity for the Republican Party. “This is a group
that is poised to resonate powerfully with President Trump’s message of
economic empowerment, law-and-order, safe streets, and a return to
orderly, sane immigration policies,” said 31-year-old activist Charlie Kirk.

Both campaigns made a concerted effort to engage the community. At the
Turning Point rally, Trump drew attention to the fact that “so many
amazing Nevada Filipinos” were in the audience. The Harris campaign
focused on heritage and culture putting up billboards with the Tagalog
greeting, “Mabuhay!”

“There was very strong support for President Trump . . . in the state of
Nevada,” said Jose Manuel Romualdez, the Philippines’ ambassador to the
U.S., in an interview with the ABS-CBN News. Many Filipino American
voters, he noticed, “were not ashamed to admit” that they wanted to see
Trump back in the White House.

Romualdez pointed out that Filipino voters are “conservative in their
thinking.” An older generation of immigrants, many of whom are
practicing Catholics, support the Republican Party’s platform on abortion.

Trump’s message on illegal immigration struck a chord with naturalized
citizens from the Philippines, who are reluctant to legitimize the
status of undocumented workers from their home country. Romualdez urged
Filipinos without a secure path to citizenship to “leave voluntarily
because once you are deported you can never come back to the United States.”

In a post entitled “Anatomy of a red wave – How Trump won Nevada,” the
non-partisan Nevada Independent commented that “Trump had a clearer,
simpler message than Harris – the people in power made prices high, and
he would fix it.” At the rally, Trump brought up “kitchen table”
concerns saying, “Everybody I speak to, they talk about groceries. . .
your foods have gone up 50, 60, 70 percent.”

Trump’s pitch to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits was popular
with Filipino-Americans across the country. “His concerns for the
elderly is admirable,” a first-time voter from Oklahoma told ANC 24/7, a
Philippines-based news channel. A tax break on Social Security was “good
news” she explained since her retirement benefits were due next year.

A month after the election, however, one Republican lawmaker who had
been briefed on the incoming administration’s plans to cut federal
spending declared “nothing is sacrosanct” implying that Social Security
and Medicare costs would not be excluded from budget-related discussions.

In an opinion piece for the Los Angeles Times, James Zarsadiaz a
historian at the University of San Francisco and Director of the
Yuchengco Philippine Studies Program wrote: “The 2024 election results
make clear: The Asian American electorate has shifted further right.”

[Brett Bellmore]

I can personally testify that legal immigrants from the Philippines are indeed rather conservative politically, and really dislike illegal aliens. But that latter is something they have in common with most legal immigrants, regardless of origin. Nobody who has stood in line likes a line jumper.

[ducksalad]

I can personally testify that Filipinos who did it illegally and then later got amnesty hang out perfectly normally with their friends and family that did it by the book, and no one even thinks about it.

Illegal immigrants are like congressmen. People hate them in the abstract but generally seem to make an exception for the ones they know personally.

[apedad]

You mean like Republicans and their LGBT family members?

[ducksalad]

Exactly like that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Family DOES trump ideology for normal people.

[apedad]

. . . until it doesn't.

New Study Finds Half of LGBTQ+ Are Estranged From Family

It found that nearly half of LGBTQ+ young adults are estranged from at least one family member, and one-third are “not confident” that their parent/guardian would accept them if they came out.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brothers-sisters-strangers/202310/new-study-finds-half-of-lgbtq-are-estranged-from-family?msockid=377e9d52d77962c60da488d3d678630f

[Brett Bellmore]

Estrangement can happen on either side, so I wonder who's driving it in those cases?

[shawn_dude]

Since the topic is LGBT family members, the estrangement is *always* the fault of the family members who cannot accept their LGBT relatives. It doesn't matter if the parents refuse contact or the LGBT individual refuses the contact. No one wants to go to Thanksgiving and be lectured to about "groomers" and told their marriage should be illegal. It's not healthy to continuously subject oneself to that kind of abuse; at some point the individual just needs to avoid it and that means cutting off contact until the family comes around.

For those in the know, there's an entire tradition in the LGBT community of "family of choice," which is specifically the method by which we deal with these kinds of estrangement issues.

It doesn't matter if the battered wife leaves the husband or he throws her out; the culpability assigns to the abuser.

[Brett Bellmore]

LOL! Are you perhaps a parody account?

[Frank Drackman]

So a 1/2 Asian VPOTUS couldn't even get 1/2 the Asian Vote, just goes to show those Asians are some smart (redacted)

[DixieTune]

Devine thoroughly discredits the arguments against Trump for the pardons.

https://nypost.com/2025/01/26/opinion/trump-is-righting-the-biden-dojs-wrongs-with-pardons-for-jan-6-capitol-riot-defendants/

[Michael Ejercito]

Uneven justice
Even if you think they got off lightly, there has to be equal justice, and the lenient treatment of the Antifa-BLM rioters of 2020 suggests J6ers were unfairly treated.

Among the few convictions, the longest prison sentence was 10 years for Montez Terriel Lee Jr. who set fire to a Minneapolis pawn shop and caused the death of a man trapped inside.

John Earle Sullivan was sentenced to six months in jail for assaulting police during a different riot in Washington, DC.

The riot at Lafayette Park in front of the White House in June 2020 was as much an assault on democracy as the J6 riot since it was so violent that President Trump had to be moved to an underground bunker.

The White House is as much a symbol of American democracy as the Capitol.

About 150 law-enforcement officers were injured, and the historic St. John’s Church was set alight.

456
What do you think? Post a comment.

But only a few Lafayette Park rioters wound up in federal court and their sentences were nothing compared to J6. Taylor Taranto got 60 days in prison for assault on a federal officer. Ruben Camacho got 364 days.

The conclusion is that the system is rigged against Trump supporters.

For Trump, it’s personal because he suffered from the same lawfare by the same people, with the same lies.

But in the end, the election turned the injustice on its head.

[Commenter_XY]

What is done, is now done. It isn't changing. Although some of the commutations might now become full pardons, in response to intemperate DC judges and their conditions.

[SRG2]

If you think that the object of the crime doesn't matter, you have a point. If you think it does, then you don't.

[DixieTune]

Nobody buys the insurrection argument anymore. They weren't trying to undermine the government or change the result. They were rioting over a result they didn't like.

It's no different than the L.A. riots in response to the Rodney King cops being acquitted.

[Z Crazy]

And what about those rioters at the White House?

They attacked Secret Service agents and actually burned down a building on White House grounds.

What other purpose did they have other than trying to murder the President of the United States?

[Brett Bellmore]

"They attacked Secret Service agents and actually burned down a building on White House grounds."

What, a yard shed? I agree they were pretty violent, and they did set fire to a church, but it hardly burned down, and wasn't on the White House grounds in the first place.

[hobie]

The riot wasn't an insurrection. The lawyers, congressmen and fake electors was the insurrection. But you know this

[tylertusta]

I'm not a fan of pardoning people who injured police officers, but the due process violations involved in nearly all of the J6 cases required some level of action from the President. Pardons for non-violent offenders at the minimum was warrants. I'm grateful that they finally received their reprieve, but they never should have been put through that to begin with.

That the national press, Democrats (but I repeat myself), and their allies in Congress allowed the farce to go on like they did is a disgrace and an indictment of their character.

[David Nieporent]

What due process violtions?

[tylertusta]

It's impossible to get a fair jury trial in DC as a J6 defendant.

[David Nieporent]

Oh, so you were just talking about vibes, not actual law. Gotcha.

[tylertusta]

What I provide is no different than what you do on any given day, David.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This is in fact an absolutely terrible defense, even if you accept it’s premises and characterizations on their own terms.

There are three main arguments being advanced, none of which (collectively or together) justify the pardons.

Argument 1: The government devoted more resources to investigating and prosecuting the January 6 rioters than it should have in light of other, more urgent public safety concerns. But even if those resources were allocated poorly, that’s not a reason to cancel out their effect.

Argument 2: The January 6 rioters were treated more harshly than other rioters to whom Democrats were more ideologically sympathetic. But the fact that some criminals were treated with inappropriate leniency isn’t a reason to be inappropriately lenient to others.

Argument 3: Some individual people were actually treated unfairly and unjustly. That would be a reason to pardon those people (the piece only actually identifies one). But it doesn’t justify pardoning everyone, and indeed it seems to concede that a number of the people did actually commit serious crimes worthy of punishment, without even attempting to explain why those people warrant clemency.

So no, it doesn’t discredit anything, thoroughly or otherwise. And if that’s the best defense on offer, things look pretty bad.

[tylertusta]

Argument 2: The January 6 rioters were treated more harshly than other rioters to whom Democrats were more ideologically sympathetic. But the fact that some criminals were treated with inappropriate leniency isn’t a reason to be inappropriately lenient to others.

Isn't this how it works for claims of selective prosecution? Isn't the remedy for selective prosecution to have the case tossed even if you're guilty as hell?

[David Nieporent]

In theory, that would be how it would work for claims of selective prosecution; in practice, it does not, because there are essentially no successful claims of selective prosecution.

To win such a case, it's not sufficient to show that the government prosecuted A but not B. You have to show that A and B were essentially identical. That's virtually never the case. The crimes, the victims, the perpetrators, the quality and quantity of evidence, the resources the prosecution would take, etc. Any of those being different is enough to defeat such a claim. Even if MAGA pretends to think that looting a 7/11 in Wisconsin is just as bad as attacking the Capitol to install a defeated president, the factual differences are sufficient for courts to reject any attempt to compare them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, you're describing how it works to get a judge to rule selective prosecution. Obviously it works differently to get a President to rule selective prosecution.

[David Nieporent]

I'm actually describing what selective prosecution is. If the president wants to just reward his buddies, he has that authority — but don't pretend that's about selective prosecution.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, you're not. What "selective prosecution" is, is prosecuting Bob because you dislike him, and not prosecuting Frank because you do like him.

What you described is what judges demand before they'll admit selective prosecution happened, or is legally relevant, not what it IS.

[Noscitur a sociis]

“Selective prosecution” is a legal term of art that refers to a forbidden practice that has a much narrower definition than what you’re describing. What you’re describing could colloquially be described as a prosecution that is selective, in that one person is being selected for prosecution while another isn’t, but that is in and of itself neither improper nor a basis for pardoning Bob.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, the legal community has narrowed the legal definition of it to the point where it essentially has no application in courts.

Meanwhile Presidents are perfectly free to employ the layman's definition in granting pardons, no matter how much this annoys lawyers.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I agree that Trump was allowed to issue these pardons, even though few or none of the recipients had a legal basis to have their convictions overturned. But “some other guy in a different part of the country at a different time did something different that is worse and didn’t get prosecuted” (or worse, “didnt get prosecuted as harshly as they should have”) isn’t a very good reason to pardon someone. And if that’s the best defense you’ve got, you don’t have much.

[tylertusta]

And if that’s the best defense you’ve got, you don’t have much.

Unless it's a Presidential election and the guy who is elected thinks it's a damned good defense.

Then it's all that matters.

[DixieTune]

It absolutely is a proper basis for pardoning Bob, if you're going to pretend that "equal protection of the law" actually means something.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Isn't this how it works for claims of selective prosecution?

Not really, no. A selective prosecution claim requires an individualized demonstration that specific individuals weren’t prosecuted and that the forbidden factor is the only reason, an analysis that the piece doesn’t even attempt. This recent case might be instructive in explaining further.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/07/18/24-932.pdf

[not guilty]

"Selective prosecution," or more precisely vacuous claims thereof, is a bugbear that the MAGA cult has latched onto in order to shift discussion away from their Dear Leader's criminality.

A selective-prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution. The standard is a demanding one. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 463 (1996). A decision to prosecute may not be deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification, including the exercise of protected statutory and constitutional rights. Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 608 (1985).

In order to prove a selective-prosecution claim, the claimant must demonstrate that the prosecutorial policy had a discriminatory effect and was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. For example, to establish a discriminatory effect in a race case, the claimant must show that similarly situated individuals of a different race were not prosecuted. Armstrong, at 465.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has defined a "similarly situated" person for selective prosecution purposes as one who engaged in the same type of conduct, which means that the comparator committed the same basic crime in substantially the same manner as the defendant — so that any prosecution of that individual would have the same deterrence value and would be related in the same way to the Government's enforcement priorities and enforcement plan — and against whom the evidence was as strong or stronger than that against the defendant. United States v. Smith, 231 F.3d 800, 810 (11th Cir. 2000). The defendant must prove his claim by "clear and convincing" evidence. Id., at 808.

I am unaware of anyone not named Yick Wo who has successfully obtained relief from a criminal conviction based on a selective prosecution claim.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I am unaware of anyone not named Yick Wo who has successfully obtained relief from a criminal conviction based on a selective prosecution claim.

The case I linked to above cites U.S. v. Steele, 461 F.2d 1148 (9th Cir. 1972).

[not guilty]

Thank you for the citation. I suspect that the census matter being a petty offense for which the penalty imposed was merely a $50 fine may have been important there.

[Kazinski]

Why do we even care about the arguments anymore?

He ran on doing it, he did it, its done.

Certainly it can inform your vote for the next election, but I'm not still fixating on Biden's pardons of his family, especially since I don't expect to ever see any of them on the ballot. Although I would like to see an investigation to make sure those that supplied the funds to the Biden family didn't derive any benefits from the US government as a result.

[tylertusta]

Some people just want to clutch on those pearls.

Even if we are to assume that the J6 defendants were trying to overthrow the government (something I do not agree with), this isn't even the first time someone was pardoned for doing just that.

[Martinned2]

It looks like in Congress it's still very much an approach of "religious liberty for me but not for thee": https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hres59/BILLS-119hres59ih.pdf

[Commenter_XY]

Let me know when they close the National Cathedral.

[David Nieporent]

There was a lot of online MAGA talk about how they could let this woman be in charge there — apparently from people not smart enough to realize that it's a private institution, not a government one.

[Frank Drackman]

and a failing one, the Hispanic Catholic Church in a former Bowling Alley (40 lanes, no waiting!) down the street from my McMansion has more Worshipers for their Wednesday Night Mass & Macarena Contest than the National Cathedral ever.

[bernard11]

She is accused of, among other things:

[using] her position inappropriately, promoting political bias instead of advocating the full counsel of biblical teaching

Imagine the uproar if she had compared Trump's policies explicitly to "the full counsel of biblical teaching." The GOP would have tried to lynch her.

[Michael Ejercito]

How so?

[Krayt]

Jesus: "Mexicans, get the hell out!"

It only goes downhill from there.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A couple Trump-related things.

[1] The removal of Secret Service protections from various people is not only petty baby-ish bullshit but it's dangerous. You do not get such protection for no reason. For instance:

President Donald Trump has revoked government security protection for former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his top aide, Brian Hook, who have faced threats from Iran since they took hard-line stances on the Islamic Republic during Trump’s first administration.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-pompeo-hook-iran-security-protections-987ca371756f48028ebd34ca7111f1c5

[2] We should be wary about giving Trump too little credit for knowing the rules. It is a somewhat safe bet he doesn't know or care to go about understanding a lot of things. But, he both has some responsibility for knowing and does know some things.

This came up in the discussion about firing the inspectors general without notifying Congress. Some just assumed he had no idea about the requirement. That's quite possible.

It is also very possible that he sent a message that he wanted people gone & didn't care about the rules. Get rid of those troublesome priests.

Someone who swore (even if he didn't touch the Bible while doing so) to faithfully uphold the law has some responsibility here when he sends a message to ignore it.

[Ska]

I'd bet part of it is the private sector background vs. the public sector background. Ask for forgiveness and not permission; I think that philosophy flies in the private sector in ways that it can't in the public sector.

[ducksalad]

I was surprised to find that private citizens like Pompeo, Hook, and Bolton had federal protection to begin with. And while of course Trump's motivations are petty and vindictive, I have to say it couldn't have happened to a better set of guys.

[David Nieporent]

Regardless of what you think about them, it's a bad thing if present or former government officials are killed (especially by foreign terrorists) because of their government service.

[Commenter_XY]

Or kidnapped and tortured to death for the info they might have = Pompeo.

They'll simply have to spend their own millions protecting themselves against some vague, non-specific and undefined threat.

[grb]

I think the reason they had protection is because of some unvague, very-specific well-defined threat. With both Pompeo and Bolton, I think it's from Iran

[David Nieporent]

Indeed. We don't give former officials protection because we think that some foreigners hate them; we give former officials protection when we think there's a specific, credible threat. Obviously none of us are privy to the intelligence they have, but people who have seen it seem to be worried about it.

(With Fauci, of course, it's Trump's own supporters, riled up by Trump, who are the primary threat.)

[ducksalad]

Whatever. I'm more impressed by Iranian assassination plots in the US if:

1. None of conspirators were receiving money from the FBI. But if that's too big an ask, how about:

2. OK there were FBI payees involved, but it's undisputed that they had zero role in suggesting the assassination. Still too hard? How about:

3. OK the FBI payees kind of pushed a little, but the alleged Iranian-American mastermind had no history of mental illness. Still asking too much? Then

4. How about the alleged targets aren't people who routinely milk the idea that Iranians are attacking America to build a case for war, and grift off the idea that Iran is targeting them personally.

[David Nieporent]

I understand the skepticism when the DOJ arrests some people for a plot they've supposedly uncovered. It could be some ambitious FBI agent or US Attorney hyping up something trivial or something manufactured by them. But that's nothing like this situation. Who does it benefit to announce that intelligence suggests a potential threat against Pompeo? Big Secret Service?

[ducksalad]

For one it benefits Pompeo, who may believe he gains status by pretending to be so important the Iranians want to kill him and showing up at meetings with a security entourage. In reality he's a has-been who humiliated himself kissing up to Trump, got tossed despite repeating all the lies he was supposed to, and now makes his living on the second-tier think-tank circuit.

The homeland security establishment benefits in general from a perception that we're constantly on the verge of being attacked on US soil by the usual villain states.

But I guess I'll be reasonable and say it's probably not TOTALLY made up. The usual mix of weak evidence plus an abundance of caution plus a desire to find something juicy to justify your existence.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So you think Pompey convinced the FBI to have its informants gin up an assassiantion plot against himself?

If that’s the reason Trump pulled his protective detail, I’d certainly like to know more!

[ducksalad]

That's just a tiny bit of exaggeration of what I said, which to rephrase was weak evidence amplified by a lot of just-in-case thinking by people already strongly predisposed to finding a plot.

And no, I don't think Pompeo ginned it up. I do suspect he very much approved of the finding and basks a bit in the glory. Why? Because he doesn't act like someone under serious threat of assassination: a person like him who has zero value to contribute has no civic duty to expose himself to danger by shamelessly seeking publicity and grasping at relevance. Much less to do it at taxpayer expense. He could just stay home and enjoy BBQ and football.

Did I forget to mention I don't like him?

[David Nieporent]

For one it benefits Pompeo

Except it's the Biden administration, not Pompeo, who came up with this. Why would they want to help Pompeo in the way you describe?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You are another whose stupidity should not have to be tolerated.

Pompeo and Bolton received death threats for their actions as government officials in supporting Trump's administration and Trump's orders. The threat is ongoing, which is why they were continuing to receive that protection.

Trump removed it because he is a vengeful piece of shit just like his supporters.

It shouldn't be their private responsibility to manage the fallout of their service in government.

If anything happens to either of them, Trump should lose his protection immediately. After all, he can just spend his own millions protecting himself against some vague, non-specific and undefined threat. Right?

Oh, right. That's only for people you don't like because you are a terrible human being.

[SRG2]

From Rabbi Natan Slifkin's FB page:

TEN UNIQUE ASPECTS OF THE PALESTINIANS
1. Even though they are ethnically identical to Levantine Arabs in surrounding countries, they are considered to require a different nationality.
2. They are universally discouraged from seeking full political rights and political independence in their historic homeland except in those parts currently controlled by Israel.
3. Even if their ancestors are among the tens to hundreds of thousands who immigrated to Palestine from Egypt and elsewhere in the 19th and early 20th centuries, they are considered indigenous Palestinians.
4. Even though their relatives enjoy full rights in Israel, they are described as the subject of racially-motivated apartheid (as opposed to discrimination on the basis of being non-citizens, as in every country).
5. When they are harmed or killed as collateral effects of war, they gain more international sympathy than any other group that is harmed or killed as collateral effects of war.
6. To the extent that they receive international sympathy for their deaths, suffering or lack of rights, this is entirely conditional upon the deaths, suffering or lack of rights being caused by Jews.
7. With Palestinian refugees, unlike all other refugees, there is no attempt to have them resettled in other countries, even those that have an ethnically identical population and even those that are part of historic Palestine.
8. The descendants of refugees who fled from Palestine, unlike the descendants of every other group of refugees in the world, are also rated as refugees.
9. If their leadership choose war over compromise, and then lose, people want to endlessly give them another chance - to make the same choice.
10. Unlike any other people caught up in a war zone, they are not allowed to seek refuge in another country, no matter how much they want it.

[Frank Drackman]

Who are you, David Letterman?
Top 10 Bad Things about Living Next to Palestinians
#10: They will occasionally murder thousands of your neighbors.
#9: Their 4am Training Sessions for the "Kill the Israeli Olympians" Event at the 2028 Summer Games
#8: When the wind blows 72 smelly Keffiyehs into your pool
#7: Annoying requests to borrow a "Kilo or 2 of Semtex"
.....

Frank

[ducksalad]

Unfortunately I need to ask you: are you quoting Slifkin because you agree or because you're appalled?

Some other people I thought were reasonable have disappointed me today.

[SRG2]

As I comment before, i mostly agree. Noting the egregious double standards wrt Palestinians is not of course any defence to any excesses of Israeli past or present treatment of Palestinians.

[Ridgeway]

You had been holding out hope that RedheadedPharoh [sic] was not a holocaust denier?

[RedheadedPharoh]

I don't deny the Holocaust happened, I just deny that it happened the way it's been described.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Like the part where people think the Nazis did something bad?

[SRG2]

Re:
#1.- not strictly true as Levantine Arabs aren't a homogenous group
#2. True
#3. True
#4. In practice there is discrimination. However, they have and exercise the right to vote in Israel, unlike anywhere else in the ME
#5. True
#6. Inaptly worded. "Palestinians only get sympathy for their suffering when it's caused by Israel" is the intent, and it's largely true.
#7. Mostly true.
#8. Thanks to the dishonest UNRWA definition.
#9. This is very true and there's a related issue, which is that the Palestinians, I think, believe that because they've lost so much they should not settle for any offer equal to that they've already rejected.
#10. True - and people don't ask the question, why don't the Egyptians take in Palestinian refugees, and why doesn't Jordan take in fellow Palestinians? (Jordan was after all a major part of Palestine.)

[ducksalad]

Even #1 and #2 true, what is his point in bringing it up? I'm surprised you are willing to countenance the idea that people should be assigned a "historic homeland" that need to be encouraged to go back to if they want to seek political rights. How does Slifkin feel when British anti-semites make such suggestions about him?

#3. Digging deeper into the hole of categorizing people by stuff that happened long before they were born.

#4. About 200,000 people of Palestinian descent have become naturalized citizens of Lebanon, compared to about 400,000 living as non-citizens. That fraction is comparable to Israel+WB+Gaza.

#5. Exaggeration, and in the US false. When lots of Sudanese die, Americans don't care. When lots of Palestinians die, about half of American applaud.

#7. Again this idea that people rightly belong someplace they've never lived based on someone else looking at their genetics.

#10. The question is asked ad nauseum, and often by people who aren't real keen on refugees in general.

[shawn_dude]

How does he fit the settler warfare in the West Bank into this framework? Israeli Jews going into Palestinian villages and using violence to force them out of their homes and off their farmland?

#5 : they're an occupied people. Israel controls their borders, imports, exports, energy, everything. When you occupy an area, you are responsible for it.

#6 : Interesting that he says "caused by Jews" and not "caused by Israelis." American Jews didn't cause that. British Jews didn't cause that, either. And not all Israeli's are Jews, which he admits in #4. I write this off to some folks pretending to hear "Jew" whenever anyone criticizes the Israeli government as it makes for an easy claim of antisemitism to avoid engaging with the criticism directly.

[Moderation4ever]

It would be interesting to see what the Middle East would look like today had the Arab countries of the Middle East accepted the original Israeli state created in 1948. Israel would be half the size it is today, and Egypt and Jordan would control the Gaza and the West Bank.

[shawn_dude]

10 reasons why ethnic cleansing in Palestine is justifiable?!

[Krayt]

They do need their homeland, but not because Israel is mean to them. But because all the surrounding Muslim countries are mean to them.

I knew a Palesinian from a nearby country, a software guy, living safely in the US 40 years now, who can tell you how his and two nearby villages were "bulldozed back into the desert."

"Ya know what? Egypt should take them."

Egypt: Hell no!

Learn the wheels within wheels.

[Brett Bellmore]

The surrounding Muslim countries engineered the present situation, though. The Palestinians were their deniable weapon to continually harass Israel with, without actually going to war with Israel and getting their asses handed to them again.

They penned them up against Israel, (Remember, neither Gaza nor the West bank lack borders external to Israel, so Israel can't keep them contained by themselves.) and encouraged them to go nuts.

Well, now they're reconsidering whether it was really worth it having this feud with Israel, but the Palestinians are still nuts, and what to do with them? Nobody has a plausible answer.

[Sarcastr0]

I knew a Palesinian

Well that's all you need. Just make their decisions for them, then!

[SRG2]

To remember on this day:

My father's aunt Pauline: https://www.ushmm.org/online/hsv/person_view.php?PersonId=1755764

My mother's uncle Jacob:
https://www.ushmm.org/online/hsv/person_view.php?PersonId=5364621 (The is some confusion - one record suggests that he was on Convoy 73, which "disappeared" - executed in all probability - in Estonia).

[Commenter_XY]

May their memory be as a blessing to you.

[SRG2]

Thank you

[bernard11]

May I add three grandparents (one died before the Nazis came), and three men - my father's brothers - who would have been my uncles.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

At Middleton with Vera Farmiga and Andy Garcia is a charming film. Farmiga's younger sister (sizable age difference) plays her daughter here.

[Bob from Ohio]

Reason needs to check its Spam filters. Lots of Dutch spam today.

[Ska]

Is that like Vienna sausage?

[Mr. Bumble]

I prefer Vienna fingers.

[bernard11]

I don't know what that stuff is, but it's one of the worst-tasting things I've ever eaten.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're little smokies without the flavor.

[shawn_dude]

They're great for feeding pills to large dogs. Not suitable for human consumption.

[Commenter_XY]

We agree on that...vienaa sausage is nasty.

Dogs love it, but it is bad for them.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Dogs love it, but it is bad for them."
Why?

[Commenter_XY]

The nitrites.

[Mr. Bumble]

The poison is in the dose.

[hobie]

Afgazastan. Pull the fuck out and let the terrorists retake complete control in just a couple of days. Golf clap.

[hobie]

China's Deepseek AI is roiling American tech companies today. It has also been hypothesized that these new AI's can eventually break into blockchains. All your asset-backed hillbilly cryptocoins are about to be less than what they are: worthless

[SRG2]

"All your crypto are belong to us"

[Frank Drackman]

Do the Chickens have large Talons?

[SRG2]

A British cartoonist (and a truly brilliant one) - but the cartoon works here, I think: https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1ro5MA.img?w=800&h=435&q=60&m=2&f=jpg

[grb]

SRG2 : " .... but the cartoon works .... "

Here's a cartoon that sums-up much of mankind's history with great economy of means.

https://condenaststore.com/featured/an-army-lines-up-for-battle-paul-noth.html

[Frank Drackman]

Amurica did just fine without Departments of Ed-Jew-Ma-Cation/Energy for over 200 years, not sure why we need a National Pubic Radio or Pubic Broadcasting System, an entire Medical Clinic for the House/Senate and their Staff, US Geological Survey (I use "Google Earth"),
How about The "U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA)"????
Vitally important, right?
Wrong, it was abolished in 1999, did anyone notice?

Frank

[John F. Carr]

Bloomberg Law's admiring bio of Judge Coughenour, who blocked Trump's birthright citizenship order, reminds me of Josh Blackman's calls for "judicial courage."

Harley-Loving 83-Year-Old Judge Is Trump’s Latest Antagonist by Anna Edgerton

[shawn_dude]

No "courage" required for a judge to block an EO that violates the 14th amendment on its face.

Unless your point is that Trump might sic MAGA on the judge in the hope that threats will change their ruling?

[Riva]

Nope, the EO does not violate the 14th amendment on its face. Neither you, nor the judge apparently, has actually read the 14th amendment or Wong Kim Ark. There is a requirement of legal residence/domicile in the 14th amendment. The clause states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they RESIDE. And, consistent with this text, the issue in Wong Kim Ark was limited to whether the child of parents who had “a permanent domicile and residence in the United States” was a citizen at birth. Those were the agreed facts upon which the Court framed the issue and its holding. Tourists and illegals do not “reside” in any state. It is an administrative distortion of the law to accord their children citizenship. The EO corrects this.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I actually am pretty confident that Judge Coughenour has read the fourteenth amendment.

[Riva]

And Noscitur, it seems that you never read Wong Kim Ark either. As for the 14th amendment, you are content only to read part, and pretend the rest of the text doesn’t exist. Tourists and illegals do not reside in the US. They have no political allegiance to the US. And, as was the understanding in the US before Wong Kim Ark, and expressed directly in the Court’s holding, neither would their children.

[David Nieporent]

1) Illegals reside in the U.S.
2) Nothing in the 14th amendment says one word about needing to reside in the U.S. to be a citizen of the U.S.
3) They are required to have allegiance to the U.S.
4) There was never any such "understanding" in the U.S.
5) You're just a racist piece of shit lying about what the court said in Wong Kim Ark.

[Riva]

And Noscitur, given your predilection to ignore inconvenient text that doesn’t suit your preferred interpretation, I would suggest you think of a new alias.

[David Nieporent]

There is a requirement of legal residence/domicile in the 14th amendment.

The bot never updates its programming; it just repeats the same lies over and over and over and over again. There is not a single word in WKA that says this is a "requirement."

Tourists and illegals do not “reside” in any state.

That's not even a literate reading, for multiple reasons. The 14A doesn't say anything at all about having to reside in a state to be a citizen of the United States or to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It says that if you reside in a state, you are a citizen of that state. Not "if your parents resided in a state when you were born, you are a citizen of the United States."

Also, illegals in fact do reside in states.

Really, the 14A couldn't be much clearer. It sets two criteria:
1) Born in the U.S.
2) Subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Tourists and illegals are both 100% subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Not that it matters anyway, because the issue is whether the child is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., not whether the parents are.

[John F. Carr]

Volokh Conspirator Josh Blackman likes to call for "judicial courage," meaning willingness of judges to make conservative rulings that will draw criticism from liberals. I was pointing out that courage works both ways. The article tells a story of a judge who sticks to his principles making an order that will displease many conservatives.

[Riva]

I would prefer that a judge correctly and faithfully interprets the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. It is not “judicial courage” to distort the law for his own principle. It is idiotic and unethical.

[Riva]

And more significantly, it was in no way a demonstration of courage, judicial or otherwise, to reflexively and thoughtlessly rule for the leftist/Democrats in a leftist Democrat state, accompanied by the cheers of leftist/Democrats. It would have been courageous (and correct) to dismiss the litigation before him on standing grounds, or at the very least, not to enjoin a constitutional EO.

[Riva]

Whatever he was calling for, the judge gave him judicial ignorance.

[Dr. Ed 2]

WHAT trucker shortage?

A lot of truck drivers barely make minimum wage, and don't get overtime for the 60-hour week thew work.

There are three times the number of people with CDLs that would be needed to fill all driver vacancies, and most drivers quit the profession within a year.

[Moderation4ever]

I can't help but think that trucking is an industry that should be a prime target for self-driving vehicles. Robotic vehicles have no need for bathroom, chow, or sleep stops. The vehicles can just "keep on trucking".

[Brett Bellmore]

Long haul trucks often have sleeping accommodations, bathrooms, and so forth, so that a pair of drivers can switch off, and keep the truck moving. You might reasonably see single drivers taking advantage of this, only being on the clock for parts of the trip that actually need human intervention. Getting through construction zones, for instance.

[Moderation4ever]

That one way, I am thinking more operating like drones. The trucking company has a control room where one or two people oversee the operation of a fleet. AI controls the truck and AI assists the oversee crew to spot trucks that need a higher level of monitoring. These people can work eight hours shifts. When a truck needs more supervision or even direct operation the overseeing crew can shift the truck to a team of 4 dedicated operator for direct remote control, like in a construction zone or taking the truck into an urban area. As you described it a long-haul trucking firm needs 2 drivers per truck. In my scheme maybe 100 trucks could be operated 24/7 with crew of 6 operators per shift or 18 people. More than a 90% reduction in labor costs.

[SRG2]

And they are less likely to sideswipe me going along the Cross Bronx expressway, as happened about three months ago.

[Josh R]

It appears Trump is removing (deportations right after crossing the border don't count as removals) about 500 unauthorized people a day. That's about 180,000 per year.

Obama had 3 million in 8 years, or about 375,000 per year. Biden removed about 200,000 per year in fiscal 2023 and 2024 combined.

I think so far, we are seeing nothing new in removals, just those with other criminal convictions or deportation orders. Mass deportation that reaches beyond that is yet to come (if at all?)

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a start, but he'll have to keep ramping up if he's going to clean up the backlog Biden built up.

[Sarcastr0]

The point is that it's not a start.

[ducksalad]

Yup. What's new isn't the numbers, it's the strutting, the smack talking, and the performative stuff.

Most notably the Prison Air flights on military planes, which is pure theater. People were getting deported to Colombia during every administration in this century; they got escorted to a normal airline flight, and then rode back on their own like normal passengers. What were they going to do, jump out of the plane? And of course Colombia wasn't into turning away normal American Airlines or Avianca flights, as opposed to foreign military sent specifically to further a US domestic narrative that Colombians are dangerous criminals.

[Life of Brian]

about 500 unauthorized people a day. That's about 180,000 per year.

This is a pretty aggressive extrapolation for a few days in, don't you think? Just yesterday (a Sunday!) there were 956 arrests and 554 detainers lodged.

[Life of Brian]

And today, 1179 arrests and 853 detainers lodged.

[Life of Brian]

Today ICE reports 969 arrests and 869 detainers lodged.

So for the last 3 days, 3094 arrests and 2276 detainers lodged -- about 1.7k per day.

Detainers probably won't sustain at these levels (at a quick glance Cato estimated 88k total illegals incarcerated in 2018), but it'll definitely be interesting to watch the trajectory on arrests over a longer time slice.

[Michael P]

I am reminded of the engineer who noted at his wedding reception that his family was twice as big as the day before -- and that on that growth rate, they would outnumber India in a month. It is awfully early to be making projections about trends.

[Josh R]

I made no projections. I am just observing that the current activity is likely limited to those who the public broadly supports should be deported.

[Krayt]

Any other president, 100 day "honeymoon". This one?

"It's been a few days, he's not doing anything!"

Meanwhile, from the other side of the same mouth, "Look at all the shit he's doing!!!"

[Sarcastr0]

Have you heard anyone saying ""It's been a few days, he's not doing anything?"

Plenty of pointing out that what he is doing hasn't been as effective as he says it is, but that's not the same thing.

[ducksalad]

Well, he has utterly failed on Ukraine and the price of eggs.

[Mr. Bumble]

Re eggs:
Don't know where you live but this is part of the problem:
Arizona prohibited the production and sale of eggs from caged hens, joining nine other states in protecting egg-laying hens at the state level: Utah, Colorado, Michigan, Washington, Oregon, California, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Nevada.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure makes me glad I have a flock of chickens. The price has gotten so high even with the price of feed they've become economical.

But mainly I'm glad that my supply is reliable.

[ducksalad]

We have no more flock. Dogs kept getting onto our property and killing them, sometimes one dog would wipe out half a dozen in one session.

We didn't want to keep them cooped up, mainly because it's not nice for the chickens, but also because we have to buy feed (free range over one acre they didn't need any supplement) and because a close coop stinks in the heat.

Maybe if it gets over $10/dozen I can talk my wife into trying again.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounds like part of your problem was free range dogs.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ours live in the "Bruno memorial chicken fortress", built in honor of my son's silkie that got taken by an owl. It's very airy, but totally enclosed.

[ducksalad]

Thanks (really) for the interesting information.

Nevertheless, Trump should have thought of that before making the promise and giving himself a deadline measured in hours. Fail!

[Commenter_XY]

It is day 7, Josh R. Let's see where we are June 30th, in terms of deportations daily. The daily deportation number will increase. 😉

[Life of Brian]

(deportations right after crossing the border don't count as removals) . . . Obama had 3 million in 8 years, or about 375,000 per year."

Just noticed when running down something else that the 3 million statistic includes border removals -- that's shown in Fig. 1 of your linked article as well as Fig. 2 in the official ICE report.

Interior removals over his 8 years were only about 1.25M, or ~160k/year.

[hobie]

We in the energy industry are thrilled with Trump hamstringing our biggest competition: renewables. But if you think we're gonna drill-baby-drill, think again. We've already comfortably tapped the Permian Basin, Pennsylvania and the Bakken and Ford shale plays. There's already plenty of reserves in all these for the next 100 years. Unless the price of oil skyrockets, with you rubes paying for it in truck gas, we ain't drilling a goddamn thing, thank you very much. Oil's currently at $73/barrel. It would have to nearly double before we even contemplate new exploration

There might be some wiggle room with LNG though. In 2022, when we had a sitdown meeting with Germany in the US Embassy in Berlin, where they were pleading for LNG, we had to tell them that every LNG future in America has already been bought out through 2028. We CAN produce more LNG for export, except we cannot because we have only five export terminals for LNG and they are booked solid. A new super terminal is being constructed in Plaquemines, LA but that one is going to take awhile.

So you hillbillies can drill-baby-drill in one hand and shit in the other, and see which one fills first

[Frank Drackman]

Only "Energy Industry" Hobie-Stank's involved in is "rebuilding" Used Vibrators, and closest thang to a Hill Billy in the Latest Erection was Sergeant Major Pepper Waltz, I'll admit though, you're the Expert in shitting in your hands.

[Moderation4ever]

The real bottom line on what you are saying is that oil prices are market driven. Environmental regulations have little impact because companies will not drill until the market gives them the price they want.

[Bwaaah]

You speak matter-of-factly about the future, which is telling. Your vision is a facsimile of the past, which is to say that you lack any creative view of the future.

I don't know where you are in the "energy industry," but I'm quite sure you're not in the room when they're figuring out how to grow their earnings. (You sound like a "hillbilly" who went to college.)

[SRG2]

This article by an ex MAGA accords with much of what I've seen here and elsewhere.

https://www.salon.com/2025/01/26/magas-true-believers-dont-understand-capitalism--will-teach-them-a-hard-lesson/

With due respect to the many Americans who voted for Donald Trump, their overwhelming sense of entitlement dwarfs that of the hard-working immigrants who cut their grass, scrub pots and pans in the restaurants they frequent, and care for their kids and elderly loved ones. Too many Americans have come to believe they are owed financial comfort and material abundance, not to mention eggs and gasoline at predictable prices.

[RedheadedPharoh]

We must import a lower-class of Brown people to do our menial labor!

lol nice

[Life of Brian]

Ah, Salon. I'll probably never get back the brain cells I lost wading through that wandering screed, but a pair of serious if rather rhetorical questions:

1. How did the work "Americans won't do" get done before mass importation of "hard-working immigrants"?
2. At what approximate point does a "hard-working immigrant" morph into an American that "won't do" the work any longer?

We're both plenty old enough to know the answer to #1 from first-hand experience.

I get the sense we're supposed to indulge in the polite fiction that #2 just doesn't happen, but of course it would have had to with prior generations of ("we're all") immigrants to get to the state of play we're being asked to believe in #1.

[SRG2]

How did the work "Americans won't do" get done before mass importation of "hard-working immigrants"?

Done by slaves, recent immigrants, and an overall different economic structure involving more low- no-skilled labour - and then exepctations changed. Conceivably, wages of such labour did not keep up with overall wage growth, but I'd have to check and I can't be arsed to.

[Life of Brian]

I'm skipping "slaves" as an unserious response since that's about 100 years too early for this discussion. Similarly, "recent immigrants" isn't responsive to a question of who did the work 'before mass importation of "hard-working immigrants'."

and an overall different economic structure involving more low- no-skilled labour

If I'm reading the polarity correctly, this seems backwards: if today's work involves less low/no-skilled labor than before the immigration surge, there should be a greater willingness for Americans to do it and the surge would have been unnecessary.

Conceivably, wages of such labour did not keep up with overall wage growth

Conceivably indeed. The swallowed end to the sentence has always been "jobs that Americans won't do [for the sub-market, often under-the-table wages paid to illegal immigrants]." And the current Team Blue strategy of advocating to keep a steady supply of that underclass streaming into the country while simultaneously advocating for sharp increases in the [legal] minimum wage just guarantees the problem will get worse.

[David Nieporent]

Um, by definition the wages paid are not "sub-market."

[Life of Brian]

Really solid contribution to the discourse as always. How would you prefer to refer to wages that are artificially depressed due to a market distortion?

[David Nieporent]

I wouldn't, because they're not artificially depressed; that's their natural level. The actual "market distortion" is the ban on immigrants freely coming here and working.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who is banning legal immigrants?

[Life of Brian]

The actual "market distortion" is the ban on immigrants freely coming here and working.

You can try to twist it around any way you like, but the fact of the matter is your supposed "distortion" is the system of things the legal citizens and law-abiding employers of this country have to operate under (see above re minimum wage; see also safety standards, employee rights, etc. etc. etc.)

If employers were not able to take those kinds of shortcuts with illegal immigrants, the demand for them would not exist. Just like it generally didn't exist before the 70s/80s -- certainly not in the trades that they've pretty much engulfed these days.

[David Nieporent]

If employers were not able to take those kinds of shortcuts with illegal immigrants,

If there were no restrictions on employing illegal immigrants, then employers would not be able to take those kinds of shortcuts with them.
​
​
(Note that the laws you mention do apply to illegal immigrants too.)

[Life of Brian]

If there were no restrictions on employing illegal immigrants, then employers would not be able to take those kinds of shortcuts with them.

Exactly -- and thus, the part you accidentally crop-quoted out: "the demand for them would not exist."

(Note that the laws you mention do apply to illegal immigrants too.)

And? I'm really not sure what point you think you're getting at by saying "laws exist, yo" when you just acknowledged the employer is breaking the law just by hiring them in the first place.

[John F. Carr]

Ordering immigration law enforcement in sanctuary cities is both a First Amendment violation and illegal under the Administrative Procedure Act, according to a lawsuit filed today in federal court in Chicago. The court will decide later this week whether to order a halt to immigration raids "for the unlawful purpose of targeting and ultimately destroying the Sanctuary City Movement."

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69577670/organized-communities-against-deportations-v-donald-trump/

Plaintiffs make much of the fact that Chicago's sanctuary city policy is legal, they walk around with golden halos around their heads, and Trump has said bad things about sanctuary cities.

The case has been assigned to Judge John F. Kness. According to Wikipedia he is an occasional Federalist Society member appointed to the bench by Donald Trump. Luck of the draw.

[David Nieporent]

The case has been assigned to Judge John F. Kness. According to Wikipedia he is an occasional Federalist Society member appointed to the bench by Donald Trump. Luck of the draw.

They could've drawn Stephen Reinhardt (if he were a district judge and not dead) and wouldn't be able to win an "It's unconstitutional to arrest illegal immigrants because that will chill our organizations' speech" argument.

[shawn_dude]

From a federalism perspective, the Federal government cannot shift the cost of immigration enforcement onto smaller local community budgets which are needed for other things. That, and the need to avoid carving out a population of residents as outside of police protections make up the core of "Sanctuary City" status.

I'll be interested in EV's take on the first amendment claims here.

Edit: and I think if the Feds are performing legally appropriate police actions on their own funds it doesn't matter if the secondary effect is to destroy "a movement" that is opposed to immigration enforcement. IANAL but I don't see a 1A issue here.

[Michael Ejercito]

I am old enough tio remember when the advertised purpose of sanctuary cities was to have a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding victims of and witnesses to crimes against people.

It had always been about protecting violent criminals from being deported.

[SRG2]

The OMB link redirects to the main WH page. The OMB site seems to have vanished - it's not merely a 404 not found

https://www.usa.gov/agencies/office-of-management-and-budget

I'm sure it's just being redone, but amusing nonetheless.

[shawn_dude]

Just prepping for the next round of tax cuts for the rich, most likely.

[Krayt]

I wish politicians would bravely cut spending instead of just bravely raising taxes.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Someone noted that they didn't think Trump campaigned specifically to fire inspectors general without notifying Congress as if we should pinprick things that narrowly.

The bottom line is that few (unless they wish to be) should be surprised he did it given his overall mentality, previous actions, and the tenor of his and his supporters' messaging.

Is there any good reason to think Trump was going to carefully cross the is and dot the t s while cleaning shop of those he thinks are his enemies or is too much cramping his style?

We saw this last time too. People liked the idea that the normal rules wouldn't apply to him. Then, when people point out he doesn't follow the rules, his supporters (or people dislike his opponents more than they oppose him) get all upset & try to find a reason to show he should be considered to have a presumption of regularity. At some point, how stupid do you think we are?

(that's a rhetorical question)

[Noscitur a sociis]

The someone was me. And I said it in response to someone defending Trump by claiming that he was just executing his electoral mandate. While I don’t think the conduct is out of character, I don’t think it’s what he was elected to do either.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

What does "elected to do" mean?

The second reply seems quite copacetic to it & quite a few of his voters very well are supportive of that sort of thing. They "elected him to" ... act like who he is and stands for. And, this fits into that.

[DixieTune]

Maybe a lot of us don't like what America has become under the "normal rules" and want someone who will think and act outside the box.

[SRG2]

And we're back to the Weimar Republic again, LOL

While I don't think Trump is Hitler nor will he become a second Hitler, I do think that many Trump voters would have had few qualms in voting for Hitler in 1932/33 and I think Trump taps into the same vile energies.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Yes, Obama/Biden have definitely recreated Weimer with its inflation and degeneracy.

Time to clean house before we go all the way.

[santamonica811]

Did you not appreciate that, when Biden came in, almost all the conservative, and liberal, and MAGA, and non-partisan economists were warning of a coming recession, and possibly even a depression? Doesn't it matter at all that Biden somehow lucked into (or made excellent decisions) that avoided this meltdown? That we had a better economy than 98% of the world?

Things went to shit under Trump One, and even if we want to blame Covid or all or most of that; it did happen under Trump's watch. You are comparing Biden's economy to a post-war Germany. What is your sense of the yearly inflation, for the 4 separate years under Prez. Biden??? (Is it possible that you are confusing Biden with late-Carter and early-Reagan, where inflation was high and persistently high? If you think inflation was high under Obama, than you're either smoking crack and/or mentally retarded. Either way; historical facts probably are not going to matter to you.)

[Commenter_XY]

We did have a recession in 2022. It affected retirees and pre-retirees quite badly.

[SRG2]

We did have a recession in 2022.

We didn't. A recession requires two negative quarters of real GDP. We only had one. We did have a recession ahead of Covid:

2019-07-01 20843.322 1.17%
2019-10-01 20985.448 0.68%
2020-01-01 20693.238 -1.39%
2020-04-01 19056.617 -7.91%
2020-07-01 20548.793 7.83%
2020-10-01 20771.691 1.08%
2021-01-01 21058.379 1.38%
2021-04-01 21389.005 1.57%
2021-07-01 21571.421 0.85%
2021-10-01 21960.388 1.80%
2022-01-01 21903.850 -0.26%
2022-04-01 21919.222 0.07%
2022-07-01 22066.784 0.67%
2022-10-01 22249.459 0.83%
2023-01-01 22403.435 0.69%
2023-04-01 22539.418 0.61%
2023-07-01 22780.933 1.07%
2023-10-01 22960.600 0.79%
2024-01-01 23053.545 0.40%
2024-04-01 23223.906 0.74%
2024-07-01 23400.294 0.76%

Source: FRED

[Mr. Bumble]

Your comments are proof of the existence of alternate universes.

[Krayt]

"Even if you blame COVID..."

During the 2020 election, the Democrats ran one of the most insidious ad I ever saw, in the fall.

A black screen with low bass, like movies use to scare you, and "32 MILLION UNEMPLOYED".

This was the result of bipartisan shutdown of non-essential work.

I can't even describe how disgusting that is as rhetoric. Open the hood to see the cause, and these people are right there shoulder to shoulder.

[Sarcastr0]

Sounds bad!

I did a search for '"32 MILLION UNEMPLOYED" 2020 political ad' and couldn't find it. Do you recall who ran it?

[Krayt]

Nope! Probably some fine print at the end.

If it's any consolation, a month later they changed it to "40 MILLION UNEMPLOYED".

I mentioned it on another forum, it just keeps getting better. The response? "Well, had Hillary won, everything would be wrapped up already and people back to work!"

March: Everyone stops working (not me, I could WFH). By September, Hillary would have gotten COVID under control and sent everyone back to work.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.newsmax.com/us/connecticut-immigration-trump/2025/01/27/id/1196727/

Dear Red State Governors (attn: Gov Abbott)....pack up your illegal aliens and ship them by bus to CT. Do it without delay. The welcome mat is out in CT for illegal aliens. Indulge them.

[David Nieporent]

Um, it would be illegal for Texas to do that.

(And bizarre; if they knew who was illegal and were rounding them up, why wouldn't they turn them over to ICE?)

[Mr. Bumble]

Not much heard about Joe Biden over the past week. Has he entered hospice care already?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think he's far enough gone to need hospice yet. He's probably catching up on his naps and pudding cup deficit.

[Krayt]

Wish it were me.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd rather be fishing; That's my ambition for retirement: Build a trailerable mini-houseboat, and spend my weekends camping out on the lake and fishing. It's a twofer; I enjoy carpentry, too.

But I hear Trump may have other plans for Biden's retirement; He was just recently remarking on the hell and expensive legal bills Biden put him through, and what a mistake it might have been for Biden to not pardon himself, too, while he was at it.

[Voize of Reazon]

If Trump is talking about Presidents pardoning themselves it is because he wants to do it himself, just like all the baseless talk about being lawfared by Biden.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, when Republicans talk about stuff Democrats do, like giving their families unconditional pardons for unspecified crimes, it's because they want to do it themselves.

Not because the Democrats actually did it. [/sarc]

[Voize of Reazon]

Try to stay on topic, Brett. I'm talking about Trump, not "Republicans".

[apedad]

That's just Goalpost Brett doing his thing.

You kinda get used to it after awhile.

[Brett Bellmore]

Riiight, let's pretend that Trump isn't a Republican, even after they nominated him three times in a row.

[Voize of Reazon]

Brett, given how you go on about others putting words in your mouth I would expect you to be at least a little ashamed when you do it yourself.

My comment was about why Trump says stuff, not why all Republicans do.

I have never claimed everything Trump says is false. What I have said is that for him truth isn't a consideration, if what he says is true it is a coincidence.

Some things he says though are certainly untrue. When they involve the other guy doing some sordid thing his goal is to pave the way for him to do those things. Weaponizing the DoJ, for example. It didn't happen, but it will now.

[David Nieporent]

That argument — besides being a complete misinterpretation of what VoR said — is pretty rich, coming from a guy whose position is that everyone who Republicans have elected to office for the last 40 years is a RINO, and that Trump is the only real Republican.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, let me explain this:

I agree that, if you define "Republican" by what party politicians say they're a member of, rather than the positions they advance relative to the beliefs of actual Republicans, the concept of "Republican In Name Only" makes no sense at all, it's a logical contradiction, because Republicans in this sense are always and only Republicans In Name.

I judge "Republican" by the positions of the Republican party's base, not the party affiliation declared by Republican party elected officials, who frequently chose to advance policies contrary to the preferences of the base.

From that perspective, the idea of somebody being a Republican in name only, but not ideologically or functionally, makes perfect sense.

[David Nieporent]

If you claim to be a Republican but don't support any of the positions held by Republican officials, then maybe you're the Republican in Name Only.

[Frank Drackman]

His Brain went into hospice in 1987

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is an article from Jack Marshall.

https://ethicsalarms.com/2025/01/27/abuse-of-celebrity-selena-dumb-gomezs-virtue-signaling/

[Brett Bellmore]

Had a laugh over this. So true!

[ducksalad]

In the process of seeking confirmation, Tulsi Gabbard is walking back or even fully recanting the exact positions on the security state and foreign policy that made her interesting to libertarians and anti-interventionists.

All that's left is her trolling value, which seems to be the only point of half of Trump's nominations.

[Brett Bellmore]

I admit to not having followed the confirmation hearings. (I was probably busy watching a video on proper application of epoxy over plywood, or the two battery system for boat electronics.) Which positions were those?

[ducksalad]

The most notable reversal: she was a long term critic of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and secret courts in general, and Section 702 in particular. Now she's saying they're just fine.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Currently on the front page of Reddit:

"This is a stolen election and Trump is destroying the economy (canceling all loans and grants) so that people will take to the streets and he can declare martial law and keep it in place forever."

Where are the institutional democracy savers saving our Sacred Democracy????

Where'd they go??

[ThePublius]

Price of eggs...

All of a sudden Dems, in particular Liz Warren, are concerned about egg prices and want to know when Trump is going to do something about it.

Where were they for the last four years?

(data point: Trump has been president for 8 days.)

It's hard to take these people seriously.

[ducksalad]

Dishonest comment. You know perfectly well why "all of a sudden" people are noticing the price of eggs. Stop being disingenuous.

[ThePublius]

No, it's not disingenuous at all. Tell me when Warren complained about egg prices while Biden was in office. Maybe I missed it.

[ducksalad]

Your denial of disingenuity is itself disingenuous.

[ThePublius]

That's a pretty dopey comment, FYI.

I wonder if you even know what "disingenuous" means.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

He also called your comment dishonest, which tracks well with your record of being a lying sack of shit - caught in the act again recently, I might add.

Your own link below perfectly explains why he is being attacked over egg prices. Republicans spent the last four years blaming Biden over the price of groceries. Trump said he'd fix it 'immediately' over and over again.

It's past-time for you to sit down and shut the fuck up now.

[ThePublius]

First, you're wrong, and second, you're an insulting and vile person. Why can't you comment without attacking the person and using foul language rather than offering your view?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm not wrong.

Here's you lying:

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/01/24/friday-open-thread-4/?comments=true#comment-10887085

Are you going to deny that Trump said he'd bring down grocery prices?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/28/economy/trump-inflation-price-promises/index.html

You're a despicable liar.

[ThePublius]

So, Trump says he's going to do something about grocery prices starting on day one, and by day eight it hasn't happened, so that makes me a liar. Got it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Is 1 equal to 8?

You are a fucking liar. You said I was wrong; I was not. You lied here. You lied in the linked thread. You've lied previously.

The evidence is quite plain for everyone to see. You may go fuck yourself now, you subhuman piece of shit.

[ThePublius]

That's funny. As if you really expect anyone could lower the price of eggs in one day, and that's it's a failure if Trump didn't do it, and that somehow makes me a liar. And you have to heap vulgarity on it as well.

I, personally, am enjoying all the winning so far. I'm sorry you apparently are not.

You should really seek professional help for your anger and rage issues.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

So your argument isn't that you lied (which I've demonstrated that you did...so...),but rather than Trump lied, and you're too much of a retard to comprehend that 1 is not equal to 8?

That doesn't excuse your other lie which you were blatantly caught in, which you won't acknowledge because again, you're a subhuman piece of shit deserving of replacement.

Enjoy the winning while you can. You've demonstrated yourself and your movement to be an enemy of America.

In the end, the house always wins.

[ThePublius]

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2025/01/28/read-warren-moulton-mcgovern-sign-letter-to-trump-excoriating-him-over-egg-prices/

[Absaroka]

Her letter says:

"To make food more affordable, you should look to the dominant food and grocery companies that have made record profits on the backs of working families who have had to pay higher prices. These companies often exploit crises like pandemics and avian flu outbreaks as an opportunity to raise prices beyond what is needed to cover rising costs. For example, last year a Kroger executive admitted in federal court that the company raised the price of eggs and milk “significantly higher than the cost of inflation” in the years following the COVID-19 pandemic"

Well, that sounds pretty bad. Let's unpack it. First, her footnote for that claim is this article, which says:

"In the first week of the trial, the FTC produced an email from Andy Groff, Kroger’s senior director for pricing, showing that the grocery chain raised the prices of both eggs and milk “significantly higher than the cost of inflation.”

That cost increase is due in part to an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) that has killed tens of millions of birds since it began in 2022."

It's hardly surprising that culling millions of hens would cause price increases above the rate of inflation. But who knows, maybe they are gouging? How would we know? One clue would be profits.

NPR did the math and concludes:

"But for almost all companies that NPR analyzed, between 2018 and 2023 the margins either declined or grew less than 1%."

Farther down they graph grocery profit margins back to 2002. They were flat from 2004 to 2020, climbed til 2022, and have been flat since. You just can't milk criticism of Trump out of that data.

Trump's bizarre behavior is genuinely concerning. Warren should direct her efforts to some of those things. Blaming Trump for egg prices is a dog that won't hunt, and will discredit her criticism for things that matter.

[ThePublius]

And I didn't say "people," I said Dems. It's all over the news. Are you deaf or dumb, or blind or something?

[David Nieporent]

Hey, did you hear about the murderer (who had completed his sentence for murder) who Joe Biden pardoned for a drug crime? I'll bet you did.

Did you hear about the insurrectionist who Donald Trump pardoned, even though he's wanted for soliciting a minor for sex online? https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/28/us/politics/jan-6-rioter-minor-solicitation-pardon.html?smtyp=cur&smid=bsky-nytimes My guess is that you didn't.

[ThePublius]

I was aware of that, as I subscribe to the NY Times (and the Washington Post, WSJ, etc., despite people thinking I only consume right wing media). What confuses me is that none of the stories explains why it's illegal for him, as a 27 year old at the time, to solicit sex or whatever from a 17 year old, when the age of consent in Texas is 17. Is it the solicitation that's the crime?

In the end, he didn't do anything other than solicit. The guy Biden pardoned murdered a child and the child's mother to prevent them testifying in a case where he murdered someone else. So, and actual multiple murdered. Hardly equivalent.

[Moderation4ever]

I find the Trump administrations buy offer to employees an interesting approach. Businesses have used this approach to down size for years, but when it happens in the public sphere most conservatives frown on the practice. Thinking no public money for buy outs. My guess is that if you are within a year of retirement you grab it like a gift. If you are older mid-40s up you know there are no jobs to be had for you and you stay put no matter what. It will be interesting to see how younger employees handle the offer.

[Moderation4ever]

About a week ago I asked if anyone had used Direct File provided by the IRS. Well, the program is open for the 2024 and I looked into it and was very disappointed. The idea of a publicly available e-filing looked good; the IRS's program is so behind it is useless. It simple doesn't handle the forms most average people would use. The 1099-R form will not be out till March 2025 and there is no 1099-Div form to be had. I wonder how many people who would use IRS Direct File would also be able to use Free File with commercial software. Normally I am sympathetic to the IRS as I believe they catch the blame for Congress's mess up tax code, but I wonder if they are pursuing the idea of a IRS software code that is unrealistic. It seems well short of what is needed, and I suspect underfunded. It might just be cheaper to pay for more people to be able to use the commercial software. As for me I am back to fillable forms and filled with disappointment.