Wednesday Open Thread

Playing around with the post time (shifting to the start of the day to midday). "It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment."

Comments

[Noscitur a sociis]

Not to beat a dead Danny Kaye, but Jack Goldsmith has some interesting thoughts on Trump’s firing of the Inspector General.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/trump-fired-17-inspectors-general-was-it-legal

[Commenter_XY]

A pity the dismissed IGs missed the buyout package.

All I can say is that the first offer is usually the best offer. That is how it works in the real world. I'd encourage all Fed bureaucrats to accept the extremely generous offer and leave government service.

[santamonica811]

I have no problem with the buyout offer. (A few people on TV have concerns that Trump will somehow be able to cheat these people out of their payments. I doubt that, given the massive publicity the offer will have.) If you really want to get rid of federal workers, a legal carrot is better than a (probably) illegal stick.

And 8 months is a reasonable offer. Not for someone youngish, who actually loves her country and wants to serve it. But for someone within 8 months of retirement? Or someone who really really wants to be working elsewhere? Sure, why not try it?

(My recollection is that the federal workforce is about the same number as it was 40 or 50 years ago, although now having to serve a population much much much larger. I suspect that most federal workers are a lot more essential than far-right conservatives enjoy loudly proclaiming. I also think that states that support reducing the federal workforce should lose a great number (per capita) of said workers than states that actually value these federal employees. )

[Commenter_XY]

Let's test your proposition and find out = I suspect that most federal workers are a lot more essential than far-right conservatives enjoy loudly proclaiming.

They're as essential as the Twitter employees who got RIF'ed.

[Martinned2]

Given how much of a garbage fire Twitter has become, by Musk's own admission, it turned out they were pretty damn essential.

[Commenter_XY]

Seems to be profitable now. I wonder why. 🙂

[Martinned2]

Is it? That's not what Musk or the Twitter bondholders think. If it was profitable there wouldn't be a reason for the banks to take a massive bath on those loans.

[Commenter_XY]

Are you daft? Bondholders care about the coupon rate and bond payments, they are immune to valuation (X is not going bankrupt). Banks make loans at a set interest rate, they care about timely payment (not at issue with X).

Elon Musk could shut down X tomorrow, and it is a mere inconvenience to him, financially. I am sure Elon appreciates your concern for his financial well-being.

[Martinned2]

Bondholders care about the coupon rate and bond payments, they are immune to valuation (X is not going bankrupt).

Isn't it? Then why would bondholders sell their bonds/loans for less than 100 cents on the dollar? (Which is what they're currently in the process of doing.) In financial terms, the equity of Twitter is pretty worthless, which means that some the valuation risk lands on the bonds instead. Hence the valuation of the bonds at 90-95 cents.

https://www.inc.com/reuters/wall-street-banks-set-to-sell-3-billion-in-x-loans-sources-say/91139418

[Commenter_XY]

You really need to brush up on how bonds work. If you sell before maturity, par gets discounted. Where did you go to school?!

[bernard11]

You really need to brush up on how bonds work. If you sell before maturity, par gets discounted.

Utter nonsense. On the first day of Bonds 101 you learn that bond prices fluctuate, and may be more or less than par at any time.

Where did you go to school?

[myself]

Are you daft? Bondholders care about the coupon rate and bond payments, they are immune to valuation (X is not going bankrupt). Banks make loans at a set interest rate, they care about timely payment (not at issue with X).

And yet the bondholders are taking massive markdowns on the value of the bonds.

Tells me they think there's a non-trivial chance of X going bankrupt, and I tend to agree.

That infrastructure is expensive, as are the employees to run it, and the loan payments. Musk is scaring off users and advertisers. If BlueSky (or another alternative) keeps growing and becoming the defacto microblogging site then Twitter revenue plummets.

Say it requires a cash injection of $500m every year to pay all the bills, is Musk going to keep doing that indefinitely, especially if Tesla takes a dive at some point?

The odds of collecting the full value of the bond aren't great, and that's why they're selling at a loss.

[David Nieporent]

Seems to be profitable now. I wonder why.

It does not, in fact, seem to be profitable now; indeed, Musk is going around blaming the Jews for why it isn't.

[Joe_dallas]

As oppossed to the garbage twitter was before Musk bought it.

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter doesn't know how many federal employees, doesn't know what they do, doesn't care to learn.

Would like to speculate about how miserable Trump is making them.

Just inchoate hostility.

[Ed Grinberg]

I feel no hostility toward the cop on the corner. It doesn't bother me that my hard-earned money is going to pay his salary. However, if the city hires tons of people to do things that I find unnecessary (or that I actively oppose), you bet I'll feel "hostility" toward them...

[Sarcastr0]

You know, a lot of people are just saying 'unnecessary' or 'inessential' and not going into more detail.

This reminds me a bit of the activist left - they'll protest with great solidarity that the status quo is bad, but when you get down to ask them what's bad, they either can't agree, gesture at the bad guys 'the banks!!' or are just angry without any actual ideas.

[Mr. Bumble]

From the mouth of someone who is unnecessary and inessential.

[Commenter_XY]

The term is non-essential, and we heard that a lot 5 years ago.

The federal employees are being treated considerably better than a) they treated the American people, and b) have a pretty sweet buyout package that is exceptionally generous and rarely happens in private industry.

[Sarcastr0]

Your lazy ignorance yet drive to engage continues.

If you're angry at Covid, your issue is not with random federal employees.

[Riva]

A lot of gaslighting clowns omit the fact that the offer, by definition, is not extended to essential employees.

[Swede425]

Get rid of them.
Cut too deep?
Hire some back.
Government employees can be right-sized like anybody else.
The private sector manages it all the time.
They'll get over it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

A high percentage of federal employees cannot, in fact, be fired in the same way that they can in the private sector. And the fact that the administration is willing to spend this much money to try to get them to quit should suggest that they’re aware of it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"inchoate hostility"

His hostility actually seems pretty choate.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Twitter in fact suffered some significant technical problems after the takeover which appeared to be directly related by the people who knew how to fix them no longer working there.

And I’d expect Elon Musk to be much better at figuring out the consequences of removing an employee at Twitter than at, say, the VA.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I suspect that most federal workers are a lot more essential than far-right conservatives enjoy loudly proclaiming."

Perhaps they're essential for the things they're doing, but the things they're doing aren't essential?

[Sarcastr0]

Big border and deportation infrastructure.
Big regulations on public schools to ensure ideological balance.
Big regs of social media.
A very strong executive empowered to make all those unspecified cuts.

Point is, Brett has a vision for the government that's smaller, even if he mostly goes into details about using government authority to own the libs.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, we want the same thing. A federal government, strictly limited to enumerated powers.

Hey....that sounds familiar! 😉

[Sarcastr0]

LOL you don't want that.

You never talk about enumerated powers. You just talk numby go down.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, to get a fed gov of enumerated powers, it starts with less people in gov't. So yes, headcount reduction is a 'must have'.

As an example...Do we need a dept of education? We managed without it for 200+ years.

Do we need the SBA? We managed without it for 170+ years.

[David Nieporent]

Sarcastr0, to get a fed gov of enumerated powers, it starts with less people in gov't.

No, it doesn't. It ends with less people in government. It starts with eliminating the laws that those people implement. If you do it your, back-asswards way, all the requirements are still in place but there's nobody to administer them.

Maybe you don't think there should be (e.g.) federal meat inspections, or that the FDA should have to approve new drugs, or that the EPA should prevent people from building on wetlands. Whatever; those are policy choices. But if you fire meat inspectors, or FDA analysts, or EPA scientists, that doesn't eliminate the requirement that the food be inspected or the drugs be tested or that builders get permits. It just eliminates the people who can do those things, which makes it harder for people to get the necessary inspections/approvals/permits. You submit your application, and it takes twice as long for it to be approved because there are only half as many people to process the applications.

[Commenter_XY]

We have a difference of opinion, David.

[David Nieporent]

No. I suppose we could have a difference of opinion as to whether it's a good thing that it takes twice as long for one to get something one needs from the government, but nothing else I said is a matter of opinion.

[Noscitur a sociis]

As an example...Do we need a dept of education? We managed without it for 200+ years.

Do we need the SBA? We managed without it for 170+ years.

Do… do you think the way to eliminate the Department of Education is to fire some of the people who work there?

[David Nieporent]

I keep trying to explain that to him.

[Nelson]

You don’t want that. That would mean abortion, book bans, anti-porn crusades, and most of the rest of the culture war nonsense of the right would no longer be allowed and they wouldn’t be able to stop people from making their own moral and lifestyle decisions. Cultural conservatives absolutely would never accept that.

[Riva]

A Marxist would of course lie and contend that a free society needs government control, but we all know you’re not in any way a Marxist because you say you’re not. And you would never lie.

[Sarcastr0]

I think you didn't type the word Marxist enough. You should type Marxist more.

[Riva]

You’ll have to explain to me why you take such offense at the term Marxist? What is it about Marxists that you claim to dislike?

[Sarcastr0]

For most people, I like it when they use words to mean things.

But you're not most people.

Type Marxist more!

[Riva]

Can’t you honestly respond to anything? Almost like you’re afraid to admit something. Again, explain to me why you take such offense at the term Marxist? What is it about Marxists that you claim to dislike?

[Sarcastr0]

Your ratio of non-Marxist words to the word Marxist fell with that last post.

Dissapointing.

[Riva]

You do understand that you’ve basically answered the questions with your asinine evasions, don’t you? There is actually nothing about Marxism about which you disagree or dislike. But of course, you’re not in any way a Marxist because you said so once and you’re obviously not the lying or evasive type.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, I laid out the issues I had with Marxism to you and you said I was lying, so you continue to deliver some amusement by demanding I do it again.

But absolutely you should start calling me a Marxist over and over because I'm being so evasive of your Serious Posting.

[Riva]

Don’t actually recall when you “laid out the issues” you had with Marxists. Perhaps because you never did and you’re lying again? Correct me with the comment you posted if I’m wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/01/victims-of-communism-day-2024/?comments=true#comment-10543469

Here is a good discussion of my issues with Marx.

Careful, it's nuanced!

[Riva]

It’s not nuanced. It’s rambling and disordered and I have no intention of reading through an entire comment chain to try and distill some “nuance.” And it’s certainly NOT an exchange with me. So much for “I laid out the issues I had with Marxism to you…” In just a casual review, you seem to disagree with some but not all of Marxism carefully avoiding what you do support although suggesting in the word vomit that but there is a form of Maxism/socialism you favor but just don’t believe has been or can be implemented correctly in our present “capitalist” culture. Kinda like communists but let’s not get into that.

[Riva]

But I apologize, you're not a gaslighting clown. After this exchange, I would say you are a pseudo-intellectual gaslighting clown. My theory of you working in the field of education is becoming more plausible.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL.

As expected!

[Riva]

Yeah, hilarious. But, never expect an honest respnse from a gaslighting clown. Because of the gaslighting clown thing.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "Here is a good discussion of my issues with Marx."

I don't know why I waste my time reading your cites. In that one, you enumerate the ways in which you think Marx is *right*.

You rarely disappoint in being anything but disappointing. When you're not around, it gets less stupid around here.

[Sarcastr0]

"He was wrong much more than he was right" seems quite a thing to elide.

But also keep reading Bwaah:

"I concur with you that his post-Capitalism analysis was incredibly dumb, though no dumber than most of the social projections his contemporaries had.

But he was also quite willing to contemplate and even advocate for blood. Marx was a bad guy.

But not a dumb guy."

[Riva]

But don’t forget, Sarcastr0 is “nuanced.” A “nuanced” pseudo-intellectual gaslighting clown. And his nuances are self/declared, like Wile E. Coyote declared himself a “super genius” although I would say the coyote had more charisma.

[Bwaaah]

The "nuance" is not in his description of Marx, but in his inability to admit his affinity for Marxism. "I'm not really saying what I'm saying, even though you're reading what I'm saying and hearing something other than what I'm saying, which isn't what I'm saying but is quite what I mean."

I go with Elmer Fudd. "SHHhhhhhhh. I'm hunting wabbit."

[bernard11]

It doesn't really matter if what they are doing meets your definition of "essential." If their work is legally authorized then it's not up to Brett Bellmore to declare it non-essential, so we can dump them all.

I mean, you don't think we should have Social Security, so maybe your views are a touch extreme.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, no, obviously I'm not the one deciding they're not essential.

[bernard11]

Right. The difference between you and XY is that you want a lot of things axed. It doesn't matter how efficient or diligent a Social Security employee is, you want to get get rid of the program, which will involve them losing their job regardless.

I disagree, but it's consistent.

XY prefers to fire some fraction of SS employees, which leaves the program in place, just running very poorly. That's dumb.

[Mr. Bumble]

Now do the several thousand IRS employees who are tax deadbeats.

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

Except those agancies have usurped the police powers of the Statesso the workload is much more than it should be.

[Absaroka]

"My recollection is that the federal workforce is about the same number as it was 40 or 50 years ago, although now having to serve a population much much much larger."

Federal employees per capita has dropped a tiny bit (maybe) between 1975 and today. The 'maybe' is because I just grabbed a couple of rough numbers off these graphs; slightly different endpoints might tweak the numbers a tad:

Employees
Population

The numbers I grabbed gave a 1975:now ratio of 1.53 for employees and 1.62 for population.

[Michael P]

Also relevant is how much the federal government outsources to contractors. I bet that has gone through the roof since 1975.

[Martinned2]

It sure will now.

[Kazinski]

Kind of ignores the productivity improvements since 1975 in terms of automation, recordkeeping, communication.

The government ran on Fax machines and IBM Selectrics, card decks were still being phased out as computer interfaces, word processors didn't exist, nor did graphical interfaces.

There was no email in use in 1975 in the federal government, it had only been invented a few years earlier in 1971.

[SRG2]

Then there's this: He'll stiff you

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) has an urgent warning for federal workers considering President Donald Trump's buyout offer: it's bogus.

According to CBS News Capitol Hill correspondent Alan He, Kaine issued his warning on the Senate floor on Tuesday, following reports of the buyout proposal. "The President has no authority to make that offer," said Kaine. "There's no budget line item to pay people who are not showing up for work ... If you accept that offer and resign, he'll stiff you."

I think this is perfectly plausible and I also think that if he does stiff them, many Trump supporters here will approve.

[Brett Bellmore]

How does putting somebody on leave with pay for six months, if they agree to quit the job effective in 6 months, while relieving them of the obligation to not find work elsewhere, differ materially from having them quit in return for 6 months pay?

[Sarcastr0]

"The President has no authority to make that offer"

Do you have faith Trump is going to fight in Congress to make good on this promise to federal workers?

[Michael P]

Your theory is that Trump will make the promise, some Schiffhead will sue to stop the payment, and people will blame Trump for that?

[Sarcastr0]

My theory is Musk or the like is making the offer, Trump doesn't care who gets stiffed just like for his entire career, and Congress is a shitshow.

[David Nieporent]

Note that Musk stiffed thousands of employees of twitter to whom he made the same offer, leading to thousands of employees bringing claims against him.

[Life of Brian]

The (dismissed) class-action lawsuits I see claimed Musk had to honor Twitter's prior larded-up severance policy, not that he didn't pay the severance he personally promised. Have a source for your proposition?

[David Nieporent]

The only case I'm aware of being dismissed was one where the employees tried to sue under ERISA and the court found it didn't apply. Thousands of employees filed arbitration claims because their employment agreements didn't provide for class actions.

[Life of Brian]

Awesome nit, but apparently they filed the arbitration claims precisely because the lawsuits were dismissed. So what's your evidence Musk didn't pay what he himself had promised to pay, as opposed to what he promised to pay being less than the larded-up policy of the prior owners?

[Brett Bellmore]

He doesn't? Really? How sure are you of that?

[Sarcastr0]

Because it promises money not appropriated.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I explained, it's functionally equivalent to telling somebody, "You don't have to come into the office for the next 8 months, and we'll waive the prohibition on side work, if you commit right now to resigning effective 8 months from today."

Can the President not do that? I think he can, in fact, do that. So it's just a question of how it's implemented.

In fact, (Thanks, Life of Brian!) that is exactly how they implemented it.

[Sarcastr0]

He can say it, but he doesn’t have the power to make that guarantee.

[SRG2]

And as you fail to explain away, you're still reliant on trusting Trump.

[Voize of Reazon]

That letter says the employing agency will likely take some actions including putting the employee on paid administrative leave. That isn't a promise, the only promise is that they will be exempt from the return to office policy.

[windycityattorney]

But let's take the VA for example. Let's say 75% of the nurses accept the buyout. The budget already accounts for those salaries. But now they are gone and Trump has to hire their replacements because the VA still needs X number of nurses to staff all the VA clinics and hospitals in the interim from now until September.

Does the budget account for paying 2 nurses for every 1 position?

[Mr. Bumble]

Hypotheticals are so hypothetical.

[Sarcastr0]

Hypothetical, but a usefully simplified demonstration of the real-life budget disconnect.

Is there a way you don't think this hypothetical is applicable to the situation?

[Mr. Bumble]

Res ipsa loquitur

[Dr. Ed 2]

The pension.

The employee will be eight months older and have six more months of service. For people in their 50s & 60s, this can make a significant difference.

Pensions are base on these.

[Noscitur a sociis]

How does putting somebody on leave with pay for six months, if they agree to quit the job effective in 6 months, while relieving them of the obligation to not find work elsewhere, differ materially from having them quit in return for 6 months pay?

It’s not different, which is precisely the problem, since Congress didn’t appropriate money for these buyouts.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's the point: They appropriated money for the employees to be paid, this is simply a determination that they don't actually have to do anything for the next 8 months if they volunteer to resign effective 8 months from now.

It doesn't violate the appropriation to tell them their presence isn't necessary, and just keep paying them. Nearly half of the federal workforce was already remote!

[bernard11]

That's insane, Brett.

They appropriate he money to pay the employees on the condition that they did their jobs.

They didn't say, "Here' the money. You can work or not."

And so what if they are remote. That's not the same as being on vacation, whatever you think.

[Absaroka]

Congress appropriates money to pay Fred. Fred is accused of goosing a coworker and is put on paid admin leave without duties. Insane?

Congress appropriates money to pay Alice. Specifically, to do design review work on the X87 program; she is one of the world's leading experts on hyperbifurcated transonic aerodynamics. The X87 prototype crashes and it looks like the idea won't work out; the X92 looks like a better bet. Her boss tells her she can expect the project to be shut down, and that he doesn't have any more work for her and suggests she float a resume. Insane?

For a non-hypo, I once worked for a company that had a philosophy (correct, IMHE) that it was hard to tell who was/wasn't going to be great programmers. They hired people liberally. If you worked out, great. If not, your boss had a chat, explaining that henceforth your #1 priority was finding a new job, that the word processing dept was standing by to crank out resumes, and here was a stack or reference letters. It seemed like a pretty humane way to let people go; you had sixish months to find a new place. If a federal agency does the same, is that insane?

[Noscitur a sociis]

If Congress appropriated the money for it, sure.

[Kenneth Almquist]

> Congress appropriates money to pay Fred. Fred is accused of goosing a coworker and is put on paid admin leave without duties. Insane?

Placing federal employees on administrative leave is explicitly permitted by Congress. See U.S.C. §6329a (a)(1) and §6329a (b)(1). However, those statutes prohibit placing an employee on administrative leave for more than ten days in any one calendar year. You may think that it’s fine to use taxpayer money to pay Federal employees to do nothing for eight months, but Congress has decided otherwise. And under our system of government, Congress, not you or Donald Trump, gets to make that call.

[bernard11]

I assume these kinds of contingencies are covered under contracts some other documents, the appropriation itself, employee rules or the like. Plus they are essentially one-offs to deal with specific problems.

They are not general ways to make major cutbacks, nor are they, as Brett's idea is, subterfuges to get around Congress' intent.

[bernard11]

Nobody is being put on paid leave.

Read the message.

If you resign under this program, you will retain all pay and benefits regardless of your daily workload and will be exempted from all applicable in-person work requirements until September 30, 2025

[Life of Brian]

There's no budget line item to pay people who are not showing up for work

This seems a bit too clever, bordering on disingenuous. The most generous statistic I've come up with for federal employees that telework is about 45%. All employees will be getting the same dollars over the same period of time out of the same budget line items used to pay them, whether or not they submit their resignation effective 9/30.

[Commenter_XY]

SRG2, nobody will get stiffed. They take the package, and get their 8 months in a lump sum (minus taxes, no 401K contribution from severance allowed though). Pretty routine, actually. I would viscerally oppose stiffing anyone. I think pretty much everyone would oppose that.

Consider the source: CBS, and that clownish looking Kaine.

If you don't come into the office after being specifically instructed to do so, that is insubordination and grounds for termination. Very different than a buyout offer.

[SRG2]

You believe Trump, who has undeniably stiffed workers and contractors in the past. If the ox was wont to gore..

[Commenter_XY]

SRG2, it is government. No stiffing.

[SRG2]

And Trump is the head of the government - and do you really think Congress will go against him?

Further, do you deny that many Trump supporters will approve if he does stiff those Federal employees?

[bernard11]

Why wouldn't they approve? They approve of every other slimy thing he does.

[David Nieporent]

That is incorrect. There is no package and no lump sum being offered.

[Life of Brian]

Not a lump sum, correct. But, as usual, if you don't care for using "package" to describe accepting 8 months of pay/benefits/retirement accruals with few to no work requirements, feel free to propose an alternative term.

Oh, and the actual details are here since I haven't seen anyone post those yet.

[Life of Brian]

Make that here.

[Brett Bellmore]

" If you did not respond to that email and wish to accept the deferred resignation offer, you may do so by following these steps.
1) Send an email to [e-mail] from your government account. Only an email from your .gov or .mil account will be accepted.
2) Type the word "Resign" into the "Subject" line of the email. Hit "Send"."

I could see some nasty pranks...

[David Nieporent]

I've read the email.

The only 'requirement' that the offer actually suspends is the idiotic RTO policy. It's true that a supervisor could decide to assign less (or even no) work to an employee who accepts the 'offer,' but that is not actually part of the offer.

[Life of Brian]

I think you're straining to see what you want to see. Here's the actual text:

I understand my employing agency will likely make adjustments in response to my resignation including moving, eliminating, consolidating, reassigning my position and tasks, reducing my official duties, and/or placing me on paid administrative leave until my resignation date.

I am committed to ensuring a smooth transition during my remaining time at my employing agency. Accordingly, I will assist my employing agency with completing reasonable and customary tasks and processes to facilitate my departure.

[David Nieporent]

"I understand that my supervisor may do these things" does not even pretend to be a statement of intent, let alone an enforceable guarantee. Not even if it is says "likely." The only actual agreement is "If you promise to resign in September, you are exempt from the RTO order."

As for whether it's actually likely, there are things that departments legally need to get done. Is it actually likely that all the supervisors are going to just shrug and say, "Oh, well, I'll just do it for the next 8 months with a fraction as many people. I'm sure nobody will hold it against me that my department's work isn't getting done"?

[Life of Brian]

As for whether it's actually likely, there are things that departments legally need to get done. Is it actually likely that all the supervisors are going to just shrug and say, "Oh, well, I'll just do it for the next 8 months with a fraction as many people. I'm sure nobody will hold it against me that my department's work isn't getting done"?

When the up-front stated intent of this initiative is to prune the size of the Federal government? You truly can't be serious.

[David Nieporent]

I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.

Trump's (Musk's) goal may be to reduce headcount. But the head of an office's goal is to get his work done.

[Noscitur a sociis]

OPM has subsequently produced a very professional FAQ indicating that “ Except in rare cases determined by your agency, you are not expected to work.”

https://www.opm.gov/fork/faq/

[David Nieporent]

Once again: not anything remotely resembling a guarantee.

[Life of Brian]

Dude, you actually work in employment law. If you can provide a single example of an early-retirement buyout initiative from any employer you may choose that doesn't have any sort of a transitional/wind-down period for those that accept it, please do post it here. At this point you're just balling up your fists and pounding the table.

[David Nieporent]

Dude, you actually work in employment law. If you can provide a single example of an early-retirement buyout initiative from any employer you may choose that doesn't have any sort of a transitional/wind-down period for those that accept it, please do post it here. At this point you're just balling up your fists and pounding the table.

I have never seen such an early retirement offer that wasn't a binding written offer, spelling out all of the terms and signed by the employee who wants to accept it. Not "Send us an email saying, 'Resign,' and then maybe we'll send you home on the spot and pay you for eight more months on the payroll or maybe we'll make you keep working for eight more months, at our discretion; surprise, you'll find out at some point."

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "I would viscerally oppose stiffing anyone"

I'll believe that when I see it. At this point, it would be reassuring to see anyone in the Cult mildly question a single thing Trump does. Barely one week in and DJT has repeatedly broke the law, issued an obviously unconstitutional "order" and created uncertainty / chaos with useless PR stunts.

He nominated a cabinet that included a pedo as AG (then switched to a woman he'd successfully bribed in the past), an unqualified talking head to run Defense, a scuzzy anti-vaxx loon to head HHS, and Assad & Putin's pet poodle to run DNI. The person Trump named as FBI director ran a fraud scam selling pills that "reverse the covid vaccine". To lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Trump named another TV huckster who admitted the purpose of his medical advice show wasn't “to talk about medicine." Given much of his medical advice was crudely false, he had to acknowledge “there are segments that I made that I wish I could take back.”

Yet setting aside some slight queasiness over the pedophile, nary an objection from the Cult here. They couldn't care a bit Trump treated the most important positions in the United States government as a trolling joke.

So consider me skeptical Commenter_XY will ever question anything Dear Leader does, much less "viscerally oppose" it. If Trump's promises are lies and he cheats the workers, XY will find a way to cheer his action. With gusto, no less. You're required to sell your soul & dump your self-respect for Cult membership.

[Sarcastr0]

Remember when he said he'd be real mad at Trump is he pardoned any of the J6 people convicted of a violent crime or property damage?

[grb]

No, but I'm not surprised.

[David Nieporent]

Just to be fair to C_XY, he did criticize Trump for it, just as he said he would. With less vehemence than he'd criticize a jaywalker, and only after prompting, but he didn't walk it back.

[Noscitur a sociis]

SRG2, nobody will get stiffed. They take the package, and get their 8 months in a lump sum (minus taxes, no 401K contribution from severance allowed though).

You really can’t say anything remotely touching this topic without exposing your ignorance, can you?

[bernard11]

Fans of Mr. Orange shouldn't be calling other politicians "clownish looking."

Plus, if we ever want a perfect example of an ad hominem, you just provided one.

[Martinned2]

For the record, the way these buyout packages work is that the people you most want to keep are generally also the people most likely to take the buyout.

And if you're the government, the added problem is that the people you just paid to leave often end up back working for the government as independent consultants of some sort, because it turned out they were doing some pretty irreplacable stuff.

[Brett Bellmore]

But what you're missing is that, from a right wing perspective, a lot of these people are doing things that the government simply shouldn't be doing in the first place; They may be irreplaceable if you want those things done, but they're very dispensable if you don't want them done.

[Martinned2]

Sure, and if you fire people on an individual basis you can make that decision. A blanket exit offer means you lose the people you don't want to lose.

If you're some kind of government consultancy firm, today is the day you call up all the people you know in the Federal civil service, starting with the ones that the government will most want to keep, and offer them big pay packages if they take the exit offer and join your firm, so that they'll be back in their old jobs in a month's time at three times the cost to the taxpayer.

It's called adverse selection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_selection

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you can fire people on a considerably less granular level than by individual, and still distinguish between firing people you think are doing necessary things, and people you think are doing unnecessary, or even detrimental, things.

Especially if you have a relatively narrow view of what the federal government should be doing in the first place.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, think of the impending elimination of Dept of Education. An example of what we don't want Fed gov doing.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you even know what that department actually does?

[David Nieporent]

He doesn't. And if he thinks Congress is going to abolish the department, he's delulu.

[Sarcastr0]

You didn't actually respond to the comment.
You don't seem interested in doing the work as to what groups to fire, you just want to cheerlead.

And keep talking about how small your vision of government is without details.

[Brett Bellmore]

If somebody puts me on a government payroll, I'll do the work. As I'm just on the outside looking in, I'll just cheer.

[Sarcastr0]

Lazy but confident!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

And when things get too tough for you, you'll just run away from the conversation like a bitch. 🙂

[Life of Brian]

You don't seem interested in doing the work

Sez the government employee that debates on the internet all day.

The real question is, are you taking the deal?

[David Nieporent]

I think you can fire people on a considerably less granular level than by individual, and still distinguish between firing people you think are doing necessary things, and people you think are doing unnecessary, or even detrimental, things.

You cannot, because this is trying to get people to quit, not firing them. You have no control over who takes you up on such an offer.

[Brett Bellmore]

You do, however, have control over who you accept the resignations from.

"Deferred resignation is available to all full-time federal employees except for military personnel of the armed forces, employees of the U.S. Postal Service, those in positions related to immigration enforcement and national security, and those in any other positions specifically excluded by your employing agency. "

[David Nieporent]

One could construct a policy that offers buyouts on an individualized basis, but this one does not.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think such a policy would scale appropriately.

[bernard11]

If the President wants to cut out some of the things government does he has means, but just cutting them out via the backdoor method by this severance thing isn't one of them. Aren't these programs authorized and funded by Congress?

[Don Nico]

"that the people you most want to keep are generally also the people most likely to take the buyout. "
Not necessarily so. It depends on the retirement package and years of service. At certain point of one's career the retirement package is a set of golden handcuffs.

[bernard11]

For the record, the way these buyout packages work is that the people you most want to keep are generally also the people most likely to take the buyout.

Exactly. The smart, competent, well-trained ones will have good opportunities elsewhere, and will grab the free money and run, while the deadheads stick around. The same thing happens when private companies try to reduce their workforce by attrition.

So the government is a mess, and moronic GOPer's say this proves their point.

[Bob from Ohio]

"deadheads "

Spoiler, almost all are deadheads.

Three types of people become non-LEO/emergency civil servants, 1. Lazy 2. Stupid 3. Stupid and Lazy

Of course there are exceptions but it is a pretty small group.

[Noscitur a sociis]

But the stereotypical lazy government worker collecting a bloated paycheck and benefits for shuffling forms from an inbox to an outbox isn’t going to find this offer appealing: they know that they aren’t going to find a deal like that in the private sector. Unless they were going to retire in the next eight months anyway, in which case they just got a nice gift from the taxpayers for nothing.

The art of the deal?

[bernard11]

Spoiler, almost all are deadheads.

No, Bob, they are not.

And I'll tell you something else. This assumptione that all govt employees are deadheads, and that the government is incompetent is what's lazy and stupid.

It is convenient, though, for people who don't want to think about whether something is a good idea or not.

[Absaroka]

You have it inverted. Government is different than most private enterprise in that a small minority can get away with being retired on the job, which usually doesn't fly in the private sector. But the majority, in most agencies, work as hard as people in comparably sized companies.

I am hedging there: generally speaking, the smaller the company, the less feather bedding is allowed, owner's nephews and mistresses excepted.

[bernard11]

Government is different than most private enterprise in that a small minority can get away with being retired on the job, which usually doesn't fly in the private sector.

I agree with your comment, except for this. At least in large private companies there are those who "retire on the job." I've certainly seen that.

"We need to let Joe go. He's really not doing much."

"Yeah, but we can always find something for him to do. He's been here for 18 years and needs another two to get a full pension. Just let him slide."

If you've never heard a conversation like that you haven't spent much time in corporate America.

[Absaroka]

Sure, I've seen that. I just think it's less likely.

The difference between govt and private isn't different kinds of people, it is competition. If widget sales are down, Acme Widgets has to face the music that they have to make hard choices or paychecks are going to bounce. That can happen in gov jobs, but IMHE happens far less often. And businesses aren't uniform - a large company with significant barriers to entry can ride out a lot of storms. OTOH if Acme Construction with 12 employees doesn't have any houses to build for the next couple of months, it may not have the cash reserves to pay everyone, no matter how much they'd like to.

[Sarcastr0]

I understand the logic that market pressures require a closer examination of job productivity in the private sector.

But I'm not sure how much of an effect it has. Government offices are always fighting for their part of the budget, and then to use it to maximally do their work. And private businesses are not economic optimization engines, because humans are not that either.

I think the better point is about institutional size across the board.

[bernard11]

Yes. Retiring on the job is much more frequently found in large companies than small ones.

This is due partly to less visibility in the big company, and the owner not being aware of the situation.

[SimonP]

Good lord. There's some real deep irony, watching you lot of idiotic buffoons opining on the uselessness of government employees.

Are you people useful for anything besides making VC's comments unbearable?

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, I'm the one making the obscure cultural references here!
"Beating a dead Danny Kaye"?
I'm gonna have to diaphragm that one out, of course I just flew in from LA and boy are my arms tired!, and it's really embarrassing as I'm the suppository of all cultural knowledge, but I don't want to take the Conspirators Hostile, so I'll just fade into a Bolivian...

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

Kaye had a movie called The Inspector General back in the 1940s/1950s.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, a Deep Cut, I like it!

[Armchair]

Yep. As has been pointed out

"The Trump administration has a pretty strong argument that the notice provision is unconstitutional. The Court has recognized the president’s “unrestricted removal power” over executive branch officials, subject to only “two exceptions.” The potentially relevant exception here comes from the shriveled and maybe-dead precedent of Morrison v. Olson (1988). There the Court ruled that the removal protections on the old independent counsel didn’t unduly interfere with the functioning of the Executive Branch because “the independent counsel [was] an inferior officer under the Appointments Clause, with limited jurisdiction and tenure and lacking policymaking or significant administrative authority.”

[Sarcastr0]

Jack Goldsmith at lawfaremedia.org may not be the place for objective legal analysis.

[David Nieporent]

I don't see why not. At least as much as any other law professor. He's reliable; he's no Turley or Blackman.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This ought to be good.

Why not.

[Sarcastr0]

Perhaps I took lawfaremedia as too evident of an agenda. Their about page doesn't sound that partisan.
If you and DMN vouch for Goldsmith, that carries pretty strong legitimacy in my book, and I withdraw my facile dismissal.

But! I can't leave well enough alone.
I'm not sure I buy the 'only 2 exceptions' analysis.
There are exceptions. The requirements in the IGA are an untried area. That means there is no slam dunk analysis.

The specific 30 days notice requirement may be a separate issue. But to double negative, it is not yet decided that Congress has no power to protect the federal employees in positions and offices they create.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Perhaps I took lawfaremedia as too evident of an agenda.

Are you not familiar with the Lawfare blog? Or Jack Goldsmith? They defintiely have agendas, but I can’t imagine you’d find much objectionable about them.

[Sarcastr0]

Goldsmith rang a bell, but that could have gone either way.

I think I subscribed to the 'trump' tag rss on lawfare for a bit; I just didn't recall the branding.

As I said, facile.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Goldsmith has something of a feel of having a conservative with a more sane face agenda. I can see people not taking what he says totally at face value. "Not Blackman" is a low bar.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, I'll read conservatives. They aren't always wrong, and when they are it sharpens your position to figure out your issue with their's.

But reading hacks is a more tedious proposition.

[Armchair]

The knee-jerk response by Sarcast0 was amusing.

Lawfare tends to run slightly to the left. It's certainly not a "conservative" blog. But...you know...there's a legal analysis and it runs contrary to Sarcastr0's preferred take. So it can't be trusted.

[Sarcastr0]

Yep, I screwed up.

Difference between me and you is I backed off when shown I was wrong.

[Voize of Reazon]

No need to disturb Danny Kaye as long as you remember that it's the vessel with the pestle that has the potion with the poison.

[darkknight9]

It’s official: Yokozuna Deliberation Committee recommends Hoss and at a special JSA meeting on 29th, a new Yokozuna will be crowned for the first time in three and a half years.

Congrats to Yokozuna Hoshoryu!

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20250127/k10014705161000.html

[SRG2]

Let's hope he behaves better than his uncle. I was hoping Kinbozan would win the basho

[Don Nico]

I was also. But this young fellow did an amazing job this tournament

[Don Nico]

I was amazed at his comeback this basho. He is definitely the most credible persons to be made yokozuna.
His intensity reminds me a lot of Hakuho; plus he carries himself well into the ring.

[Martinned2]

This is a mess: https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-giorgia-meloni-being-investigated-international-criminal-court-icc-freeing-wanted-libyan-warlord-osama-elmasry-njeem/

An academic version up to Monday is here: https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-failure-to-arrest-and-surrender-osama-elmasry-njeem-that-awful-mess-in-rome/

Italian prosecutors are investigating Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and two government ministers for repatriating a Libyan general wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC), Meloni said Tuesday.

Osama Elmasry Njeem, head of the Libyan judicial police, is accused by the Hague-based ICC of war crimes and crimes against humanity including torture, rape and murder. He was arrested earlier this month in the northern Italian city of Turin, where he had traveled to watch a football match involving the local Juventus team.

But an Italian court freed him on Jan. 21, ruling prosecutors had made a procedural error. He was subsequently repatriated to Libya on an Italian government plane, according to a Libyan government official, despite the ICC warrant for his arrest.

In a video posted on X, Meloni said she was being investigated “for the crimes of aiding and abetting … in connection with the repatriation of [Njeem].” She argued the ICC warrant had not been recognized by Italy’s courts and claimed she was the target of a left-wing conspiracy.
(...)
Justice Minister Carlo Nordio and Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi are also being investigated, she said.

I can't comment on the niceties of Italian (constitutional) law, but I like the general principle of making sure politicians obey the law.

[Jmaie]

Assuming arguendo that the Italian courts had not recognized the warrant, whose law isn’t she following?

[Martinned2]

Speaking of the ICC, here is the Court's statement on the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Let's see if this lands better than Michael D. Higgins' speech.

The International Criminal Court (Court) commemorates the 80th anniversary of Auschwitz Liberation on 27 January 1945.

On this day the Court recalls where it comes from. The Court was built in memory of terrible tragedies, including the tragedy suffered by the victims of the Holocaust and in memory of millions of children, women and men who have been victims of unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity, prior, during and after the Second World War. It was created for the sake of present and future generations, with jurisdiction over the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, in order to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of international crimes and contribute to the prevention of atrocities.

Today, as every day since its creation, the Court and its officials stand firmly with the victims of atrocities in all the Situations before it, to provide all of them with the dignity, justice and hope they all equally deserve.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-statement-occasion-80th-anniversary-auschwitz-liberation

[Michael P]

Jews. The word they conspicuously avoided was Jews. Which is no surprise.

[Martinned2]

...and there it is.

[Michael P]

The ICC has been providing "it" -- evidence that it is a corrupt and useless waste of time, space and money -- for decades. It is to Europe's shame that they neither reform nor evict it.

[SRG2]

Yes. Don't you think it strange that on a day to commemorate the Holocaust, a statement talking about it doesn't mention its victims?

There was a genocide of Roma - commemorated on Aug 2. There were indeed a vast number of other victims. But Holocaust memorial day commemorates the Holocaust of Jews. Not generically civilians, nor other persecuted groups.

[Commenter_XY]

Thank you = Don't you think it strange that on a day to commemorate the Holocaust, a statement talking about it doesn't mention its victims?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is there some confusion about who "the victims of the Holocaust" were? Was there another "Holocaust" which did not involve Jews?

[Commenter_XY]

The Armenians under the Turks = another genocide...comes close.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

So, no.

[not guilty]

"Is there some confusion about who 'the victims of the Holocaust' were? Was there another 'Holocaust' which did not involve Jews?"

There was one Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany. The most numerous victims were Jews, but millions of others were slaughtered as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims

[TwelveInchPianist]

And it's not a Holocaust or a genocide, but there was the Jim Crow Era, a period of American history where some people were treated unfairly by state governments.

[Don Nico]

Exactly. Not specifically mention Jews is a disgrace.

[Bob from Ohio]

"...and there it is."

The ICC is the heir of Roland Freisler's People's Court.

[Riva]

And any commitment to objective justice. A court that has political causes isn’t a court anyone needs.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In fairness, Jews were only half of the victims, maybe slightly less.

And you do know where the pink triangles came from.

[Frank Drackman]

You know Dr. Ed 2, just when I think you can't say anything stupider than the stupid things you've already said, you say something like this, and totally redeem yourself.
We were "only" 1/2 of the Horror-Cost Victims? Well I'm sorry, I'll get in my time machine and go back to Treblinka(right after I go to 1889 and kill Baby Hitler (April 20, and smoke a J afterwards).
And it gets on my last nerve how you Goyim just throw around words you don't understand, there were "Concentration" Camps (Konzentrationslager) which refers to "Concentrating" a group in one location, not their mental concentration, and "Extermination Camps" (Vernichtungslager) which did exactly what the name says.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, let me be really incendiary -- Stalin killed more than Hitler (he had more years in which to do it) and I *believe* more Jews than Hitler.

In fairness, Hitler had a unique antisemitic perspective, but what about the Holodomor?

[Mr. Bumble]

NYT has a Pullitzer for reporting that everything was fine in Ukraine.

[SRG2]

Only half the victims of the Nazis, yes. But the Holocaust is specifically about Jews.

[bernard11]

For once, good point, Michael P. Excellent point.

[Martinned2]

Chris Bertram has an interesting reflection - albeit perhaps a bit short on answers - about what our actual objective is as a society, in the age of rising authoritarianism (and, he would say, decades of neoliberalism).

I disagree with much that's in his post, but I agree that we could do with a better sense of mission as a society. Vision, if you will. Nothing annoyed me more about Mark Rutte, the previous Dutch PM who is now NATO SecGen, than when he said that if you wanted better vision you should go to the eye doctor. I think political leaders shouldn't just fix the plumbing of government, but should inspire people with a vision of where we should all try to go a society. And averaging 2% real annual GDP growth, great though it would be, isn't it.

https://crookedtimber.org/2025/01/29/the-death-of-the-hope-of-progress-and-the-fear-of-being-left-behind/

[Commenter_XY]

What do you suggest as the mission?

[Martinned2]

I don't know. I don't even know if the actual words are what really matter. Any vision for society, if you try to write it down short & pithy, will end up looking like a vacuous slogan. What matters is how you talk about it and how you sell it.

For better of worse (definitely worse), Make America Great Again is the closest anyone has come to that. It gives a large chunk of the US population a sense of shared mission, of inspiration. The only problem with it, apart from the underlying authoritarian mission, is that when Trump talks about it you still don't get a sense of coherent vision. It's all things to all people. MAGA means whatever Trump wants it to mean on a given day, depending on his mood and depending on the audience in front of him. It's not really an organising principle. There are organising principles to the Trump administration, but they don't belong to Trump and MAGA, but to different groups behind him, like the Heritage/Project 2025 types and the Bannon people, who are doing the tribal warfare thing behind the scenes instead of communicating directly with voters.

[Commenter_XY]

[MAGA] gives a large chunk of the US population a sense of shared mission, of inspiration

Agree. You saw it at his rallies; in NC, TN, FL during disasters. The shared sense of mission is definitely there. Especially post assassination attempt by Crooks (BTW, we still don't know shit about the attempt, the motivation, or anything about Crooks and his communication with whom), that galvanized the vote.

I am going to reword this to try and explain what I have observed. You wrote:
MAGA means whatever Trump wants it to mean on a given day, depending on his mood and depending on the audience in front of him. It's not really an organising principle.

Seems incongruent with a shared sense of mission; an inherent logical contradiction.

Let me suggest this rewording:
MAGA means whatever Trump that engaged Trump supporter wants it to mean on a given day, depending on his mood their immediate challenge or problem to solve to just make things work better in their corner of the world, and these solutions vary depending on the audience the type of problem in front of him them.

It's not really an the defining organising principle. Help make things just work better for your fellow Americans.

I thought you hit on many of the same things I have observed, also. I see the sense of shared mission that you see under a rather simple label (MAGA).

[Martinned2]

The problem is that, if MAGA means something different to each audience member, it's not really an organising principle *for society*. There's a difference between a shared mission and a sense of shared mission. (Or a shared sense of mission.)

That said, it's better than nothing. Even a sense of shared mission that doesn't reflect an underlying consensus still helps to improve the legitimacy of the institutions. It makes people less likely to want to burn it all down. (Except to the extent that they think of MAGA itself as a way of burning it all down.) But the problem is that a sense of shared mission that doesn't reflect an actual consensus is, logically, bound to lead to disappointment. Eventually Trump has to start governing, and then he will end up meeting some people's expectations of him and disappointing others. And every time populist voters are disappointed by the populist politicians they elect, they become more cynical about the system as a whole, and more likely to support movements that want to burn it all down.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a MAGA

[Swede425]

Yes, MAGA's meaning can be as nebulous as the definition of "woman".
Confusing, ever changing, never constant.
For some people, at least.

[David Nieporent]

Eventually Trump has to start governing,

Does he, though?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that, while obviously everybody in the MAGA movement isn't going to agree on all the particulars, there is a somewhat nebulous core to the concept of "great again". Reshoring industry, economic growth, rising personal incomes, government mostly staying out of the faces of average people.

[Martinned2]

At least some of that is more "plumbing" than "mission". Also, some of them are not "mission" because they're things that no one would ever oppose. But "government mostly staying out of the faces of average people" seems like something most MAGA voters would agree is part of the core of MAGA. (Where they would obviously define "average people" as themselves, which is where it becomes nebulous again.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, some of them are things nobody would openly oppose. Opponents of immigration enforcement on the business end of things are absolutely trying to drive down their own labor costs, which is to say personal incomes. And we were for a while deliberately pursuing a policy of offshoring a good deal of our economy to China, thinking that economic growth there would render them more liberal. And a lot of people on the "green" end of the spectrum really do oppose economic growth.

[Martinned2]

Nobody opposes economic growth or rising personal incomes.

[Mr. Bumble]

...for themselves.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, it is a fundamental rule of argument on a planet with over 8 billion inhabitants, that you should never say "nobody".

What is Degrowth?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Another fundamental rule is that "the exception proves the rule"...

[David Nieporent]

That's not actually true. Nobody opposes those ideas aspirationally, but the racist wing of the GOP absolutely is willing to trade those things off in exchange for fewer minorities around them. For example, Bannon and his ilk have pushed back against even high-skilled immigration on the grounds — and this is a direct quote — "a country is not an economy." They're not opposed to economic growth, but not at the expense of what they view as our culture.

[Brett Bellmore]

And you posted this after I posted a link to a group opposing those ideas aspirationally, too. LOL!

[tylertusta]

but the racist wing of the GOP

Facts not in evidence, counselor.

[Sarcastr0]

tylerusta - are you saying the "for example" isn't evidence?

[tylertusta]

Sarc, by your own standards, no. As you have constantly complained to me about my statements, merely writing the words is insufficient evidence.

Furthermore, even his "example" does not support his claim that the GOP has a racist wing. It only exists in the fevered minds of "libertarians" and leftists.

[Sarcastr0]

1. We aren't talking about me.

2. Even if we were, DMN's example is not objectionable by my standards. When I take issue with an anecdote, it's people using them to generalize.
Bannon is not exactly a MAGA rando.

3. What do you think Bannon means by 'a country is not an economy?' DMN made a good case that Bannon is opposing economic growth or rising personal incomes because he doesn't care for immigrants.

[tylertusta]

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

[Sarcastr0]

This? This is holding you to account for something you said. To wit:
"his "example" does not support his claim that the GOP has a racist wing. It only exists in the fevered minds of "libertarians" and leftists."

Asking you to defend that seems reasonable to me.

Unlike bad faith trap-laying second-guessing parolees punishment.

[bernard11]

Opponents of immigration enforcement on the business end of things are absolutely trying to drive down their own labor costs, which is to say personal incomes.

Depending on what you mean by "immigration enforcement" I am glad to say I openly oppose it. Trump's version of massive roundups and camps and deporting people who have been here for years, decades, with no problem, is odious.

[bernard11]

I have a different view.

MAGA means one thing - fealty to Donald Trump no matter what.

All these other things existed before Trump and will continue.

Do you honestly think only MAGA wants to, "Help make things just work better for your fellow Americans. Here's a hint - appointing RFK, Jr to handle health policy is going to make things worse, not better. Raising tariffs and deporting millions of workers so prices go up isn't going to do it either. Nor is continually lying and insulting people.

And if there is a "sense of mission" the mission is an unattractive one.

MAGA really is just the American version of the Fuhrerprinzip. That's all. Drop the noble rhetoric.

[grb]

bernard11 : "MAGA means one thing - fealty to Donald Trump no matter what"

Yep. Ever see a murmuration - when a cloud of birds shifts together as a group in random directions? That's MAGA, except they're following the head bird, Dear Leader. Whatever Trump does, they'll support it. When he drops campaign promises by the dozen (and he's nearly there already), they'll support him. When he lies to their face, they'll support him. When he treats them like dupes & fools, they'll support him.

Remember, Trump's greatest appeal to MAGA is his entertainment value. It's not just that he hates the people they hate, but he also makes a cartoon show of it. Trump's brat-child antics are must-watch politics to them. That's the social contract between Dear Leader and MAGA. As long as he keeps them in yucks & giggles, substance is irrelevant.

[not guilty]

XY, that is a lot of verbiage dancing around the idea of a Cult of Personality.

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

Communicating directly , HOW ???? Things got that way BECAUSE of comminicating. While you are spreading the very misinformatin you deplore, I have to add that the HERITAGE Constituion book was one of the great finds of my life and lead me to MAGA

[tylertusta]

Your observations are largely correct, but you miss the bigger picture: Every successful modern American campaign operates like this.

Trump is special because the media hates him with the fiery passion of a thousand burning suns.

[grb]

tylertusta : "Trump is special because the media hates him...."

Well, yeah, but there's also the whole lifelong criminal, pathological liar, sleazy huckster, mentally-ill narcissist Thing. Plus he's a buffoonish clown and laughingstock worldwide. And he leaves a slime trail wherever he goes. Also, he tried to steal a election from the American voters (if that kinda thing bothers you).

Least of all, he's hopelessly lazy and ignorant. All these are very very special qualities. It wouldn't be fair to all the normal human beings who've held the presidency to suggest otherwise.

[tylertusta]

Now do George W Bush. What was he?

[grb]

There was a time deep in Trump's first term when I thought W was a greater disaster, substance-wise. It's fair to cut W slack on not foreseeing 911 and he had minimal responsibility for the Great Recession (the credit/blame presidents get for macro-economic events is usually exaggerated, be the officeholder Democrat or Republican).

But W did destroy the hard choices both parties made in bringing the deficit to heel and the Iraq Invasion was a foreign policy calamity. Yes, Trump was our first president formed by pressing a turd into a human-shaped mold, whereas W seems mostly an affable chap. And yes, W lied only slightly above the political norm, whereas Trump's mind is broken and he can't breathe without accompanying lies. And yes, W mostly met normal political standards ethics-wise, whereas Trump is sleaze embodied.

But substance-wise, W accumulated more disasters. But that was before DJT's jihad against free and fair elections. That was before Trump attacked the very core of our democracy out of nothing more than pathological narcissism. And that Trump - the tinhorn tyrant from a banana republic nightmare - is the same one we're seeing now.

And in terms of bungling chaos, endless lying, and illegal actions, it's only gonna get worse. After a lifetime of wrist-slaps for his incessant criminality, Trump finally faced real repercussions. The little rich boy who's skated free his entire silver-spoon life now seethes over the effrontery of it. He'll happily destroy anything that comes within reach, this country and your party included. He has no principals. He has no beliefs. He has no ethics. He holds supporters like you in total contempt. Everything is completely about him, and he's a soulless empty shell of a man.

In the first week of his second term, polling has him losing 3-4 points. That's going to get steadily worse too. MAGA may find this toxic chaos entertaining, but normal people don't. And Trump is nearing the end of his bag of cheap PR tricks. Real work and difficult issues await, and Trump is exceptionally lazy and ignorant.

[tylertusta]

There was a time deep in Trump's first term when I thought W was a greater disaster, substance-wise.

Cool. Now do H. W. Bush.

[grb]

Geez, dude, I'm not your frigg'n history teacher. Are you going to ask me to do McKinley next ?!?

[tylertusta]

I'm going to ask you to do every Republican President until you cry uncle.

[Sarcastr0]

He took you seriously and in good faith, and did some work.

You, even if you were originally just trying to wind him up, could have seen and met that tone.

But you stuck with your trolling.

I don't think that was the right choice.

[grb]

tylertusta : "I'm going to ask you to do every Republican President.."

You're forgetting this exchange started from your ludicrous assertion Trump is unique only in the media being very meanie to him. I left that nonsense leveled, plowed-under, dead & buried. If you wanted to look like an idiot, you got your wish.

Now I didn't have to offer you any more. There was no need to make concessions or provide any context. I guess it was a mistake to see you as an adult.

[tylertusta]

grb: Congrats, you finally got it!

Trump isn't especially unique among Republican Presidents. They're all Nazis, authoritarians, bigots, or whatever insults Democrats and the media want to hurl at them on any given day. Trump, Bush 43, Bush 41, Reagan, it's all the same.

He is especially unique in that the media never even tried pretending to give balanced coverage on him once he won in 2016.

[grb]

tylertusta : "Congrats, you finally got it!"

Uh huh. You were badly humiliated in an exchange. So now you claim I "agree" with the exact opposite of everything I said.

Find any balm for your injured pride in that?

[tylertusta]

What injured pride?

I'm feeling rather swell today, thank you.

Between rubbing Sarcastr0's nose in his own hypocrisy and pointing out David's switftboating, I have just enough time left to somehow get you to write out long, hate-filled screeds (not my intention, but a nice bonus!).

You've more than proven my point on the media and how it covers Republican Presidents. Thank you!

[Stephen Lathrop]

What was W? Way better than Trump.

W was dim where Trump is stupid. Trump is mean where W was good-natured. W enjoyed unearned family prestige. He even did his part to keep up the facade. Trump revels in fully-earned family notoriety.

Trump never paid enough attention to any fact to base an opinion on it. W, famously, was right on the spot to call out, "Weird shit," when Trump was serving it up.

Neither one of them was ever equal to the demands of the presidency. W got through it without damaging the institution. Not Trump.

[santamonica811]

grb,
Why leave out the decades of rape and sexual assaults/molestation? [I think it's relatively important, in terms of character-defining behavior, so I feel obligated to bring it up, when it's omitted.]

[grb]

Without question. Trump is the first U.S. president devoid of any positive human qualities. He's a lifelong criminal who mistreats people out of sport. You have to go pretty far to find any public figure equally loathsome. Whether it's the women he raped, or the small contractors he cheated, or the Black tenants he redlined, this total piece of shit has left a trail of pointless damage in his wake.

See, that's the way this loser found "value" in himself beyond what daddy's millions gave him : By petty bullying, rape, and harming others. After all, most of his early business career was a continuous string of bungled disasters.

[Martinned2]

Today in "You become and stay rich by cozying up to the Trump Administration"-news: Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg is exploring buying a property in Washington DC, as part of a push to work more closely with the Trump administration

He joins a growing group of tech titans - Elon Musk, David Sacks - seeking bases close to the White House

https://www.ft.com/content/93109ba4-b779-46dc-8370-0dd871fac82a

[Martinned2]

Meanwhile, on Greenland news:

French Foreign Affairs minister Jean-Noël Barrot has not ruled out sending European troops to Greenland “if our security interests are at risk,” he signalled in a radio interview on Tuesday.

Barrot told Sud Radio discussions were being held with Denmark on the deployment of EU troops in case a security risk arises he said, but ruled out any immediate action.

“At this point, it is not Denmark’s wish,” he said.

His statements come after Copenhagen announced a €2 billion investment on Monday to strengthen Arctic defense capabilities, including the addition of three new navy vessels.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/france-mulls-sending-eu-troops-to-greenland/

Of course so far this is mostly just a diplomatic mess, not a military one. But it's not a great way to manage relations with a pretty important ally. Like I said the other day, if the US was going to risk getting its military base kicked off Greenland, this would be a great way to do it.

[Martinned2]

They actually did an opinion poll in Greenland:

In a new poll conducted by Verian for Berlingske and the Greenlandic newspaper Sermitsiaq, 85 percent of Greenlanders say no to the idea that they want Greenland to leave the Danish Realm and become part of the US instead.

Only 6 percent of Greenlanders want to leave the Danish Realm in favour of the US, and 9 percent are undecided.

https://www.berlingske.dk/politik/new-poll-shows-overwhelming-majority-of-greenlanders-reject-trump

[Mr. Bumble]

"The poll was conducted between 22 January and 26 January and is based on web interviews with 497 representative samples of Greenlandic citizens aged 18 or older.

All responses from the poll, which Berlingske will be publishing over the next few days, have a statistical uncertainty of between 1.9 and 4.4 percentage points."
Well, that's convincing.

[SRG2]

Another piece of Bumble fuckwittery. Are you really this stupid IRL?

[Mr. Bumble]

Says the master of fuckwittery.

[ducksalad]

Thanks for affirming that the poll meets normal standards for accuracy and validity.

It's also a nice touch to add that you personally find it convincing, although of course your approval, however kindly meant, ain't worth shit. 

[Frank Drackman]

As usual, "47" was playing 4 Dimensional Chess, his goal the whole time was to get the Europeans to spend more on D-fense, looks like it's working.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exactly...

[Mr. Bumble]

"French Foreign Affairs minister Jean-Noël Barrot has not ruled out sending European troops to Greenland “if our security interests are at risk,” he signalled in a radio interview on Tuesday."
So typical of the French to be moving away from where their security interests are actually threatened.

[Frank Drackman]

You'd actually improve a nations defense posture by NOT having French forces.

[Michael P]

Greenland is not a significant exporter of either cheese or surrender documentation, so France is secure regardless of whether Greenland becomes Magaland or enters a COFA with the US.

[Sarcastr0]

Man I haven't seen that joke since 2008.

[Michael P]

Ha ha, only serious.

Europe's security would be better served with a US-aligned Greenland than the current situation.

[Brett Bellmore]

The real concern here is that China is applying a lot of pressure to get Greenland to join their economic sphere. I believe talking about making Greenland a state is just an opening bid in an effort to get Greenland into a tighter economic relationship with the US, to lock out China.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes a tighter economic and security r'ship.

[Brett Bellmore]

As has been pointed out, since Greenland's entire population is barely more than 50K, we could literally offer every citizen of Greenland $1M and US citizenship, and it would still be a cheap price given the resources it would give us access to.

And last time I looked, Denmark's law left the independence of Greenland up to the residents of Greenland, not the government of Denmark.

So, outright buying Greenland is very much on the table, as we can make them an absurdly good offer.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"In the same poll, 45 percent of Greenlanders say they perceive Donald Trump's interest in Greenland as a threat, and only 8 per cent would accept a US passport if they had to decide right now whether they wanted Danish or American citizenship."

Of course, Trump does believe everyone has a price.

[Commenter_XY]

That is because they do = everyone has a price

[Brett Bellmore]

Generally people do have a price, and I expect that poll would change if such an offer was made.

[bernard11]

it would still be a cheap price given the resources it would give us access to. it would still be a cheap price given the resources it would give us access to.

This sounds absurd.

What resources, and how would we get access to them? Who owns them now?

[Brett Bellmore]

Oil, rare earths, uranium, it goes on and on. And, owned by the government of Greenland, mostly.

[David Nieporent]

Why exactly would either Denmark or the inhabitants of Greenland accept an offer that would let us get those resources for a "cheap price"? Why wouldn't the price for the territory reflect the value of its resources?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sellers do not bother selling if the price exactly matches their value for holding onto the property, buyers do not buy if the price matches exactly their value for obtaining the property. Where the price lands between these two points is a matter of negotiation.

[Bob from Ohio]

"we could literally offer every citizen of Greenland $1M and US citizenship"

Could be done fore less. We only have to get a majority of voters to accept, not everyone.

Or, just pay the Inuits, all the settler-colonists can go back to Denmark.

[Mr. Bumble]

Those of Danish descent only make up between 7-8% of the population. Inuits 90%.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "I believe ...."

Yer making me look good, Brett. In a comment above, I said the Cult will invent reason to applaud Trump no matter how unethical, stupid, or childish he acts. And here you are minutes later, proving my point to such a degree it's as if we put our heads together and planned the Cult's discrediting.

But, nah, you just can't help yourself. Trump's Greenland shtick is 100% childishness, soup to nuts. China has zero to do with it.

[bernard11]

So you are now channeling the idiot Jonah Goldberg? Is that right?

Any idea how many casualties France took in WWI?

[David Nieporent]

Um, it's a Simpsons allusion.

[David Nieporent]

But it's not a great way to manage relations with a pretty important ally.

Trump is fundamentally a coward. Which is why his bullying is focused on allies — he knows they can't really push back — and he sucks up to enemies.

[grb]

It's funny to see pictures of Trump at meetings of our NATO allies. When he's not placating the fretful little boy within by cartoon bullying and comical swagger, he usually sits slumped & mopey like a kid forced to sit thru a church sermon. You can almost see him whining about all these serious people and their droning serious talk.

[Stephen Lathrop]

This week, Trump failed miserably in a televised encounter with a church sermon. Confronted by actual Christian principle beautifully presented by Episcopal Bishop Mariann Budde, Trump offered the TV cameras an expression of hostility. It was a perfect mixture of disgust and thwarted menace, as if Trump had found dog shit on his golf shoe, and thought someone had put it in his path on purpose.

[Bob from Ohio]

"this would be a great way to do it."

Threatening our base would be a great way to get an invasion

[Jerry B.]

“All your base are belong to Trump”?

[Martinned2]

The decentralised enforcement of GDPR hasn't worked properly from the start. The ECJ has just given judgment to sign of on at least a degree of centralised oversight, to avoid the obvious risk that (in this case) the Irish give Big Tech companies an easy time of it to make sure they don't take their investment elsewhere.

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=294757&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=26542149

[Martinned2]

By the way, here is the new College of Commissioners, which took office on 1 December, taking the oath of office before the ECJ on Monday: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/topnews/M-009783

This is provided for in art. 245 TFEU, which says in the relevant part:

When entering upon their duties [the Members of the Commission] shall give a solemn undertaking that, both during and after their term of office, they will respect the obligations arising therefrom and in particular their duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance, after they have ceased to hold office, of certain appointments or benefits. In the event of any breach of these obligations, the Court of Justice may, on application by the Council acting by a simple majority or the Commission, rule that the Member concerned be, according to the circumstances, either compulsorily retired in accordance with Article 247 or deprived of his right to a pension or other benefits in its stead.

[Commenter_XY]

A legal question about impoundment.

Suppose Congress allocated aid to Country E, Country I, Country J; and another, Country U; billions annually. POTUS Trump would like to use this foreign aid as leverage to achieve a stated foreign policy aim. Specifically, the withholding of all aid would be the lever.

Can he legally do so (withhold aid to further a foreign policy objective)....Congress allocated the money, must it be spent?

If it is Ok to impound money here (to further a stated foreign policy objective), why can't a POTUS impound elsewhere?

But the threshold question is above...can POTUS Trump use that lever to persuade Country E, I, J and Country U?

[Martinned2]

I would argue that it depends on what it says in the appropriations bill. Congress can always make spending conditional on the President finding X or not finding Y. But I don't see why foreign policy would be different in this respect.

[David Nieporent]

Can he legally do so (withhold aid to further a foreign policy objective)....Congress allocated the money, must it be spent?

No. Yes. With a big caveat.

Most foreign aid appropriations are written to vest some level of discretion in the president. For example, "$500M to Nigeria, if the State Department certifies that it is making progress on human rights." Or "$1B to Egypt, unless the president finds that it would be detrimental to national security." (These aren't quotes, and they would be phrased far more lawyerly.) It makes sense, because often Congress itself wants to use the money as a carrot, and also because there can be changed circumstances. (For example, we gave lots of aid to the Afghan government before it fell to the Taliban, but it would hardly make sense to keep supporting them after that happened just because Congress had appropriated money for the country.)

As I've said repeatedly, these sorts of laws have been written this way assuming that we had a non sociopath in the oval office who was going to act in good faith. But Trump is a sociopath who acts in bad faith, so he's perfectly capable of deciding that unless Nigeria lets him build a Trump Tower Lagos that there's some pretext for why he won't certify their human rights progress.
​
​
But in any case, I want to emphasize that it's Congress's decision, not his, whether he has discretion.

[grb]

David Nieporent : "But Trump is a sociopath who acts in bad faith..."

Trump said this back in 2015:

“I have a little conflict of interest ’cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul,” Trump boasted in response. “It’s a tremendously successful job. It’s called Trump Towers — two towers, instead of one, not the usual one; it’s two. And I’ve gotten to know Turkey very well. They’re amazing people, they’re incredible people. They have a strong leader.”

Later in his first term, people wondered about that after he looked to stab our Kurdish allies in the back after a phone call with Erdoğan. But others just noted how easy it is to manipulate someone so vain and stupid as Trump.

Likewise with Trump declaring Qatar an enemy at the bequest of Saudi Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, despite Qatar hosting a forward headquarters of United States Central Command. His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, had gone begging to a wealthy Qatar official for financial backing when his business was in danger of bankruptcy (over 666 Madison Avenue, a colossally stupid investment). He had been stiffed, and people wondered (with justification) whether the radical change in US policy was driven by spite. Of course, Qatar isn't going to make that mistake again. With the UAE, they just paid off Kushner with $1.5 billion dollars in investment monies. Remember all the halloo about Hunter? No one does hypocrisy better than the Cult.

https://www.newsweek.com/jared-kushner-says-15bn-qatar-uae-came-irrespective-trump-win-2004895

Of course you can go way back to the '16 campaign, when everyone was mystified by Trump's groveling to Putin in multiple interviews. That mystery was solved by Muller: Throughout the entire campaign, Trump was engaged in secret negotiates with Kremlin officials over a Moscow building project. Trump's team even discussed paying-off Putin with a free luxury condo.

So Trump used the campaign for President of the United States to help seal the deal. If you want the measure of the man, consider that ....

[Dan Schiavetta]

+1

[Drewski]

"over 666 Madison Avenue, a colossally stupid investment"

I hadn't realized that was the building in question. That address endlessly amused me as a teenager. I had to check; turns out DC Comics moved out in the '90s.

[grb]

That single building almost destroyed Kushner's company. It also sent him scurrying around the world looking for a white-knight backer. Thus Kushner was pleading for massive amounts of cash from people tightly linked to the governments of Qatar, China, Indonesia, and the United Arab Emirates at EXACTLY the same time he was effectively running the president-elect's transition team. You couldn't ask for a situation more ripe for corruption.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/660_Fifth_Avenue

[Mr. Bumble]

...and what corruption did the Biden DOJ find?

[Commenter_XY]

Suppose for Countries E, I, J, and U.....there is no discretion given to the POTUS. Congress allocates X billions to each. The POTUS is stuck, and cannot properly execute foreign policy objectives.

Suppose the aid for Country I requires 75% of that aid to be spent here in the US. But in order to achieve a stated foreign policy objective relative to Country I, the POTUS can only spend 50% here in the US because that money must be spent elsewhere in support of those objectives.

Are his hands really tied? I thought foreign policy was article II.

I understand your points (thx for the explainer); Congress can attach strings to spending.

[David Nieporent]

Are his hands really tied? I thought foreign policy was article II

The words "foreign policy" do not appear in Article II.

The only aspect of foreign policy in Article II assigned solely to the president is: "he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers" (He also has the power to make treaties, but only with the advice and consent of the senate; it's not exclusive to him.) In other words, he's the only one who can conduct diplomatic discussions on behalf of the country. But no other aspect of foreign policy is assigned specifically to him.

[Krayt]

Aid to dictatorships and highly corrupt countries is supposed to be skimmed, to buy friendly adherence to US policies.

[Mr. Bumble]

Martinned2, flooding the zone.

[Martinned2]

Your fault for not getting up earlier.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not a complaint, just a statement of fact.

[hobie]

Agreed. Time to put down the keyboard, Martin

[A Japanese Student]

In the wake of retrial and acquittal of former death-row inmate Mr. Hakamata, a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers in Japan are drafting a bill to reform postconviction proceedings. It would establish a procedure for discovery, requiring disclosure of evidence held by prosecutors. It would also prohibit the Government from appealing the grant of motion to reopen the case.

It does not appear that they included Brady-like compulsory disclosure during the original proceeding, but maybe because they're focused on postconviction first.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems backward.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems President Trump has discovered a YUGE reset button and decided to "fundamentally transform" the US.

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

MOre like to RE-found the US. He and Vance always recur to the first principles of our Founding. the thing I most appreciate about Trump and LOATHED about Biden.

[Martinned2]

Here is the latest poll for the upcoming German federal election:

CDU/CSU 29 %
AfD 23 %
SPD 15 %
GRÜNE 13 %
BSW 6 %
DIE LINKE 5 %
FDP 3 %
Sonstige 5 %

The Grundmandatsklausel ('direct mandate clause'), while being repealed in 2023, does still apply in this election, so falling below 5% wouldn't necessarily mean that The Left isn't represented in the Bundestag. In the last election they managed the necessary three direct mandates and were still represented, and they may well do so again this time (even with the BSW split off). Things look trickier for the FDP, who may well end up not represented in the Bundestag just like in 2013-17.

Coalition-wise, the 44% combined tally for the CDU and the SPD might just about suffice for a majority of the seats. (It would be 44% out of 92%, given that the FDP voters and the others are dropped from the denominator.) If Merz needed both the SPD and the Greens for a majority, that would be a true disaster for German democracy, because then there would be no liberal (in the sense of non-authoritarian/non-populist) opposition left.

[Frank Drackman]

Love the German word for Election,
"Wahlkampf"
literally "Choice-fight" or "Election-fight"
and surprisingly, a large portion of the AfD erectorate are former Green Party supporters.
Or maybe not so surprising, like the old joke that a Repubiclown was a DemoKKKrat who'd been mugged, your AfD voter is a Green who's daughter got molested by a gang of Turks.

Frank

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

Actually that was 'mugged by reality" We all start out Democrats, like the 5 year old that sounds like Hillary Clinton "Why don't we just give everybody a million dollars ! "

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

To stay on top of this ,find TEC THe European COnservative

[Bob from Ohio]

"44% combined tally for the CDU and the SPD"

the "conservative party" is willing to go into coalition with socialists and maybe the even more left Greens

One of the reasons for AfD's rise. Conservatives have no home so they go to what they can find.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/8/1786532/-Cartoon-You-made-me-become-a-Nazi

[Bob from Ohio]

You want to stop AfD or virtue signal?

[Sarcastr0]

You seem more interested in a apologizing for people joining them than stopping them.

[Bob from Ohio]

Suggesting that the conservative party act like one is not "apologizing for people joining", its suggesting a way to attract those votes back.

[Sarcastr0]

You think the conservatives should act more like AfD lite, than work against them.

If voters decide to vote for the second coming of Naziism, that's not going to work.

And if they don't, then all you did was make the politics easier for AfD to have influence.

[Bob from Ohio]

I suggest the alleged conservative party not ally with socialists.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, I've read the 22d Amendment,
Section 1. 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. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2 just makes a 7 year time limit for Ratification

It just says no person shall be ELECTED to POTUS more than twice, doesn't say anything about serving as POTUS more than twice, so "47"'s, what's the technical term for what he does?.....
"Fucking With"
the Marxist Stream Media, DemoKKKrats, much of the "Conspiracy"
is on Constitutionally firm footing, he could run as VPOTUS in 2028, then assume Orifice if something "happens" to the POTUS
not that he'd actually do that, of course, we'd never have a POTUS who was demented and whose VPOTUS took over

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

"he could run as VPOTUS in 2028"

Last line of the 12th amendment: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

So, no, once you've served two terms, you're constitutionally ineligible, and so are constitutionally barred from being VP, too.

The max really is 10 years minus a day, and to get to that you have to be VP, your President checks out a day past the halfway point, and then you're eligible to be elected in your own right twice.

[Frank Drackman]

Well, besides that

[Martinned2]

President Macron (for some reason) has announced a major refurbishment of the Louvre. I'm sure we'll all judge the architecture in due course, but for now the most remarkable bit is this:

La nouvelle entrée et la création de nouveaux espaces sous la Cour carrée du Louvre, d’ici à 2031, devraient coûter environ 400 millions euros. Les travaux pour faire face à la vétusté de l’établissement et l’adapter à la fréquentation sont estimés à 300 à 400 millions supplémentaires, sur une dizaine d’années, financés en partie par le renchérissement du billet pour les visiteurs étrangers non membres de l’Union européenne.

I wonder how that is going to work. Check passports at the entrance? Making people buy tickets online and then hope they don't re-sell them?

[Frank Drackman]

Steve Martin had a whole bit about how ridiculous peoples sound trying to speak French. Something about how it always sounds like someone choking. Don't tell any Cajuns though, they sound cool (and they'll cut your tongue out if you say anything derogatory) Fay Do-Do Ah Lahn?

Frank “C’est tout”

[Mr. Bumble]

"President Macron (for some reason)...."
Applies to the whole of Mr. Macaroon's presidency.

[Martinned2]

I just meant that in most countries it would probably be the director of the museum who announced the refurbishment, even a big one. Particularly if there isn't a lot of government money involved, as is apparently the case here. If there is, it might be the culture minister. But the only reasons why the President makes that statement are vanity and electoral considerations.

[Mr. Bumble]

Mr. Macaroon is only 47 years old and a dead man walking politically so he's looking for anything to make him look relevant.
Maybe he should retire to the former French colony of Haiti and make Haiti Great again.

[Martinned2]

So you've switched from Starmer Tourette's to Macron Tourette's? Thank you for your productive contribution to the conversation.

[Mr. Bumble]

You brought up Macaroon's irrelevance. I just expanded on it.
How about talking about your Trump Tourette's?

[Brett Bellmore]

If you look at his action with the stained glass at Notre Dame, he seems to be pretty determined to leave a mark even where the people actually in charge of the topic don't want one left.

[John F. Carr]

"Êtes-vous européen?"

If the answer is "oui", "sí", or "ja" offer the discount.

[Riva]

I guess you’ve never traveled, not really a problem to check passports. Department stores check passports in some countries.

[David Nieporent]

Why do you think Europeans would necessarily be carrying passports around while traveling through France? They don't need one to visit the country at all.

When I travel internationally, I don't carry my passport around; I keep it in the hotel safe.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

They do (outside of the UK, which is now outside of the EU) have ID cards, though, which will probably be considered sufficient for this purpose.

[Martinned2]

You need a passport or ID card to exercise your free movement rights. (See art. 5 of the Free Movement Directive, the law that settles the nuts and bolts of how EU citizens travel to and settle in Member States where they are not a citizen.)

Whether you carry it with you or leave it in your hotel depends a little on your risk assessment. If you get stopped by police, carrying ID will save you a lot of hassle, even if carrying ID is not strictly required in France. I tend to just carry my driving licence for ID purposes, and leave my passport somewhere safe.

[ThePublius]

So, I can use my EU passport, via my Irish citizenship, to get a museum discount? Sweet!

[grb]

Martinned2 : " ... a major refurbishment of the Louvre."

But Mona Lisa is gonna get her own room. As for the architecture, we'll see. The job will be awarded by competition, so there will be multiple visions to see (fun, that). I. M. Pei was a good (not great) architect, and he did a nice job the last go-round.

[Frank Drackman]

Anyone catch the new WH Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt yesterday?, talk about a "Pistol"! (I'd reduce her Ritalin dose a smidge), and loved the Cross right above her TaTa's (Take that, Mooselums), you could literally see the press recoiling away like Dracula, and she actually answered questions, a welcome change from Raggedy Ann Karine Jean Pieree Baptiste (She's Black! She's Gay! She's Incompetent!)
Funny that their names both start with "Kar"

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems some of the press (especially the reporteretts) have trouble with a strong woman.

[Frank Drackman]

Reminded me of my teenage daughters when I'd offer them a word of advice about their tennis game.

[Dr. Ed 2]

More likely Adderall, and I wouldn't be surprised.

[Commenter_XY]

I laughed at her 'a shift in culture change' comments.

[ThePublius]

She was great. No "circle back," no fumble-mouthed repetition. Prepared, smart, direct. No B.S. Loved it.

I was familiar with her as she ran for office in NH, and as a guest host on Howie Carr's radio show. She has a bright future.

[Bob from Ohio]

No big binder prepared by someone else.

[David Nieporent]

Prepared, smart, direct. No B.S.

Plenty of lying, though. Condoms for Gaza was utterly fictional. Not "Oh, that's a distortion or exaggeration." Just made up of whole cloth. (Or latex, as the case may be.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I predict she won't be able to keep up with Trump's lies, matching them lie-for-lie, for even one year. Nobody can!

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, if there is no such funding, there's no problem with cutting it off, now, is there?

[David Nieporent]

Um, they didn't cut off funding for condoms to gaza. They cut off all grants, indiscriminately.

[Frank Drackman]

Good!

[Martinned2]

There's a funny headline (in the FT): OpenAI says it has evidence China’s DeepSeek used its model to train competitor

I think the question of how copyright law should apply to AI is very interesting, because (unlike many others, it seems) I understand that copyright law is not some god-given principle, but a system of rules that we have fine-tuned over time to satisfy competing interests, such as promoting "the useful arts", free speech, innovation, etc. So if something new comes along like AI, which needs to use copyrighted works in an entirely new way, you might well conclude that you need to write some new copyright laws to deal with that situation.

But that doesn't make OpenAI complaining about IP violations any less funny.

[John F. Carr]

I remember when Microsoft launched Bing. Bing used Google search results for training. Google and its fans complained.

Under current precedent violation of terms of service is not a crime in America.

[Riva]

Do you think, even if copyright were indisputable in this context, that the Chinese communists would give shit? They’d steal it anyway.

[Michael P]

Is Trump planning to nuke the Senior (various) Services for insubordination?

Acting USAID Administrator Jason Gray sent an email to all staff later Monday saying the decision [to put almost every SES/SFS bureaucrat on paid leave pending investigation] was related to apparent efforts of some staffers to obstruct recent directives from President Donald Trump.

https://archive.ph/pMJ6L

[Commenter_XY]

MAGA-mesis continues.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Another normal day in the Trumperverse...

[DixieTune]

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/29/business/trump-economy-goldilocks/index.html

The media and elite gaslighting never stops. Trump did not inherit a "goldilocks" economy. He inherited a crap economy, with stubborn inflation, insane asset prices, and a cost of living crisis. The crap economy is why he won, Biden's lies notwithstanding.

[hobie]

My eggs are still going up

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe you should apply for SNAP benefits.

[Krayt]

Advisor: You have to acknowledge inflation!

Kamala: No!

Advisor: People are feeling pain!

Kamala: Ok. "I feel your pain, and I will lower infl..."

Advisor: Nope!

Kamala: "I will make things cheape..."

Advisor: Nope!

Kamala: "I will make things more affordable by giving you mon..."

Advisor: Nope! You will, but don't say that. Let it remain a mystery.

Kamala: "I will make things more affordable and let you think I mean reducing prices and inflation, but just throwing more money at you."

Advisor: Yep. But chop off everything after the "and".

[hobie]

I will make things cheaper. I will make things so cheaper that my followers won't even know they are saving money. If I repeat this over and over in a sing-song voice, my awesome cheapness will mesmeratize all my beautiful people. These beautiful people. They believe what I say. I love them and they love me

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a combination of bird flu, and a number of states that just put into effect expensive regulations on egg production. Both things that got baked in before Trump took office.

We have a flock of 7 hens in our backyard, we average about 4 eggs a day out of them. (To be honest 3 of them are dead weight, old hens my wife and son won't let me stew for dinner, but which still have to be fed.) It wasn't the most economical source of eggs prior to the recent disruptions, but it does insulate us nicely from those disruptions, and with the recent price rises it actually is a so-so deal on simple economic terms.

[Mr. Bumble]

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.
The bird flu outbreak that started in 2022 is the main reason egg prices are up so much.

Anytime the virus is found on a poultry farm, the entire flock is slaughtered to help limit the virus’ spread. And with massive egg farms routinely housing more than 1 million chickens, just a few infections can cause a supply crunch.

The problem tends to linger because it takes months to dispose of all the carcasses, disinfect barns and bring in new birds.

More than 145 million chickens, turkeys and other birds have been slaughtered since the current outbreak began, with the vast majority of them being egg-laying chickens.

Cage-free egg laws in 10 states may also be responsible for some supply disruptions and price increases. The laws set minimum space for chickens or cage-free requirements for egg-laying hens. They’ve already gone into effect in California, Massachusetts, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Colorado and Michigan. At a Target in Chicago on Monday, a dozen large conventional eggs cost $4.49 but a dozen large cage-free eggs were selling for $6.19.

[Brett Bellmore]

I expect this to drive up the cost of replacement chicks, when our present flock ages out. (As we live in a suburb, having a rooster is a strict no-no.)

I've been trying to convince my wife we should transition to a flock of Muscovy ducks; They're much, much quieter than most duck varieties, they scarcely do anything more than hiss. We'd be able to have a drake, then, and make our flock self-perpetuating.

Besides, I prefer the taste of duck eggs, my family raised Muscovies when I was a teen.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett -- give them lobster shells to clean out. They love doing this, and it gives them eggs with lovely orange yolks. Also a few handfuls of fresh-cut grass whenever you mow.

[hobie]

Yellow or orange in foods is often due to beta-carrotine. Feed 'em carrot scraps, leftover pumpkins

[ducksalad]

Excellent idea. If it gets to where I can't afford eggs, I'll buy lobsters to feed to the chickens.

[hobie]

Three months ago it wasn't disease causing high prices. Glad to see you've returned to Earth, Brett

[Brett Bellmore]

"Three months ago it wasn't disease causing high prices."

Didn't check before posting that, now, did you?

H5N1 avian flu strikes more poultry in 4 states Since H5N1 was first detected in US poultry in early 2022, outbreaks have led to the loss of a record 147.25 million birds across all 50 states and Puerto Rico.

TIMELINE- US avian influenza outbreak spreads to chickens, cattle

[hobie]

Well, I'm sorry that went over your head, Brett. So, in deference to you, back during election season chicken egg prices were decidedly Biden something something. Now, magically, they ain't! Isn't that amazing?!

[grb]

Ya want amazing? Come back in one or two months and Bumble / Brett will be gushing about how spectacular the economy is - by virtue of a Trump miracle, of course.

No way, you reply; two months is too soon! Not a bit. You should never underestimate the ability of the Cult to prostitute facts, dignity, and common sense to service Dear Leader.

As for inflation, Bumble is wrong as always. As long as you're not cherry-picking items, the inflation rate dropped back to normal nearly two years ago

https://jabberwocking.com/a-different-measure-of-inflation-tells-us-its-over/

[Mr. Bumble]

Works fine if you change how it's measured.

[hobie]

I measure egg prices by price

[Mr. Bumble]

So there' inflation.

[Frank Drackman]

How so? I hear all your neighbors say you have no "Juevos"

[Dan Schiavetta]

It's only in the last 10 years or so that popular perceptions of the economy started deviating from official figures. That was around the time conservatives started spreading lies about the Obama economy, which was doing pretty well (Trump inherited it) after the disaster Obama was handed in 2009.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or maybe it was about the time the federal government began seriously screwing with the CPI, so that they could negate COLAs to some extent, and profit more from inflation.

Unfortunately, the CPI includes some seriously arbitrary inputs, such as hedonistic adjustment, and changes to the market basket.

Literally, as the price of beef and chicken both go up, they reduce the amount of beef in the market basket, and increase the amount of chicken, to reflect the fact that people are responding to rising prices by substituting cheaper goods. So every actual price could go up 10%, and the CPI still report 5%.

In fact, inflation has been consistently higher than the CPI, if calculated on the old "cost of goods" basis that doesn't account for substitution responses to rising prices.

[SRG2]

Real GDP nonetheless was decent enough under Obama and in fact you can't tell when Trump took over from him. The real problem for many people about the Obama economy is that Obama wasn't white.

BTW hedonic (sic) adjustments are necessary.

[Brett Bellmore]

SOME of what gets called "hedonistic" adjustments are necessary, such as accounting for 'shrinkflation'. Which strictly speaking should just be part of the regular calculation.

Other parts are disturbingly subjective judgements about "quality".

[SRG2]

"Shrinkflation" doesn't require a hedonic adjustment. It merely requires a simple arithmetical calculation. Hedonic adjustments would apply to, e.g., the price of a typical family sedan where it's say 5% more expensive this year, but now has rear view cameras, a better sound system and self-parking.

Other parts are disturbingly subjective judgements about "quality".

Why "disturbingly"? Some adjustments are necessarily subjective. So what?

[Brett Bellmore]

What's disturbing about hedonistic adjustment being subjective is being told that, say, the price of cars hasn't gone up, because today's cars are nicer. Which is true, but doesn't help me AFFORD one.

But I'm actually more upset with the market basked adjustments. People change their buying habits to compensate for higher prices, and they use that as an excuse to pretend prices didn't go up as much as they really did.

I didn't change beef from a regular part of my diet to an occasional luxury because I stopped wanting to eat beef. I did it because beef went up in price. So did chicken, but at least I can still afford it.

Anything that, when both beef and chicken go up 10% (As if it was that little.) lets them say that represents less than 10% inflation is a deliberate sham.

[DixieTune]

Yes, the lack of affordable basic new cars is a travesty. It wasn't always that way, and China still produces basic ones.

[Brett Bellmore]

My wife just bought an essentially new truck, (Returned after a week because the buyer decided he wanted something bigger.) and I'm going to be delaying my retirement at least a couple of years as a result.

The lack of affordable new cars isn't as horrific as it might be, on account of the cars now lasting so long that it's not a big deal to buy a car with 100K miles on it. Unless it turns out the last owner knew they were ditching it at 100K and skipped a bunch of expensive maintenance, of course.) But at this point even the used cars are becoming unaffordable.

And then the government tells me that the cars I can't afford haven't really gone up in price, because they're nicer cars. That I can't afford because of the price.

It's possible the end of some of the crazy mandates will improve the situation a bit, though, because there was an effort to drive people to EVs by regulating ICE vehicles in ways that would drive up the entry level cost, while the EV mandate was forcing auto companies to jack up the price of ICE vehicles to pay for the EVs they couldn't sell for a profit.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There are way too many folks upside-down in their auto loans to sustain the prices of used cars.

[DixieTune]

Yep. In 1999, you could buy a basic new car for $12,000. Now that same car is $32,000. Granted, $12,000 then is now about $21,000 by CPI figures, but that means prices have still risen more than double the rate of inflation for new cars.

[David Nieporent]

And, as noted, you get a lot more for that higher price. Nobody would buy a new car in 2025 that didn't have any of the advances of the last 25 years.

[DixieTune]

If that's all he could afford, he might. Not everyone wants the full suite of crap the manufactures put in today.

[bernard11]

Anything that, when both beef and chicken go up 10% (As if it was that little.) lets them say that represents less than 10% inflation is a deliberate sham.

What if beef goes up 10% and chicken 5%? What do you think the inflation calculation should look like?

[bernard11]

What's disturbing about hedonistic adjustment being subjective is being told that, say, the price of cars hasn't gone up, because today's cars are nicer. Which is true, but doesn't help me AFFORD one.

Too bad for you, but how would help if inflation measurements artificially reduced the price of cars to where it looked like you can afford one, even though you can't.

What are you going to do, tell the dealer the government says the price should be much lower?

[bernard11]

Accounting for shrinkflation is in fact part of the normal process. They don't price "a box of cereal," they price "a 12-oz box of cereal," or something like that. The whole business is a little complex, and the people doing it are not fools. They do in fact know what they are doing, and do it right.

The fact is your preferred method - never change the basket - is idiotic. When did cars, air conditioners, personal computers, etc. enter the basket? Should 8-track tapes, ice boxes stay in?

Should the basket change when tastes change, and consumers buy less of one thing and more than another?

By the way, they change the CPI basket only annually, which in fact tends to overstate inflation. (google Laspeyres index). Another index, the chained CPI, makes more frequent changes, and is regarded as the more accurate of the two.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Obama IS White -- raised by a White mother and her family.

[DixieTune]

Because the black half ran out on the family. Shocker, I know.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah. So now rather than 'CPI is fake' you have a link.

A link I'm not sure you read. Because it goes into a lot of detail.

"When an item is replaced and it is possible to apply the hedonic model, the CPI estimates what the price of the new version of item would have been if it had been in the CPI sample in the previous period. To obtain that estimate, the previous period price of the old version (which was observed) is adjusted using the value of the change in characteristics between the two versions."

That seems not too bad. The math gets in the weeds, but I don't see where you think they're hiding inflation.

But to heck with that. At base, you are arguing that BLS is full of lefties in a conspiracy to lie to the public.
And it's all kept secret. Except for the stuff they publish.

This is stupid.

[Commenter_XY]

Which CPI is a better question....examples, CPI-E for SSA beneficiaries, CPI-W for working age adults. CPI is an aggregate.

[SRG2]

Yes, because everyone has their own CPI, as I often noted in times past. It's unavoidable. But that's true for any number of economic measures. GDP? Each person will have their own production. Unemployment? Full-time, part-time, none. So again, it's an aggregate. This isn't a weakness of aggregated numbers when you're trying to assess the economy overall.

[Commenter_XY]

Exactly correct!!!! = everyone has their own CPI

This point is often lost in the discussion.

[Brett Bellmore]

Everyone has their own CPI, and the government's official CPI is just lower than almost everyone else's. And I'm sure it's just a coincidence that saves them a fortune on COLA. [/sarc]

[Sarcastr0]

Vibes,

[tylertusta]

I'm sure Brett appreciates you sending him some positive vibes, Sarc.

[bernard11]

It's all a conspiracy against Brett Bellmore.

And no, the CPI is not lower than everyone else's CPI. In fact, as a technical matter the regular CPI is generally going to be higher than most people's CPI.

You're just repeating your conspiracy theories over and over, despite the fact that, if you knew the basics of the subject, you would understand that they are BS. You're just too lazy, or scared of being wrong, to understand what's going on.

[bernard11]

Literally, as the price of beef and chicken both go up, they reduce the amount of beef in the market basket, and increase the amount of chicken, to reflect the fact that people are responding to rising prices by substituting cheaper goods. So every actual price could go up 10%, and the CPI still report 5%.

Please stop repeating this conspiratorial nonsense. It's been explained to you 100 times why you're wrong, and your conspiracy-addled brain won't give it up.

[DixieTune]

It's not wrong.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I see you’ve met Brett!

[DixieTune]

It was also that time that asset inflation took off, and that doesn't get figured into CPI. Wealth inequality followed from that, which is why popular perception of the economy sucks.

[Krayt]

After causing inflation, then panicking to ratchet it back down, it takes nerve to claim a roaring economy. It's like bragging how fast your car is, after it plowed through a crowd of people. "Pay no attention to that!"

"You still have a roof over your head and (expensive) food on the table, right? So stfu!"

[SRG2]

It wasn't a crap economy. It was chugging along, not brilliantly, but real GDP was over 2.5%, inflation was significantly lower than the earlier global peak, unemployment is around 4% and jobs continue to be created at a decent rate.

Goldilocks economy? No. Crap economy? Not yet.

[DixieTune]

No, it sucked. Plenty of jobs are created, but they're crap jobs that can't pay the bills. That's what I meant by affordability crisis. Real GDP means nothing when the inflation rate is understated and when most of the gains go to the top 1-5%.

[David Nieporent]

Horseshoe theory strikes again! MAGA starts sounding like OWS when they need to demonize the country they pretend they like.

[DixieTune]

Uhh, Trump got plenty of support from the working class of all stripes. There's a reason for that. Biden's economy sucked.

[Brett Bellmore]

Horseshoe reality, you mean?

The reality is that income inequality has been rising at a steady pace, with only minor deviations, since the 1960's.

[DixieTune]

And the top, who sees the value of their stocks and houses appreciate like crazy, spends money with abandon, driving real inflation.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, and? Until Joe Biden got elected, the conservative response was "Yes, that's how free markets work. So what? Inequality isn't a legitimate concern of government."

[DixieTune]

Reducing inequality is not a legitimate function of government in the abstract. But when government is instrumental in creating that inequality, it is.

[David Nieporent]

The government not intervening on your behalf is not "creating" inequality.

[Brett Bellmore]

The government is driving income inequality in a bunch of ways, such has deliberately flooding the country with cheap labor to keep wages down.

And, why wouldn't you expect that? Progressive taxation means that, for a given total income, the higher income inequality gets, the more revenue the government takes in. As well, the wealthy can launder money to you as a politician, can hire your failson for some highly paid no work job. The votes of the poor can be bought cheaply.

But the people in between? They're just a waste of skin from a politician's perspective: Too poor to supply graft, too well off to buy their votes cheaply.

All the incentives currently are in favor of pushing up income inequality.

[DixieTune]

Not to mention responding to every "crisis" by printing and spending trillions of dollars, all which has the effect of driving up the prices of assets, nearly all of which are held by the rich.

[Ridgeway]

Yeah -- they sound like OWS on the economy, and like Howard Zinn on foreign policy. Explain to me again how MAGA is conservative?

[Sarcastr0]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism

[Ridgeway]

Easy, Tiger. Don't get nuts trying to draw parallels to Weimar-era Germany.

To answer my own snarky question: MAGA is populist, not conservative, at least as the term "conservative" has been used in 20th and 21st century US (not continental European) politics.

There can be right-wing and left-wing populists, and the right-wing version has some overlaps with "conservatism", but its latent (and not-so-latent) hostility to free trade and free markets separates it from conventional US conservatism.

[DixieTune]

Don't pretend that what MAGA is responding to are free markets. We've had crony capitalism since at least the 1980s.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in California news:
A winter storm has done what Gavin Newscum and Company couldn't do and extinguished most of the remaining fires.
Of course now comes Mudslide Season.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/01/winter-storm-essentially-extinguishes-greater-los-angeles-wildfires/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Already has arrived: https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/home-that-survived-palisades-fire-is-split-in-half-by-landslide-this-is-devastating/ar-AA1xkFOK

I don't understand why steel pilings aren't driven -- like a cofferdam -- to prevent the hillside above from cascading down.

[SRG2]

More on Greenland.

1. Trump is entirely unnecessarily pissing off allies - not just Denmark but other NATO members. This is really really stupid, and consequently will get the approval of Trump supporters.

2. The increasing accessibility of Greenland's minerals and the opening up of Arctic routes that so threaten US security are due to climate change. So we're in the strange position of Trump having a policy based on a phenomenon that he and his supporters don't think is happening.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We freed Denmark and Truman should have taken it.

[David Nieporent]

We did not free Denmark, and you are insane.

[SRG2]

I think Dr Ed is under the impression that if you win a war, you're entitled to take from the allies you freed whatever you want, as just compensation. If so, that is consistent with your observation about his sanity or lack thereof.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Denmark wanted to sell it a century ago. The U.S. didn’t bite but did acquire the Virgin Islands."
https://history.stanford.edu/news/buying-greenland-isnt-new-idea

Also see:
"Since the 19th century, the United States has considered, and made, several attempts to purchase the island of Greenland from Denmark, as it did with the Danish West Indies in 1917. Internal discussions within the United States government about acquiring Greenland notably occurred in 1867, 1910, 1946, 1955, 2019 and 2025 and acquisition has been advocated by American secretaries of state William H. Seward and James F. Byrnes, privately by vice president Nelson Rockefeller, and publicly by president Donald Trump, among others. After World War II, the United States secretly offered to buy Greenland; public discussion of purchasing the island occurred during Trump's first term in 2019 and again after Trump's 2024 reelection as part of his Greater United States policy"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_the_United_States_to_purchase_Greenland

[SRG2]

That was then, this is now. And no-one is denying that the US has previously wanted to get Greenland. And did past US presidents approach Denmark the way that Trump has, with threats. lies and entitlement?

[David Nieporent]

A century ago, selling a colony where people lived without the consent of those people was considered acceptable; it no longer is. But yeah, it's not Trump's desire to acquire it that's so crazy — though it's unnecessary — but his attempt to bully Denmark about it.

[Mr. Bumble]

"That was then, this is now."
If anything it is more relevant and in the interest of the US now not withstanding your disdain for how Trump approaches it.
Maybe you'd like it better if Trump did it on the down low like Truman?
"It wouldn’t even be the first time the U.S. has tried to bag Greenland. Back in 1946, officials offered Denmark $100 million in gold bars for the world’s largest island, a Danish autonomous territory. U.S. officials at the time thought it was a “military necessity.”

That 1946 offer was supposed to be a secret. (It was only widely revealed in 1991, when declassified documents were discovered by a Danish newspaper.) But in 1947, TIME caught a whiff of similar plans."
https://time.com/5653894/trump-greenland-history/

[David Nieporent]

Maybe you'd like it better if Trump did it on the down low like Truman?

I'd prefer he not do it at all because it's stupid and makes him look stupid, but yes, of course, if he was going to do it he should do it privately. Conducting diplomatic negotiations in public is not normal.

[Mr. Bumble]

I guess you think buying Louisiana and Alaska were also "stupid".

[SRG2]

THAT WAS THEN, you cretin.

[Roger S]

Denmark cannot cope with Greenland, and will eventually give it up. Trump is just hastening the inevitable. If the USA takes Greenland, everyone will understand that it necessary and appropriate.

[SRG2]

Denmark cannot cope with Greenland,

Ah the standard pattern returns. Two weeks ago you probably couldn't find Greenland on the map and now you're an expert in internal Greenland/Denmark concerns.

If the USA takes Greenland, everyone will understand that it necessary and appropriate.

Why is it necessary and appropriate to seize Greenland?i

[Roger S]

Two weeks ago, no one knew that Greenland had anything to do with Denmark. What is the purpose, to teach Danish to a few eskimos?

[BrotherMovesOn]

"Two weeks ago, no one knew that Greenland had anything to do with Denmark."

Does Dr. Ed know you're trying to steal his act?

[SRG2]

Two weeks ago, no one knew that Greenland had anything to do with Denmark.

Aside from Europeans Canadians, Russians educated Americans, you mean?

The cultist fuckwittery is truly astonishing.

[Commenter_XY]

There wasn't the degree of Chinese commercial influence then, either. Times changed. The right questions are starting to be asked, and discussed. Greenland could become a vital US national interest.

[SRG2]

Greenland could become a vital US national interest.

Or, in non-Stalinist terms, Denmark could become a vital ally.

[Commenter_XY]

They are a NATO member, so we are bound by treaty to defend them. Which we have done, twice, in the last century or so.

[not guilty]

Uh, the only time that NATO's mutual defense agreement under Article 5 has been invoked was by the United States in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

[SRG2]

Defend them by seizing Greenland?

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts courts continue to struggle with a juvenile justice reform law. The law takes away Juvenile Court jurisdiction over first offense minor misdemeanors. No court has jurisdiction. There is no way to prove a first offense to make the next one a second offense. If a 17 year old goes on a shoplifting spree every offense will be a first offense.

A defendant with a prior major misdemeanor conviction can still be charged with a minor misdemeanor. This week the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the local equivalent of "diversion" counts as a prior conviction. The defendant had previously admitted to the facts underlying a charge of assault and battery, a major misdemeanor. Charges were dropped. That admission counts as a first offense.

The shoplifting spree loophole remains. I have no statistics on whether it is a problem.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/commonwealth-v-fayad-f-a-juvenile-sjc-13625/download

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's not a problem, it's a feature -- this is Massachusetts.

[Z Crazy]

Politicians and a huge chunk of voters dont want to do anything about school shootings and gang violence because the victims are poor children who don't look like their children. Sad but true.

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/how-the-gun-control-debate-ignores-black-lives/80445/

Gross said he “blew a gasket.” The clergy members in the room were pleading for help. “We bury hundreds of kids every year in the inner city,” Gross recalled them telling the administration representative. “Some of the solutions need to apply to us.”

A staffer said that the political will of the country was not focused on urban violence, several ministers who attended the meeting recalled.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Politicians and a huge chunk of voters dont want to do anything about school shootings and gang violence because" school is the safest place for children by far, and why the hell would you expend resources to make school even safer, when the same resources spent somewhere else could save a lot more lives?

Only people who don't really want to save lives demand that kind of misallocation of resources.

It's just an attempt to spark a moral panic, in the hope that they can get some infringements on a basic civil liberty enacted when people aren't thinking.

[Ed Grinberg]

re: "[...] don't want to do anything about...gang violence"
Hey, remember this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City
I'd say this was a highly effective way to reduce "gang violence." Now, who was it again that (successfully!) opposed it?

[David Nieporent]

It was not, in fact, a highly effective way to reduce gang violence. After a federal judge ruled that stop-and-frisk violated the constitution (remember that thing?) and ordered it stopped, violent crime continued to drop in NYC.

[SRG2]

Stop and frisk is manifestly unconstitutional. If you're going to go all unconstitutional to end gang violence, why not go after 2A as well?

[Mr. Bumble]

Hahahahahaha!
Gangbangers care about laws; Hahahahaha

[SRG2]

So you think that it wouldn't matter what gun laws were on the books, gangbangers would find no obstacle in getting guns and using them.

I note you don't actually address my point - why can other amendments be freely violated by the state and you implicitly approve, but 2A? From your cold dead brain?

[DixieTune]

Repeal the 14th Amendment, and apply stop and frisk to blacks and browns only, those committing nearly all gun violence, and all is well.

[Brett Bellmore]

Latest space news: Trump just asked Musk to rescue those stranded astronauts on the ISP, and Musk said, essentially, "Sure, no problem."

I assume they'd have been rescued months ago, except that the Biden administration didn't want Musk getting any credit for doing it.

[apedad]

Here, read this and then tell us which of the points you made were wrong - especially the Biden part.

https://spacenews.com/trump-tells-musk-to-bring-back-stranded-iss-astronauts-spacex-already-planned-to-return/

[Commenter_XY]

Bring them back on what...a Boeing death trap? No thanks.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seems like it confirms that they could have already been back by now if the government hadn't been trying to avoid using SpaceX.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What part of the article could even you possibly feel confirms that?

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : " ... if the government hadn't been trying to avoid using SpaceX."

You wonder why Brett bothers with such transparent bullshit. I follow space news closely and can say with assurance he's peddling lies. But why take my word? Below is a link to the NASA press release at the time of the decision not to return the astronauts on Starliner. It says they would come back on a Space-X mission and that's been the unchanging policy ever since.

As for Musk & credit, maybe he shouldn't make such an effort discrediting himself. From Nazi salutes to endorsing German Neo-Nazis, why not take a break from juvenile trolling?

One of our office Righties (every architect's office has a few) strode down the aisles a few weeks back loudly whining about Congress giving themselves a 30% raise. It took only seconds to confirm that (a) he was completely mistaken, and (b) the lie came from Musk. He'd been foolish enough to believe a liar second only to Trump in dishonesty. As I noted while pointing out the error, it wasn't even the most buffoonish lie Musk told that day. That was his claim he could build a tunnel under the Atlantic to England for 100 billion. The only safe course with Musk is assume everything he says is lying until proven otherwise. The odds are with you then.

https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-decides-to-bring-starliner-spacecraft-back-to-earth-without-crew/

[David Nieporent]

The only safe course with Musk is assume everything he says is lying until proven otherwise.

He's been all over Twitter the past day claiming that DOGE is already saving the government $1B/day. Someone compared it to the old Soviet announcements about the productivity of the steel factories or wheat farms or the like: it's just pulled entirely out of his ass.

[grb]

Musk has done some impressive things, but has a serious handicap. He somehow believes unlimited power & money makes childish lies and trolling special. As if only a Tech SuperBro could do what resentful acne-scarred teenagers do every day. Look at me, he seems to say! Look at the things I can get away with doing! But juvenile antics are still juvenile antics.

Is he a Nazi? Who can tell. But he thinks its funny to flirt with being one. And how much of a nihilistic Nothing do you have to be to believe that?

[Commenter_XY]

Elon Musk has done many good things for the country...free charge boost for Teslas for evacuation, free starlink for disasters, preserve freer speech on X, now will go rescue our people in space.

No Presidential Medal of Freedom, though. What an oversight.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett assumes!

[Frank Drackman]

Watching "Battle Circus" with Humphrey B, Keenan W, and June A, not as funny as M*A*S*H (the Movie version, not the insufferable Alan Alda one) but almost looks like the same sets, even the "Amurican Surgeon saves Korean baby" plot device. Scary part is I'm 4 years older than Bogey was when he died.

[Satchmo_Lives]

I am three years older than when my paternal grandfather died. What scares me is I may live to be three years older than my maternal grandfather who died in 2023 at 98.

[Brett Bellmore]

See if you're still scared about that when you're 98.

[Satchmo_Lives]

The last year was rough. He was extremely active (tending a 1/4 acre garden) until 95. He had his wits to the end, but was frustrated because his body couldn't do what he wanted.

Yeah, ask me when I am 98 if I want to live three more years.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The book MASH was way funnier than the movie.

The author, H. Richard Hornberger (aha Richard Hooker) was from Bremen, Maine -- which, up through 1980, was an isolated backwater way out on the Pemaquid Peninsula, East of Moody's Diner.

A friend's older sister saw him operate while she was in Med School and was not impressed with his technique.

His house -- at HIGH tide -- most of the time that's all mudflats:
https://wgme.com/news/local/former-home-of-mash-author-for-sale-in-midcoast-maine-mash-a-novel-about-three-army-doctors-h-richard-hornberger-richard-hooker

[Bob from Ohio]

"insufferable Alan Alda one"

It was quite good IMHO when Wayne Rogers and McLean Stevenson were on it, complete collapse when Alda's ego had no check.

[Satchmo_Lives]

New Jersey's AG, Matthew Platkin, has appointed Preet Bharara as special council to investigate the New jersey State Police. The reason being there was a slowdown in the issuance of traffic violations coinciding with an 18% increase in vehicle accidents.

The slowdown followed a report accusing the troopers of racial profiling and a warning that "every stop they made would go under the microscope."

I, for one, will be waiting with bated breath to try and understand why the troopers engaged in a slowdown. Only a multi-million dollar investigation can get to the bottom of the hows and whys it happened.

New Jersey Trooper Slowdown

[Commenter_XY]

Nothing surprises me about the People's Republic of NJ.

It is a blue state paradise. 😉

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do not forget that an Eric Holder Approved research group found that the NJSP weren't ticketing *enough* Black motorists -- while disproportionate, the study found that an even more disproportionate percentage of Blacks were speeding.

[Krayt]

I'm shocked tickets had any impact at all on measured accidents. Good to learn.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NASA is saying that China's 3 Gorges Dam is slowing the spin of the Earth. Maybe possible. And the Earth wobbles on it's axis, and the 2011 Japanese earthquake did something to the planet's orbit.

And then there isn't just the sun -- all the other planets have gravity, as do other solar systems.

All of which makes me question CO2...

https://www.the-express.com/news/space-news/159687/nasa-china-construction-three-gorges-dam-earth-impact

[Frank Drackman]

The Earth's rotation has been varying since J-hay started his favorite Dreidel spinning 5,785 years ago, that's why the location of Solar Eclipses can only be predicted a few thousand years into the future.

[Noscitur a sociis]

all the other planets have gravity, as do other solar systems.

People always forget!

[Krayt]

They have another dam under construction that's 3x larger still, and something like 70x the Hoover dam.

Politicians there have a profit finger in the construction, unlike here where there's a blocking industrial complex that feeds them money.

[DixieTune]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/29/us/pregnancy-birthright-citizenship-lawsuit-constitution-cec/index.html

It was always in bad faith. They were always here to create anchor babies.

[David Nieporent]

There is no such thing as an "anchor baby," and nothing in that article shows any "bad faith."

[tylertusta]

There's a lot you're implying here, so I'll need some clarification:

Are you saying that for non-citizen, non-permanent resident aliens who give birth inside of the United States that their newborn children are not US Citizens?

Are you also saying that their parents receive no benefits for having a child born inside of the United States, including relief from deportation and eventual citizenship once their new child sponsors them?

[David Nieporent]

Obviously I am not saying that the children are not U.S. citizens; I've been very clear about my view that any argument that they're not is either utterly misinformed or bad faith.

I am saying that "anchor baby" is not a legal term, and that giving birth to a citizen child does not give anyone any rights of residency or citizenship.

As for sponsorship, can a citizen child sponsor a parent? Well, no; a citizen adult can sponsor a parent. Specifically, one has to be 21 years old to sponsor one's parents. "I'll have a kid here and 21 years later I can become a LPR" is really playing the long game! But it's more restrictive than that, because if the parent was here illegally,¹ she (or he) is not eligible for adjustment of status; her 21-year old kid cannot sponsor her. And if she voluntarily leaves the country to evade that, she's barred from returning for ten years! (Assuming she had been here for a year or more.) 31 years is a really really long game.
​
​
¹It should be noted that none of the people profiled in the article that DixieTune linked to appear to be here illegally.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and undocumented migrant or any variation is also not a legal term.
The legal term is illegal alien.
Be consistent.

[David Nieporent]

Um, I didn't use "undocumented migrant or any other variation," so who are you responding to?

[Mr. Bumble]

I was trying to make a point about common usage and legal terms.
Badly I suppose.

[tylertusta]

I am saying that "anchor baby" is not a legal term, and that giving birth to a citizen child does not give anyone any rights of residency or citizenship.

Did DixieTune say it was a legal term? No.

The term "anchor baby" has a well-accepted meaning among the public. In my opinion, by trying to limit the conversation to just a legal definition you're being dishonest.

As for sponsorship, can a citizen child sponsor a parent? Well, no; a citizen adult can sponsor a parent

And what about protection from deportation? You didn't answer that part of my question: "... including relief from deportation... "

[David Nieporent]

Did DixieTune say it was a legal term? No.

The term "anchor baby" has a well-accepted meaning among the public. In my opinion, by trying to limit the conversation to just a legal definition you're being dishonest.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I don't mean that the words "anchor baby" aren't used in the law; I meant that the concept of "anchor baby" isn't in the law. To repeat the second half of my sentence: "giving birth to a citizen child does not give anyone any rights of residency or citizenship."

I agree that when people say "anchor baby" it is generally understood what they mean; I am saying they are wrong: they misunderstand the law.

And to answer your other question: no, having a citizen child does not entitle an illegal immigrant to relief from deportation. The caselaw is clear and consistent that family separation is not sufficient to trigger the extreme hardship exemption from removal.

[Kazinski]

Sure it does, once the anchor baby is 21, then Congress has provided a right to bring your parent to the US as a lawful permanent resident with a path to citisenship.

Its not an absolute right, but they do have to show good cause. I had a co-worker who's petition was denied, and their US Senator got USCIS to approve it.

[tylertusta]

Indeed. David's contention that anchor babies don't exist because it'll take decades to pay off doesn't actually disprove the notion that they exist; all he's done is show that it takes decades to pay off!

[tylertusta]

If that's the case, then why the hell did you bother replying with the sentence, 'There is no such thing as an "anchor baby?"' when there clearly is?

You even used scare quotes!

[David Nieporent]

Because the "well-accepted meaning among the public" of anchor baby is not "Someone comes here and has a baby and then 30 years later might be able to become a lawful resident." It's "Someone comes here and has a baby and then they can't be deported."

[tylertusta]

Considering the Federal government's deportation enforcement priorities, those aren't even mutually exclusive statements.

[Kazinski]

I'm actually in favor of anchor babies, I'd give breeding age females a higher immigration priority than tech bros.

[Sarcastr0]

breeding age females

They always reveal themselves as Ferenghi in the end.

[DixieTune]

Except "hardship to a U.S. citizen" is grounds for an exception to deportation rules.

[David Nieporent]

Except "hardship to a U.S. citizen" is grounds for an exception to deportation rules.

It is not. The test is extreme hardship, as I mentioned earlier today, and as I mentioned at the same time, the caselaw is clear that family separation is not sufficient to constitute extreme hardship. That requires circumstances that are unusual or beyond that which would normally be expected" for deportation; since all deportation results in separation, it isn't enough. (Cases I've seen that satisfy that criteria are things like the kid has cerebral palsy and the person being deported is the only caregiver and the facilities to treat that aren't available in the other country.)

[DixieTune]

That is the "test," but you know full well that's not how immigration judges interpret it. If you have a U.S. citizen child, there is zero chance you're deported unless you're a violent criminal.

[David Nieporent]

That is the "test," but you know full well that's not how immigration judges interpret it.

I do not in fact know any such thing. As I said, the caselaw is clear — and where do you think the caselaw comes from?

If you have a U.S. citizen child, there is zero chance you're deported unless you're a violent criminal.

Any sane person, given the extremely limited resources of the immigration system relative to the immigrant population, would prioritize violent criminals, and then non-violent criminals, over random immigrants whose only offense is illegal entry or visa overstay. But if for any reason one does end up on immigration's radar, there's no "You have a citizen kid so you can't be deported."

[DixieTune]

The narrative is always that these people are here for a better life, and that they're not here to get citizenship for their anchor babies, and then later, themselves. This disproves it.

[David Nieporent]

It does not, in fact, in any way "disprove" that. None of them came here while pregnant (or got pregnant right after arriving here.) That they want their kids to be citizens in no way shows that they are here for the purpose of getting citizenship for their kids, let alone for themselves.

And also, "these people"?

[DixieTune]

It does in fact prove that. And it shows just why birthright citizenship makes no sense. These "asylum seekers" did so in bad faith.

[David Nieporent]

So you're just in the lying phase of the discussion. For example, one of the three people has been here for six years.

[DixieTune]

Sure. Because she knew that her "asylum" or "temporary" stay would be anything but.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not exactly surprisingly, the article does mention the parents seeking US citizenship for their children, but it says nothing about them thereby acquiring "citizenship...for themselves".

I once knew a German couple who were very proud to inform me that they had engineered the US-birth of both of their children. They actually thought that having a US passport (in addition to a German one) would be a net benefit, worthy of making sacrifices to achieve by any legal means. I might have agreed, if they had been citizens of some "shithole country", but the German one is widely regarded as one of the best passports in the world to hold (especially if you're otherwise German and, well, white).

I didn't have the heart to tell them they had just needlessly set those kids up for filing US tax returns for life...

[DixieTune]

Yeah, the tax on worldwide income for non-residents is retarded.

[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.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

As has been pointed out, why would anyone believe Trump's promise to pay them?

Get it in writing, and signed by the government-equivalent of HR, then maybe.

[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 forms 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 simply 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 an 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.

[JD85]

I used it last year. Worked fine for me.

It works fine for people who file basic taxes (which is the vast majority of taxpayers).

[John F. Carr]

The threshold for reporting payments through online platforms has dropped to $5,000 this year on its way to $600 in tax year 2026. The IRS reluctantly admits in its online instructions that there is a line to fill out to deny that 1099-K income is taxable. This line is separate from the line to say "I owe no tax because I sold the items at a loss."

"What taxpayers need to know, though, is that receiving the extra 1099-K paperwork does not mean you're always dealing with a taxable situation. Yes, it could get really tricky."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personal-finance/susan-tompor/2025/01/28/1099-k-meaning-form-tax-irs-2024-filing/77925001007/

[Josh R]

For those of you who argued policies against the transgender are not motivated by hostility, but rather protecting children, privacy and the integrity of women's sports, here is Trump's EO prohibiting transgender from serving in the military:

adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life. A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.

The veil is off, although I doubt Trump cares one way or the other.

[Satchmo_Lives]

A paranoid schizophrenic who demands other people acknowledge and participate in the paranoia is not a great fit for the defense of the US, but it is hostile to say so.

Pah-tay-toes, pah-tah-toes.

[Moderation4ever]

What about the military accepting people who believe that a historical figure changed water into wine and feed a multitude with five loaves and two fishes?

[Satchmo_Lives]

I will start to worry when they demand I turn water into wine thinking I am Hay-zeus.

[ThePublius]

I honestly can't tell if you support this or not. But I think it exactly encapsulates the correct approach here. I consider gender dysphoria a mental health issue. People profoundly suffering from this are in no position to serve in a life and death military role.

It's worth repeating:

"adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life. A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I feel the same way about those who suffer from reality dysphoria.

[ThePublius]

Please elaborate.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Certainly.

Reality dysphoria is a mental health issue. People profoundly suffering from this are in no position to serve in a government role of any kind--whether they have been elected or not.

[Commenter_XY]

You need to depopulate DC for the cure. That is being worked on. 😉

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not really possible, when DC has just recently been overrun by loads of 'em.

[David Nieporent]

The most insane part is that at the same time they issued this order, they issued an order offering to reinstate with back pay, all service members discharged for refusing to get vaccinated. So a loyal soldier who has served for years without trouble is getting kicked out, whereas a coward is going to be paid for doing nothing for the last few years.

[ThePublius]

People who declined to be vaccinated are cowards? I think they were smart. I think I have suffered from the covid vaccines and boosters I have received, and now regret having taken them. But, it's anecdotal, at best. But I would think that, given the environment at the time, it was courageous to decline vaccination.

[David Nieporent]

People who declined to be vaccinated are cowards?

Yes. When I was 7 or 8 I was scared of needles too. But I got over it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Or come up with oral vaccines. I received the polio vaccine on a sugar cube.

[ThePublius]

So, you're saying that soldiers who declined to be vaccinated declined because they were afraid of needles? Ha, ha. That's ridiculous, and you know it.

[David Nieporent]

That's more rational than any other explanation.

[Ska]

We're talking about the US military administering a new, expedited drug on soldiers. Knowing the history of the US military, and militaries around the world, "afraid of needles" is the more rational explanation? C'mon.

[David Nieporent]

The vaccine mandate was imposed on the military in August 2021, by which time many hundreds of millions of people around the world had already received it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yes. When I was 7 or 8 I was scared of needles too. But I got over it."

I know what you mean. When I was 7 or 8 I used to tell effeminate boys that they were really girls and that they should have their dicks removed. But I got over that.

[Magister]

I expect you moved to other forms of bullying as you grew older, but still with the same delight in your cruelty. It's not something to boast about.

[Absaroka]

In fairness, I don't think vaccines for troops were ever optional before.The notion is that the military decides what vaccines or drugs you should have *for the good of the service*, and you suck it up. If they think having everyone take a malaria vaccine or drug will make the military more effective overall, by reducing malaria cases, you take it. You don't get to do a personal risk/benefit analysis.

Indeed, the military gets it quite wrong some times, e.g. the anti-airsickness pills they made paratroopers take for D-Day.

(this is my understanding as an army brat; corrections welcomed. My dim recollection is that even we dependents didn't get asked our preferences; if we were going to accompany Dad on his overseas tour, we got the relevant list of vaccines. Some of them - typhus for example - weren't something civilians usually got)

[Noscitur a sociis]

People who declined to be vaccinated are cowards?

To be fair, most of them are also liars. But that doesn’t seem like a reason to bring them back into the military.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"I think I have suffered from the covid vaccines and boosters I have received, and now regret having taken them."

No, you were a lying idiot before then, too.

[Brett Bellmore]

" So a loyal soldier who has served for years without trouble is getting kicked out"

I think you're in denial about how recent the military's policy of hiring transgenders is. The longest anybody could have been serving as a transgender is about 4 years. I mean, without having lied about it when they enlisted, of course.

[David Nieporent]

without having lied about it when they enlisted, of course.

Are you claiming there's an "Are you transgender or cisgender, please check one" box on the enlistment form?

[Bob from Ohio]

Male and female boxes I'm reasonably sure.

[Krayt]

Everything the other side does is wrong, always, all the time. This goes both ways.

Some of you are too close to the forest to see the leaves.

"Should I take the vaccine or is it not safe?" Well, let me see who's president before I decide.

[Joe_dallas]

ObviouslyNotSpam 41 minutes ago
"I feel the same way about those who suffer from reality dysphoria."

That pretty much covers everyone who supported WPATH version of treatment from those suffering gender dysphoria.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Indeed.

That's why I find it fascinating that transism isn't being embraced by the Trumperverse. Both phenomena are based on the same kind of rejection of reality, the willful substitution of mind over matter.

The only explanation I have for this incongruity is that maybe bigotry is more important to MAGAworld than self-realization.

[Satchmo_Lives]

My apologies for not being clear.

No, I am not in favor of deferring to people's mental disorder. To me, there is little difference* between paranoid schizophrenia and gender dysphoria. At least in how I am supposed to act and react to their delusions.

* Little difference = pah-tay-toes/pah-tah-toes (why does the cliche not also include poe-tay-toes/poe-tah-toes???)

[Brett Bellmore]

Seems like a rational policy: A man claiming to be a woman, or a woman claiming to be a man, is either lying or delusional, and neither are something we want in the military. And that's setting aside the medical issues.

I'm not sure what you mean about "the veil" being off, though. Haven't we be clear all along that transgenderism is either a lie or a mental illness, or sometimes both?

[Josh R]

You have. But, many politicians and others in this forum (I believe TwelveInchPianist for example) claim otherwise. And, there is good reason for doing so.

If you are correct, it would be a good idea for Congress to pass a law stating Bostock was wrongly decided and Title VII allows people to be fired for being transgender. I strongly suspect a majority of Americans would not like such a law.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? I don't think I've said anything inconsistent with the idea that crippling distress over one's natural body parts makes one unfit to serve in the military, although I don't believe that such distress necessarily makes someone dishonest.

[Josh R]

You said:

Nobody's rejecting transgendered people. But people are rejecting the idea that men should play in women's sports or be housed in women's prisons, and people are rejecting the idea that children should have their bodies mutilated.

The EO rejects people being transgender.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it says they can go be transgender someplace else.

I mean, I wouldn't have qualified for the Army, on account of flat feet and 20-400 vision, but that doesn't mean the Army was rejecting people "being" nearsighted. They just didn't want to hire them.

[Josh R]

The EO says being transgender is a lie. That's a rejection of being transgender.

And to correct your claim, the EO permits people to lie someplace else.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Personally, I'd rather have a President that thinks that people who say that they feel like the opposite sex are lying than have a President who thinks that children who say that they feel like the opposite sex should have their dicks cut off.

[Josh R]

There is an impressive straw man.

[Kazinski]

I guess the veil came off a while ago, since he campaigned on reinstating the ban on transgenders serving in the military.

But I do agree he hoes to far in his EO, they should just say that it effects readiness, and the accommodations needed serve no purpose in accomplishing the military's primary mission.

[Josh R]

Below the veil is hostility towards trans people (they are delusional or liars). He didn't campaign on that.

[Kazinski]

He is for us, not for they/them.

[Josh R]

What does that mean?

[Bob from Ohio]

It was a tag line from Trump ads. Very, very heavy rotation.

"GOP ads on transgender rights are dominating airwaves in the election's closing days"
NPR October 19, 20245:00 AM ET

[Josh R]

That was veiled hostility against trans people disguising as protecting women's sports, etc.

[Satchmo_Lives]

I thought protecting women's sports from men IS being hostile to the trans. That is what most of the dem party tells me anyway. 200+ also voted against a bill to do so.

[Sarcastr0]

That is what most of the dem party tells me anyway

Is it now?
https://news.gallup.com/poll/507023/say-birth-gender-dictate-sports-participation.aspx

[Brett Bellmore]

The party, as opposed to the voting base. As Satchmo says, they voted against it, even though their own voters wanted it.

[Sarcastr0]

The Party? Like Biden or Harris or federal laws?

Because I've seen nothing from them saying "protecting women's sports from men IS being hostile to the trans."

[TwelveInchPianist]

I'm not sure what you mean by "disguising".

You think that people who think that men with gender dysphoria are delusional or liars don't really want to keep them out of women's sports?

[Josh R]

Some people were disguising they have nothing against trans people, and just wanted to keep trans women out of women's sports to protect the integrity of women's sports.

Hoo-boy, the claim that "so-called" trans people are delusional or liars is the opposite of nothing against trans people.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have nothing against anorexics, in fact, I feel rather sorry for them. But that doesn't mean I'm going to tell them they're fat and offer them a tummy tuck on the house.

Same thing here. I actually feel really sorry for the ones who aren't just faking it to have a chance to rape women in shelters or prisons, or walk away with trophies in women's sports. Can't be easy to have your brain telling you you're not what you obviously are.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Fair enough, I agree that some people don't like trans people, but I'm still not sure how they'd be disguising a desire to keep them out of women's sports, etc.

[Josh R]

I agree that some people don't like trans people

Some people? Don't like? How about the President of the United States (*) and saying that there is no such thing as a transgender person?

(*) Again, Trump doesn't care. He's just satisfying the base.

but I'm still not sure how they'd be disguising a desire to keep them out of women's sports, etc.

FFS. I didn't say that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I agree that the President of the United States doesn't like trans people, but I disagree that he said they don't exist.

[Josh R]

If "they" means "people who claim they have a gender identity that differs from their sex," then sure. But if "they" means "people who have a gender identity that differs from their sex," then no, because the EO says that's a lie.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the claim is actually something like "Gender identity, smender identity, we care what your sex is, not what's going on in your head."

Have any gender identity you want, just don't tell us you're a girl when you're a guy.

[David Nieporent]

I think the claim is actually something like "Gender identity, smender identity, we care what your sex is, not what's going on in your head."

No, Brett; you're trying to whitewash them because you just can't admit who the people on your side are. If that were their position, it would be "Soldiers will be treated as their biological sex." But this order says that they very much do care what's going on in soldiers' heads.

[Brett Bellmore]

Part of treating somebody according to their biological sex, is that if they tell you their sex is something else, you fire them for lying to you.

[David Nieporent]

Part of treating somebody according to their biological sex, is that if they tell you their sex is something else, you fire them for lying to you.

You do not in fact do any such thing. In fact, under the reasoning of Bostock, you'd be liable if you did that.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If that were their position, it would be "Soldiers will be treated as their biological sex."

How is that different from what the EO directs?

[Josh R]

The EO will categorically exclude anyone whose gender identity does not match their sex. They cannot serve even if they agree to be treated as their biological sex.

[Sarcastr0]

"the ones who aren't just faking it to have a chance to rape women in shelters or prisons"

I don't know why anyone is attempting to engage Brett after this.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I don't know why anyone is attempting to engage Brett after this."

Why? It's been fairly common for people on all sides of the discussion to claim that men who have been caught raping women in women's prisons or doing other inappropriate things in women's spaces while identifying as women are faking being transgender.

[Sarcastr0]

How many actual cases of rape-via-lying-about-gender have there been, TiP?

[Brett Bellmore]

Any frequency is too high, when men shouldn't be placed in women's prisons to begin with.

[Sarcastr0]

Weak dodge, Brett.

You deflect to a rare but bad event in a broader discussion, you aren’t solving anything.

[Brett Bellmore]

I honestly don't know that they're rare, and neither do you. Has anybody actually been collecting statistics on it?

What I do know is that it happens, and that it should never happen, because men should not be placed in women's prisons.

Now, you want to defend placing men in women's prisons? Go ahead.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't have stats but given
1) the size of the trans population prisoner population,
2) the eagerness of the right to amplify every single story of that type,
3) the rareness of these stories,
4) the fact that people *lying* about being trans is going to be a subset

It's hard to see it as other than there's no stats because the number is too small to be amenable to stats.

By marked contrast, trans people getting raped seems quite an issue. That is not your objection.
Which aligns with my objection to your focus on this Because you are here for animus against trans people, not because of any policy concerns.

Do you think the lack of statistics is because people who study prison violence are all wokesters who don't care about rape if it's a trans person perpetrating it, and are covering it up?

[TwelveInchPianist]

So you've moved from "people should refuse to engage with Brett for even suggesting that this happens"

to

"It happens but the vibes tell me it doesn't happen very often, and y'all are poopyheads anyway"?

[Magister]

To supply some statistics from Google:
1.8 million people incarcerated in the US;
less than 200,000 women are incarcerated in the US;
transgender prisoners number 1500 in federal prisons and less than 5000 in state prisons; unclear how these are divided between transmen and transwomen;
the vast majority of prison rapes are of men.

There seems to be more than vibes justifying Sarcastr0's comment, and nothing more than vibes behind TwelveInchPianist's made up quotes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

How does your argument purport to justify Sarcastro's claim that people should decline to engage with Brett over the fact that, to the extent that it's possible to lie about being trans, some people do so to get into women's prisons?

[Sarcastr0]

TiP has to rewrite Brett's take almost entirely to make it defensible.

Before: " I actually feel really sorry for the ones who aren't just faking it to have a chance to rape women in shelters or prisons... "

After: "to the extent that it's possible to lie about being trans, some people do so to get into women's prisons."

[Brett Bellmore]

I honestly do not understand your complaint here.

Some people actually are 'trans', poor souls. I pity them.

Some people pretend to be 'trans' for a variety of basically never reputable motives, among which are men getting into women's prisons, or into women's sports. These people I do not in any way pity.

And, yeah, the latter group exists.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The EO will categorically exclude anyone whose gender identity does not match their sex. They cannot serve even if they agree to be treated as their biological sex.

Apologies if I’m missing something obvious. But what part of the order do you think says that?

[Josh R]

"adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life. A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member."

[TwelveInchPianist]

How should I know? We know California had a policy in place of allowing anyone who self-identifies as a woman to be housed in a women's prison. At least one inmate has been charged with rape, and left-wing commentors suggested that California could ameliorate its policies by "require[ing] due diligence that the inmate is indeed trans."

According to what seems to be the dominate strain of gender ideology, it is impossible to lie and say that you're trans, if you say you're a woman, you're a woman. But not everyone who has succumbed to gender ideology accepts this reasoning.

[Josh R]

Another straw man. If you say you are a woman, that may not apply in some contexts.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You said, in another thread, that some inmates claiming to be trans in women's prisons may not in fact be trans. How is that different from what Brett said?

[Josh R]

Brett wants to categorically exclude trans women from women's prisons. I want each case to be decided on its own merits balancing the safety interests of those in the women's prison and the trans woman (who might not be safe in a men's prison).

[TwelveInchPianist]

Should the placement of other women in men's prisons be decided on a case by case basis, or just trans women?

[Josh R]

Why would cis women ever be placed in men's prisons? If there is no reason to do so, then it would never happen.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Brett wants to categorically exclude trans women from women's prisons."

No, I want to categorically exclude men from women's prisons. I don't particularly care what is going on in their heads, or what they claim is going on in their heads.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Why would [real] women ever be placed in men's prisons?"

According to you, if a case by case analysis indicated that such a placement would lead to less chance of rape.

[Josh R]

How could there be less chance of rape by putting a cis woman in a man's prison?

[Kazinski]

A public minded citizen has created a searchable data base of grants to states, local government, NGOs, etc.

The example they used is Yarn related grants:
"As it turned out, Americans — unbeknownst to 99.99% of us, I'm sure — will spend $16,500,001 on three yarn-related projects this year. The bulk of it, an even $15 million, went to something called The Industrial Commons on NSF engines."
https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2025/01/29/wont-believe-what-i-found-spending-tax-dollars-on-n4936462

I did a search first on immigrants and then narrowed it to a particularly prominent recipient that stood out, and found that one recipient had received more tha 600 million.
Taxpayer Money Spent: $662,258,290.57
Search Results
U.S. COMMITTEE FOR REFUGEES AND IMMIGRANTS, INC

https://joeisdone.github.io/award_search/?keywords=%28JK7QHJQ2WFL9

[ThePublius]

I saw that, it's great! I bookmarked that site. I checked several things and was surprised at the results. 🙂

[hobie]

Well, I tried to find some source other than your rightwing pundits. From the Cato Institute:

"The federal government spends more than $30 billion a year on subsidies for farm businesses and agriculture...The government supports nearly all aspects of farming. It protects farmers from fluctuations in prices and revenues and subsidizes their insurance, land improvements, loans, marketing, research, and export sales...Farm subsidies are costly to taxpayers and can distort planting decisions, induce overproduction, and inflate land values. The programs discourage farmers from innovating and cutting costs, and they steer resources to households with incomes much higher than average U.S. incomes."

You're right, Kazinski. These giveaways need to stop. If we take away the welfare coupled with all the illegals they require to plant and harvest, they may finally get back to the plow and horse like my highly successful, yet non-governementally-supported, non-immigrant-using Amish neighbors utilize

https://www.cato.org/briefing-paper/cutting-federal-farm-subsidies#:~:text=The%20federal%20government%20spends%20more,with%20cuts%20to%20agricultural%20subsidies.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're right, the agricultural subsidies need to be on chopping block, too. Glad we can agree on that.

[hobie]

Finally!

[Brett Bellmore]

Finally? I've favored abolishing agricultural subsidies ever since I first learned they existed, over half a century ago.

I'm quite happy that his Agriculture Department nominee is in favor of eliminating those subsidies. I'm less encouraged by his actions so far on ethanol in gasoline, since the mandate for that is just another agricultural subsidy, and the higher blends are actually damaging for older vehicles.

[Kazinski]

Starting with the Ethanol subsidies.

However, I do think having a reasonable food surplus, and reserve are valid government functions, and if left totally to the private sector we might be more efficient at producing just enough food to supply anticipated consumption than we want to be.

[hobie]

Well, I'll believe this when you start squawking bloody murder about all the reliable-voter, white, mask-hating patriot farmers sucking off of Ag welfare. To make it easier, just imagine in your mind that they harbor some animus towards American Jews...or does that even require imagination?

[DixieTune]

I am an American Jew, theoretically, and I harbor animus toward American Jews.

[hobie]

Yikes. That's a tough position to be in

[DixieTune]

It's not that hard as long as you're willing to mostly limit your social circle to non-Jews. Jews try to pull you back in to the community.

[David Nieporent]

I'm pretty sure all you have to do is open your mouth and nobody without a white sheet will be trying to pull you in.

[Brett Bellmore]

Considering the primary function of agricultural price supports is to drive down actual agricultural production, (Remember Filburn?) so as to drive up prices, I very much doubt that outcome.

[Sarcastr0]

Ignorance on parade.

'Grant sounds wacky - YARN! No, I will not do research.'

https://www.theindustrialcommons.org/about

It's a rural jobs program.
I do not know how effective it is. I do know that your objection that it's yarn! is facile.

I get this with basic research all the time.

[Kazinski]

Sure, make a case for it, but surely there isn't anything wrong with knowing about it and debating whether we need to spend money on it.

And of course determine if the "jobs program" is more for the researchers than the rural workers.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one whose argument is YARN.

Your objection not well formulated.
I'm not going to do a cost-benefit on this program, just point out there are lots of ways it could be a good thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

And those ways would matter, for a government running a surplus.

[Sarcastr0]

Same argument, but the border. Or social media regulation. Or election fraud monitoring. Or endless investigations of Biden. Or tax cuts.

You long ago sold your ideology out; you can't revivify it to short circuit discussion.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I'm sorry, we have some sort of popular law about knitting circles to enforce?

[Sarcastr0]

'Stuff I like is fine. Stuff I don't like we cannot afford.

No, I will not do any policy analysis.'

This isn't even ideology, it's just wankery.

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, there's a law regulating border crossings that the government has an obligation to enforce. Is there a law regulating knitting circles to generate a similar obligation?

You don't spend money on optional stuff when you're running a huge deficit. You genuinely don't understand that, think running a huge deficit has nothing to do with what you should spend money on?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Does the government have an obligation to enforce other laws, or only the ones you like?

Also, I've asked an important question of you further down the page, if you're not too much of a cowardly, lying shit to actually respond this time.

If the trend continues, I'll just bring it up again on Friday, over and over and over.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Still waiting, coward.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hey, nitwit: What part of "Oh, I'm sorry, we have some sort of popular law about knitting circles to enforce?" did you not comprehend?

What 'other law' do you suppose mandates subsidizing knitting circles?

[Kazinski]

No my argument wasn't yarn, that was just the example on how to use the website.

My example was 600 million paid to an NGO likely for facilitating and encouraging illegal immigration, and support once they got here.

[Sarcastr0]

Likely!

[ReaderY]

For the last century, the left has associated itself with centralization of power, with a strong federal government and relatively weak state governments. Central power was assumed to be an inherently progressive force, and state and local power was assumed to be inherently reactionary.

History seemed to support this. States rights were associated with slavery and Jim Crow, with opposition to welfare or protection of workers and consumers, etc. etc. etc. on average, the federal government was consistently to the left of state and local governments. Or so it seemed. The cries of conservatives that division of power is necessary to prevent an all-powerful central government from becoming a tyrrany seemed like obscurantist bickering. Divided power was simply an excuse for keeping things as they were.

I am wondering if the Trump era of will lead to a realignment. Will law professors and people on the left become more respectful of or see more value you in concepts like state sovereignty, divided power, lited enumerated federal powers, and other constitutional limitations that were traditionally the province of the right? And will we end up with a complete reversal? Will right-wing nationalists, eager to remake the country in their image and stymied by the sorts of checks and balances that once stymied the left, come out favoring strong centralized power and eager to dismantle what’s left of state sovereignty and states’ rights?

[hobie]

I imagine our rubish friends would agree. They have agitated for years about an all-powerful executive Biden giving states what-for. But when o when will they stop using the federal judiciary for redress? We're a 'Constitutional Republic'. States can handle things amongst themselves surely

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm waiting for the Democrats to finally recognize the actual purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

[Brett Bellmore]

They understood it all along, they just expected to be on the receiving end, and so opposed it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

There's no evidence for your assertion.

[Kazinski]

I definitely favor the laboratories of democracy format.

You think of most of the wish list items progressives have: single payer health system, universal basic income, universal preschool, etc., there is no barrier to NY, MA, CA, showing us how its all done.

They've got the taxing power, the legislative power, and all they need is the will.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that and the ability to keep people from fleeing. That was what they wanted all this happening at the federal level for: To make it a lot harder to escape.

[tylertusta]

In many ways California is already doing that with their exit tax.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If people aren't fleeing California's outrageous taxes, sky high prices and unparalleled disasters, they won't be fleeing single-payer healthcare.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I saw this in the paper online today though it's a bit old news by now. Something lighter.

"People go pantless for the annual 'No Trousers Day On The Tube Day' at a station on the London Underground on Sunday, Jan. 12, 2025, in London, England. The stripped-down event, which has spread to over 60 cities around the world, is just meant to spread some joy during the winter months."

https://www.nydailynews.com/2025/01/13/no-trousers-tube-day-subway-ride-london-photos/

[JoeFromtheBronx]

And, for something more serious:

https://verdict.justia.com/2025/01/29/trump-renews-commitment-to-impairing-womens-health-across-the-globe

Meanwhile, will RFK Jr. be confirmed? If the three Hegseth dissenters hold & there isn't a Democrat dissenter the other way (talk about Whitehouse being his pal), there needs to be one more voice of sanity. Another possibility of a vote down is Tulsi Gabbard.

[Roger S]

Why would Democrats vote against him? Surely RFKjr is more pro-Democrat than anyone else Trump will appoint. What do Democrats gain by rejecting RFKjr?

[hobie]

In today's hearings he exclaimed he wanted to restrict abortion pill access. We don't really like that

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, but any Trump nominee will do that. It's more like the anti-vaccine batshittery that is special to RFKJ that is the reason to vote him down.

[Roger S]

RFKjr is solidly pro-abortion. If he is not confirmed, Trump will probably get an evangelical pro-lifer to replace him.

[hobie]

"RFKjr is solidly pro-abortion"

And apparently now he ain't. Surprised? MAGA requires your principles have plasticity

[Frank Drackman]

Who you mean "We", Pale Face?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Kennedy endorsed Trump & worked to game his presidential ballots to help him. He's actively pro-Trump.

And, he's patently unqualified and dangerous on vaccines and other issues in ways even a run-of-the-mill Republican would not be.

RFKjr is solidly pro-abortion.

"I agree with him that the states should control abortion."

Doesn't sound very pro-abortion rights. He promised to follow Trump's policies. There would be little difference if someone else is confirmed & if the person has more qualifications & is not as unhinged as him, it would be a net positive.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-every-abortion-is-a-tragedy-rfk-jr-says

[Roger S]

If all possible appointments will do the same, then there is no reason to care who gets confirmed.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

You are selectively answering one issue that as David N. notes is not what is the difference. You are the one who is making it one. He has other problems that a standard nominee doesn't have.

And, in the process, not admitting the "pro-abortion" framing is misleading in context.

[Mr. Bumble]

They are desperate to derail any of Trump's picks.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Other than Marco Rubio (unanimous), John Ratcliffe (over 20 yes votes), Sean Duffy (around 25 yes votes), and multiple others (who cares about the likes of Doug Burgum? the labor secretary pick is apparently surprisingly decent).

[Kazinski]

Yeah, the Labor Secretary pick needs to be axed, she was a cosponsor of the PRO act, which targets freelancers, and companies that use freelancers.

[Commenter_XY]

Nicole Shanahan has brass testicles. 🙂

[grb]

Wait a second! Have you seen this ?!?

[Commenter_XY]

I saw her X post, and that convinced me. 😉

Big brass ones. I kind of like her. Certainly very open and transparent regarding her feelings, a virtue in today's society.

[Brett Bellmore]

Are they hanging from her pickup truck? Because I think that's kind of tasteless.

[Commenter_XY]

Nah, she might have the fuzzy dice for the P/U truck, lol.

[Frank Drackman]

Elon Musk has

[Commenter_XY]

RFK Jr will be confirmed.

[hobie]

I'll accept him as long as he promises to stop butchering and transporting carcasses he keeps finding all over creation. We can worry about hemorrhaging and miscarriages some other year

[Frank Drackman]

Is RFK Jr a 'Hillbilly" too?

[hobie]

Fuck if I know. The non-Hillbillie behaviors are obvious - He's almost black as fuck from over-tanning; He messes with roadkill instead of leaving it. So, yeah, not a hillbilly

[Frank Drackman]

Jeezus Hobie-Stank, you sound like one of those “White Niggers” Robert KKK Bird used to talk about.

[not guilty]

Frank, why do you repeatedly misspell Senator Robert Byrd's name? Do you fancy that you are scoring some kind of rhetorical point?

[Frank Drackman]

I know "KKK" isn't his real middle name, but I think it makes a point, rhetorical or otherwise

[MoreCurious]

Many VC followers mocked President Biden because he sometimes appeared to falter during public appearances and speeches. Some of those followers believed that these age-related issues disqualified him from continuing in office. I wonder how those people feel now that they've had a chance to see Robert Kennedy's embarrassing, floundering, incoherent performance in today's Senate hearing. Is he qualified for the cabinet position for which he has been nominated?

[ThePublius]

"Robert Kennedy's embarrassing, floundering, incoherent performance in today's Senate hearing."

I watched it, and I don't agree, at all, that it was embarrassing, floundering, or incoherent. I thought that the Democratic senators were exceedingly strident and rude, Sheldon Whitehouse and Elizabeth Warren in particular. Whitehouse said that he didn't have a lot of time so he was going to say his piece and Kennedy would just have to listen. Many others posed questions and then wouldn't let him answer. I think he handled himself well.

[MoreCurious]

Let's say you own a small family business with a few employees -- maybe a book store or coffee shop or convenience store. Based upon what you witnessed today, would you hire Robert Kennedy to manage it for you?

[ThePublius]

A rather whacky hypothetical, but sure. why not?

[MoreCurious]

I saw a man -- presumably smart, clear-headed, and competent once upon a time -- who struggled to handle even the softball questions tossed at him by the Republicans. I guess another way of looking at the Kennedy nomination is: Is this they best they've got?

[grb]

ThePublius : "A rather whacky hypothetical...."

Not wacky at all. It's a commonplace metric for judging people. For instance, would you trust Trump to babysit your child? Or dog. Or pet goldfish.

Obviously not, as long as you have real feelings for any of those creatures. Thus Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

I could count the politicians I'd trust to babysit my child on the fingers of a careless shop teacher, and they'd have fingers left over.

[grb]

I'll grant ya that....

[David Nieporent]

But that's just either flippancy or nihilism. There are plenty of politicians who are not Matt Gaetz.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, there are plenty of politicians who are not Matt Gaetz. All of them but one, in fact!

Is that your only criteria when picking a babysitter? "Not Matt Gaetz"?

[grb]

Only? No. But certainly my first. Tailing close behind, I wouldn't want anyone else who Trump would nominate to head the Department of Justice. Somehow I just know that person will have criminal tendencies. Otherwise, Trump wouldn't have named them to the position.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, your criteria for babysitter selection is ideological compatibility. Gotcha.

[David Nieporent]

Is that your only criteria when picking a babysitter? "Not Matt Gaetz"?

My criteria when picking a babysitter were that the person had to be not likely to harm my kid or steal my laptop. I think most members of Congress can clear that bar. (Given that I have a daughter, Matt Gaetz flunks the first test. George Santos flunks the second.) There are a few drunks or truly crazy ones, I suppose. But most are basically normal people.

[Jmaie]

"But most are basically normal people."

Way to suck all the fun out of the conversation...

[Brett Bellmore]

"I think most members of Congress can clear that bar."

And I don't.

[David Nieporent]

Like I said, either flippancy or nihilism.

[Sarcastr0]

Nothing says Brett like blind blanket negative assumptions about groups of people.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Member of Congress" is not an immutable characteristic.

[MoreCurious]

Another way of looking at it: His intellectual level is roughly the same as Drackman's, and would you want Drackman to be the secretary of anything?

[Frank Drackman]

I'd be a great "Secretary of doing Cool Stuff"

[PaulS]

He's very popular - I'd require he be onsite interacting with customers but I'd make lot's if he ran a coffee shop or bookstore for me - a dream hire for a small family business

[hobie]

Sounds like they're just copying Jim Jordan and Stephanik. Remember when the college deans were there?

[Frank Drackman]

He's not nearly as embarrassing, floundering, or incoherent as the Idiots making speeches at him (When did this "You can answer in writing" Bullshit start?) or for that matter, your post.

[ThePublius]

moved

[not guilty]

In the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals the government has filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal against Waltine Nauta and Carlos DeOliveira. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822.111.0.pdf

I am a bit surprised that they elected to file a motion under Rule 42(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure rather than a stipulation of voluntary dismissal under Rule 42(b)(1). The relevant language of Rule 42 is here:

(b) Dismissal in the Court of Appeals.

(1) Stipulated Dismissal. The circuit clerk must dismiss a docketed appeal if the parties file a signed dismissal agreement specifying how costs are to be paid and pay any court fees that are due.

(2) Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss. An appeal may be dismissed on the appellant’s motion on terms agreed to by the parties or fixed by the court.

The appellate court has discretion under 42(b)(2) but no discretion under 42(b)(1). I hope that the Court here issues a summary reversal of Judge Loose Cannon's order dismissing the indictment and denies the motion to dismiss the appeal as moot.

If that happens, President Trump will no doubt pardon Nauta and DeOliveira, but it would erase Judge Cannon's shitstain on the federal judiciary.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It's depressing these two prosecutions were not dropped at the end of the Biden Administration.

This result is patently expected. If it had been done earlier, we could have seen the other part of Jack Smith's report.

[Roger S]

Those DoJ lawyers who pursued the prosecution should be fired.

[David Nieporent]

Why?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

For doing their jobs too well?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Blatant corruption, cronyism, and violation of American values. Meanwhile the rubes think the swamp is somehow being drained.

Seems to me like the lines are being drawn.

[David Nieporent]

So apparently the crack-addicted chipmunks running the federal government now have been convinced by the slightly-less-crack-addicted weasels that this whole government freeze thing was thought out less well than the Bay of Pigs invasion, and they've rescinded that incomprehensibly stupid memo.

[Sarcastr0]

Ate half of my week for nothing.

[Bob from Ohio]

Practice for next week's memo.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Oh damn. How will we stop Marxism, wokeism, and AOC now?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

On a more serious note, especially with (FWIW, but she did promise not to lie to the press!) the press secretary's announcement, it is unclear just how much difference that will make.

[Sarcastr0]

I do wonder who pulled the rip cord on that, and why.

[David Nieporent]

Okay, it just gets more keystone kops crazier. To summarize:

1. Trump issues an EO that does not freeze spending.
2. Trump's OPM issues a memo that does freeze spending.
3. That memo is stayed by a judge.
4. Trump issues a second memo rescinding the first memo.
5. Trump's DOJ tells the judge that the case is now moot because of the second memo.
6. Before the hearing, Trump's press secretary says, "Actually, we're not ending the freeze, because the EO is still in place; we only rescinded the first memo to trick that mean ol' judge." [Note: as mentioned above, the EO didn't order a freeze spending.]
7. Plaintiffs tell the judge, "Um, how can it be moot when the press secretary is saying the freeze is still in place?"
8. The judge says, "Good question. TRO granted, because I can't figure out what the fuck these people are doing."

[Sarcastr0]

You missed a step between 2 and 3.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/01/omb-q-a-regarding-memorandum-m-25-13/

OMB provided *ahem* 'clarifying guidance' that massively descaled the scope of their memo at 2pm yesterday. Before the injunction.

As I said, someone got cold feet. Dunno who or where.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, I did forget about the (constitutionally mandated) FAQ step. Thanks.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

going to see this repeatedly ... "what we really meant" in various versions

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The judge says, 'Good question. TRO granted, because I can't figure out what the fuck these people are doing.'"

But whatever it is, they're restrained from doing it.

[David Nieporent]

WHY DIDN'T THE PRISONS RELEASE ALL OF THE J6 PEOPLE THE SAME DAY THE PARDONS WERE ANNOUNCED?????????

https://x.com/SeditionHunters/status/1884485247410090294

Trump had Theodore Middendorf #Insider2850 case dismissed for his crimes on #Jan6. However, he was not released from prison due to the need to serve his 19 year sentence for the premeditated criminal sexual assault of a victim less than 13 years old.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Another person pardoned was killed during a traffick stop.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/01/27/matthew-huttle-january-6-rioter-pardoned-killed/77979386007/

[hobie]

Mike Fanone, the cop who was beaten unconscious said that, now released, his attackers are sending his family threats. A bag of shit was also thrown at his mother. He said he asked the Trump DOJ for a protective order but was refused

Trump's militia is reconstituting

[RedheadedPharoh]

Good thing Mike got pardoned!

[hobie]

Wow...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why doesn't the good officer go to the LOCAL POLICE -- and either state or DC Mini court???

If someone threw a bag of shit at his mother, she should have called the LOCAL police. Police departments deal with stuff like this all the time, and mother of an officer, they'll definitely respond.

[hobie]

These assailants are under the auspices of the federal government. And they (the Feds) are authorized to issue protection orders. So if Trump's own militiamen are re-attacking their own victims, with cameras and reporters recording everything, and the victim asks the government for protection and the government won't protect them...what are these policemen supposed to do?

[hobie]

Are you saying the government shouldn't protect the police?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and like the Vermont Border Patrol shooting information on what happened is scarce.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Oh, the VT shooting is getting interesting
https://openvallejo.org/2025/01/27/suspects-in-killings-of-vallejo-witness-vermont-border-patrol-agent-connected-by-marriage-license-extreme-ideology/

[Dr. Ed 2]

And : https://vtdigger.org/2025/01/29/man-tied-to-suspect-in-vermont-border-patrol-killing-could-face-death-penalty-in-california-prosecutor-says/

[Dr. Ed 2]

"The ATF’s alert now identifies a new alleged associate of the pair: Michelle Zajko, a name that is also listed on public records as the owner of a small plot of land in the Northeast Kingdom town of Derby, which is adjacent to Coventry."

Derby, VT is on the Canadian border.
https://vtdigger.org/2025/01/28/federal-officials-link-third-person-of-interest-to-vermont-border-patrol-agents-shooting/

[Frank Drackman]

Don't be surprised if Luigi Mangione' is tied up in this somehow.
I mean literally "tied up", these Free-Love Hippies (I alway have/had to pay, one way or another) are some Freakie-Deakies

[Jason Cavanaugh]

One down...

[JoeFromtheBronx]

SCOTUS vs. birds:

"The Court will begin work next week to install additional lighting around the building and grounds, install a bird deterrent system around the ornate marble features of the West Portico"

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_01-29-25

Reminds me of the Stop That Pigeon! cartoon.

[Ska]

I prefer Mike Tyson Mysteries featuring the late Norm Macdonald as Pigeon.

[Frank Drackman]

Everyone has the perfect murder until Iron Mike punches them in the mouth

[Dr. Ed 2]

The drones were authorized by the FAA and "doing research."

My suspicion is one of two things -- either building a database of existing radiation sources so that they can look for a missing nuke, OR they're actually looking for one.

[David Nieporent]

Is your suspicion based on your career as a janitor, or your experience as a target of a Title IX investigation?

[grb]

Be fair. This is a big improvement for Ed. Instead of jokey "suspicions", he used to regularly do hilarious "predictions". Nostradamus Ed must have predicted the end days several-score times by several-score means. Race conflicts, atomic calamity, economic collapse, revolution, civil war - the Four Horsemen had nothing on our Ed. One apocalyptic prediction was succeed by another conflicting one; the only sure thing per Ed was the End is Near.

That said, here's my own bit of pessimistic Ed-style gloom. I long believed an act of nuclear terrorism would occur in my lifetime. But given I'm now 65, I'm begin to think I'll make the distance.

[Brett Bellmore]

Repeatedly funding Iran certainly upped the odds, but I feel about the same.

Although I keep a bottle of potassium iodide tablets in the pantry anyway.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Repeatedly funding Iran certainly upped the odds..."

Had to slip in a counterfactual counter-truth, eh?

No, Brett, sabotaging a treaty your own administration certified had shut Iran's nuclear program down "upped the odds". Particularly because it was for no better reason than serving red-meat to the absolute stupidest of your supporters. Particularly since it served no end except let MAGA hoot & holler and yell-out how "we really shewed them". Particular because the resul, Iran restarting uranium enrichment, was obvious to even the smallest child. Particularly because there was zero thought about any Plan B.

It was monumental imbecility, but it was Trump. Thus your smokescreen. Dear Leader must be protected from his own blind folly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm more worried about dirty bombs than actual fission -- there is *so* much radioactive stuff out there being used (legitimately) in medicine and the sciences, and I'm worried about some group like what appears to have been involved in the VT border shooting touching off a half dozen of them.

Fear will kill far more people than the actual radiation because radiation is invisible. The municipal fire departments threw away their Civil Defense Geiger Counters in the halcyon '90s after the Soviet Union imploded. Even if they hadn't, they were 40 years old then, would be 70 and even if they still worked, there wouldn't be anyone left who knew how to use them.

State DEPs have a few, the military hopefully does, but that would be spread awfully thin...

The Vermont cult appears to be a radical vegan offshoot of a religion based on Star Wars. It isn't just Islam...

[tylertusta]

The US continuously monitors background radiation to warn of a dirty bomb attack. It's even picked up instances of hazardous waste mistakenly thrown into scrapyards before it hurt anyone.

Multiple bombs would require a Jericho-level conspiracy and isn't something worth worrying about.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I didn't anticipate that (a) Trump would become 47 and (b) do the stuff he is doing. He likely will save the Republic.

[hobie]

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1BLroRWcKN/

Adios, rapists. Someone else here will do this in your stead

[Frank Drackman]

Are you Sleepy Joe? That’s exactly what he said in his state of the Onion last year

[David Nieporent]

Meanwhile, Trump has announced his plan for a concentration camp for illegal immigrants at Gitmo.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I'm glad "illegal immigrants" is back to being kosher.

[ThePublius]

Just think of it as reverse Ellis Island.

[Mr. Bumble]

You still can't bring yourself to say the proper legal term, illegal alien.

[David Nieporent]

You are mistaken.

https://www.cato.org/blog/illegal-alien-one-many-correct-legal-terms-illegal-immigrant

[Commenter_XY]

Concentration camp? Really?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You're almost getting it...

[RedheadedPharoh]

I wonder what the character "David Nieporent" would be like if he wasn't so Jewy.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Aaaaaaand there it is.

[grb]

I'm guessing this pathetic loser is the sock puppet for that Blonde Jesus guy. Both think it's "hilariously funny" to don their Gestapo costume and stick on that stubby little mustache. Both have broken minds. Both have empty souls. Both are beyond contempt.

That's an awful lot of similarities.....

[RedheadedPharoh]

I put a new name up for a vote, you moron.

It was:
RedHeadedPharoh
BlueEyedBuddha
GrbIsAFag

The grb one came in a close 2nd

[Noscitur a sociis]

And I think we’re done here.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I didn't know we were an item.

I hate to lose fan, but maybe you'll stay subscribed to my substack.

[grb]

Actual quote from Donald Trump :

"The United States Military just entered the Great State of California and, under Emergency Powers, TURNED ON THE WATER flowing abundantly from the Pacific Northwest, and beyond. The days of putting a Fake Environmental argument, over the PEOPLE, are OVER. Enjoy the water, California!!!"

Three Points:

1. Every fact in this is a batshit crazy lie.

2. Apparently, it's based on the Army Corp of Engineers shutting down a pump for three days of scheduled maintenance and then turning it back on. The pump served the drinking water supply, which was close to full before, after, since.

3. We face four years of this mentally-ill lunacy from Trump. God help us.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The media will, as usual, "sane-wash" it.

[grb]

Much worse than that. Trump's lies, gibberish, and insane rants are now "dog bites man", media-wise. Things that would brings days of headlines if from a typical politician (or normal human being) are completely ignored. Thanks to Trump, the entire county is now a lunatic asylum, therefore lunacy isn't news.

Which is why the Right's snowflake victimhood whining over how the media treats Trump is so absurd. No one is exaggerating his obvious mental illness. The media only covers a fraction of his embarrassing words & actions.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Sane-washing" is what you call the media deciding to not be 100% in the tank for Democrats. God forbid they should try to be a neutral conduit for information, and let the customers make their own minds up.

[Sarcastr0]

You regularly insist the media and lots more are in the tank for Dems. Rabidly so.

Now they aren’t always, it seems.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Sane-washing" is what you call .... (etc)"

1. "Sane-washing" is precisely per its definition : Treating complete lunacy as normal and rational.

2. The Trump quote was lunacy. It bore zero relationship to anything in the real world. It was a mix of lies and fantasy, random capitalization and exuberant exclamation points. It was not normal. It was not rational. It resembles the rants of those spittle-spraying homeless people you walk a wide path around on the street.

3. But the media shouldn't cover it that way per Brett because "something .... something .... victimhood"

Don't you ever get tired of hiding behind that shit, Brett?

[David Nieporent]

1. "Sane-washing" is precisely per its definition : Treating complete lunacy as normal and rational.

I think it's a great concept and name that came out of this campaign, but I don't think you've quite described it right. It's not merely treating crazy things as normal; it's rewriting/paraphrasing them to strip out the crazy.

It's when Trump is asked at a press conference about affording child care, and he gives a 10-minute random diatribe about water making magnets not work, but somewhere in that 10 minutes he mentions the word "tariff," and instead of quoting him or saying that he talked about wet magnets, the media blurb is, "At campaign stop in Tulsa, Trump discusses his economic agenda." That sort of thing.

[M L]

For those following the details of the birthright citizenship issue, many people are now aware that the discussions surrounding the adoption of the citizenship clause in 1868 focused mostly on the subject of Indians, and that subject is key to understanding the original meaning of the clause.

It's important to understand that according to the drafters and ratifiers, Indians (who maintained tribal relations with a quasi foreign tribe) were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US within the meaning of the clause, regardless of their physical location at a given moment. Indians who traveled outside of their territories, for example, would be generally subject to US laws, just as any foreign person would be. But they were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US in the "full and complete" sense, precisely because they were subject to and had allegiance to a foreign power. Those Indians who were not members a quasi foreign, quasi sovereign tribe were of course subject to jurisdiction.

A less discussed case that explains this fairly well is US v Elm, 1877. https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0025.f.cas/0025.f.cas.1006.pdf

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. Once again: Indians are their own category. No other group was, or is, like or analogous Indians. Every other person (excepting the diplomats) was considered subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. in the full and complete sense while they were here. They owed full allegiance to the U.S. while they were here.

WKA very clearly explains this, tracing it back to English common law. The 14th amendment debates clearly explain this, stating that the Chinese and gypsies and everyone else were subject to such jurisdiction. There is no tradition anywhere in American history of treating people born here (other than Indians) of not being citizens, except for Dred Scott.

[Brett Bellmore]

"No other group was, or is, like or analogous Indians."

I've noticed this with you: You seem to think "analogous" means "perfectly identical in all respects".

[David Nieporent]

No, I think it means similar in some relevant way. Indians were not emblematic of a class of person under constitutional law; they were sui generis. So much so that even a group who one might think is analogous — Native Hawaiians — are not treated as Indians under U.S. statutory or constitutional law.

[Roger S]

How is the jurisdiction over diplomat children any different from that over illegal alien children?

[David Nieporent]

How is the jurisdiction over diplomat children any different from that over illegal alien children?

There is no jurisdiction over diplomat children. There is jurisdiction of illegal alien children. If an illegal alien, or the child of an illegal alien, kills someone, s/he can be prosecuted for murder. If a diplomat, or the child of a diplomat, kills someone, s/he can't be. Illegal aliens, or the children of an illegal alien, can be drafted. Diplomats, or the children of diplomats, cannot be. Etc., etc.

[Roger S]

So you are saying that because a diplomat boy has a get-out-of-jail ticket, he cannot be a citizen, but an illegal alien child has no such ticket, so he gets free citizenship?

No, this is going to Scotus, and it will probably not agree to such a silly rule.

[David Nieporent]

So you are saying that because a diplomat boy has a get-out-of-jail ticket, he cannot be a citizen, but an illegal alien child has no such ticket, so he gets free citizenship?

Yes, that is in fact exactly what I am saying. Illegal immigrants are no different, jurisdictionally, than legal immigrants.

No, this is going to Scotus, and it will probably not agree to such a silly rule.

That has been the rule for at least 400 years.

[Mr. Bumble]

"That has been the rule for at least 400 years."
Whose rule?

[David Nieporent]

That people born here are citizens, except for rare exceptions like the children of diplomats. (And yes, I know this country isn't 400 years old; it dates back to English common law.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Then why the need to base claims on the 14th Amendment?

[Magister]

Dred Scott; and the efforts of people who want racial purity in this country, ongoing to this day.

[not guilty]

The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, § 1 was intended to abrogate the Supreme Court's aberrant and execrable decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857). It is consistent with centuries of law preceding that decision.

[Roger S]

The history books have already been rewritten to say that the Civil War was fought to end slavery. Now they will be rewritten to say it was to legalize anchor babies.

[David Nieporent]

Sounds like Schlafly's still butthurt about the ending of slavery.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No, they are being rewritten now.

[Frank Drackman]

I can think of at least 3 who probably will

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Blacks were treated as non-citizens in multiple jurisdictions. Justice Curtis in dissent in Dred Scott only showed some places treated them as citizens. Slaves generally were not citizens. How a place like N.Y. treated them, someone can check, but clearly, they weren't citizens in the average slave state. The 14A cleared the brush here. Birthright citizenship became the general rule with a few exceptions, which have been repeatedly noted.

[Frank Drackman]

It was you Yankees who only wanted Slaves, I'm sorry "All other Persons" counted as 3/5 of a Human, the Southern States wanted them counted just like every one else.

Frank "Hey all you All other Persons, pick that Cotton!"

[M L]

"Indians are their own category. ..Every other person (excepting the diplomats) was considered subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. in the full and complete sense while they were here. They owed full allegiance to the U.S. while they were here."

You can keep saying this, but there is nothing in the text of the amendment to support it, and nothing in the legislative history/Congressional record to support it.

It seems you have now accepted the fact that "subject to jurisdiction" excluded anyone subject to or owing allegiance to a foreign power. That is good, and significant.

But now you claim that all foreign subjectship and allegiance immediately dissolved upon anyone's setting foot on US soil (except for diplomats and - inexplicably, Indians). Again, that is not supported by the text or the Congressional record. It is not even supported by Wong Kim Ark, either. In that case it is acknowledged that WKA's parents were "subjects of the emperor of China."

There is no logical explanation for your position that allegiance to a "quasi foreign" is somehow more durable and outlasts setting foot outside of tribal territory, while allegiance to an actual foreign power immediately dissolves upon setting foot in the US. This also is not the position taken by frequently cited persons such as Judge Ho and Prof Ramsey.

[David Nieporent]

It seems you have now accepted the fact that "subject to jurisdiction" excluded anyone subject to or owing allegiance to a foreign power. That is good, and significant.

It seems I've been saying that since before you were born. However, we mean very different things by that, of course.

and nothing in the legislative history/Congressional record to support it.

Except, of course, where Cowan said, 'That's crazy; then Chinese and gypsies would become citizens," and others said, "Yes."

There is no logical explanation for your position that allegiance to a "quasi foreign" is somehow more durable and outlasts setting foot outside of tribal territory, while allegiance to an actual foreign power immediately dissolves upon setting foot in the US.

That's because it's not a matter of logic; it's a matter of history. That's the problem with your approach: you keep trying to come up with some formula to explain Indians and then try to apply that formula to others. That's not the way it is. Indians are simply a unique category, constitutionally speaking, that nobody else is analogous to.

It is not even supported by Wong Kim Ark, either. In that case it is acknowledged that WKA's parents were "subjects of the emperor of China."

1) We're not talking about WKA's parents. We're talking about WKA himself.
2) WKA's parents were indeed "subjects of the emperor of China" — or, as we would say today, citizens of China — but so what? While in the U.S., they were fully subject to U.S. law. They could not use their Chinese citizenship to avoid compliance with U.S. law.

And yes, this is indeed the position of Ho/Ramsey.

[M L]

Cowan objected to Chinese and Gypsies becoming citizens, but not Germans. The response was that Cowan's comments were simply irrelevant, because existing law made no such racial distinctions, and neither did the proposed citizenship clause. No part of that discussion supports this idea that foreign subjectships and allegiances magically dissolve immediately upon setting foot on US soil* - it scarcely even relates to those concepts, as that particular discussion was about racial distinctions.

Whether logic or history (and both of those come to bear in understanding the text), the issue is the text. Either "subject to jurisdiction" excludes those subject/having allegiance to a foreign power, or it does not. If it does, you are going to have a hard time explaining how subjectships and allegiances immediately dissolved for all foreigners when setting foot outside their foreign sovereign territories into the US, but did not dissolve for quasi foreign Indians when setting foot outside their foreign sovereign territories into the US. You are going to have a hard time squaring that logically and squaring that with the historical record.

"We're not talking about WKA's parents." You said - "Every other person (excepting the diplomats) was considered subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. in the full and complete sense while they were here. They owed full allegiance to the U.S. while they were here." Even WKA contradicts that.

This is not the position of Ho and Ramsey. Ho and Ramsey do not think that "jurisdiction" excludes those subject to or have allegiance to a foreign power. Ho, for example, dismisses counterarguments: "the text of the Citizenship Clause requires “ jurisdiction,” not “allegiance.”". He dismisses the voluminous discussion of allegiances in the Congressional record as "stray references." And dismisses the same in Elk v Wilkins.

*The discussion as a whole does, however, support the idea that those who permanently settled in the US, as they were lawfully permitted to do at the time with the consent of the US, would be generally considered to have embraced US allegiance, and to have expatriated (which was recognized as a "a natural and inherent right of all people" in the 1868 Expatriation Act, which was a counter to claims by other countries that U.S. citizens owed them allegiance) - at least to the extent that any foreign allegiance or subjectship would not pass to their heirs by birth in the eyes of US law, regardless of a foreign sovereign's view of the matter.

[David Nieporent]

This is not the position of Ho and Ramsey. Ho and Ramsey do not think that "jurisdiction" excludes those subject to or have allegiance to a foreign power. Ho, for example, dismisses counterarguments: "the text of the Citizenship Clause requires “ jurisdiction,” not “allegiance.”". He dismisses the voluminous discussion of allegiances in the Congressional record as "stray references." And dismisses the same in Elk v Wilkins.

I mean, that's fine as far as it goes; I've pointed out before that the 14th amendment doesn't say anything at all about allegiance. But you seemed to be using it interchangeably with jurisdiction, so I was as well.

There are not "voluminous" discussions of allegiance in the Congressional record.

[Josh R]

It's important to understand that according to the drafters and ratifiers, Indians (who maintained tribal relations with a quasi foreign tribe) were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US within the meaning of the clause, regardless of their physical location at a given moment.

Even if they were born outside a reservation?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that's the question, and there should be relevant records, that would come up in a court case: In the case of "Indians not taxed", were their children born off the reservation American citizens, or tribal citizens?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Hey buddy,

I've had some trouble getting you to acknowledge your lies about the two police officers who were pardoned for murder, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to obstruct justice, found here:

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/01/24/friday-open-thread-4/?comments=true#comment-10885637

How many days are you going to spend running from the truth rather than admitting you lied and tried to push propaganda?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not seeing any lie there. At most omissions on the part of the site I linked to, which I didn't characterize as an objective account, but instead the other side's version of what happened, which Trump might have been persuaded by.

Did you miss the part where I said that if the cops had just been charged with obstruction of justice and the like, I would have found the pardon more objectionable?

I don't think their conduct rises to the level of murder.

[David Nieporent]

Did you miss the part where I said that if the cops had just been charged with obstruction of justice and the like, I would have found the pardon more objectionable?

I don't think their conduct rises to the level of murder.

Did you miss the part where I said that if that were the case Trump could've pardoned them for murder and left the obstruction type convictions in place?

[Brett Bellmore]

He could have. Indeed, he should have.

I keep saying, I don't expect to like everything Trump does. But don't expect me to freak out over bad stuff he does that's bad within normal parameters, and going by what Biden did in the way of pardons, this one wasn't even pushing the edges.

A President who wouldn't do at least some bad stuff wasn't on offer.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You saw an article about their conduct, including the three charges they were convicted of.

You then went and found an 'account' of the story that deliberately omitted mentioning two of the charges because those facts were inconvenient to their lies, and tried to pass that off as 'the other side.'

They lied, and you lied by pretending that it was some kind of factual accounting of the same incident when it was obviously not, easily verified by the original article you read and the numerous other news articles on the subject that you avoided linking to, instead linking to a police propaganda website.

In short: You presented it as a factual accounting despite it being untruthful on its face. You are a liar.

[David Nieporent]

You forget the part when he claimed that maybe Trump had read this 'account,' as if Trump ever reads.

[M L]

Yes, according to US v Elm for example, Abraham Elm was not born on a reservation, but the reason he was a citizen was because he was not part of a sovereign tribe. If he had been part of a tribe maintaining such a status then he would not have been a citizen:

"If defendant's tribe continued to maintain its tribal
integrity, and he continued to recognize his tribal
relations, his status as a citizen would not be affected
by the fourteenth amendment; but such is not his case.
His tribe has ceased to maintain its tribal integrity, and
he has abandoned his tribal relations, as will hereafter
appear; and because of these facts, and because
Indians in this state are subject to taxation, he is
a citizen, within the meaning of the fourteenth
amendment"

[Josh R]

That case predates Wong Kim Ark. Is there post-Wong precedent on Indians born outside of reservations? Also, was Elm taxed?

[M L]

I don't know. There is Elk v Wilkins of course, which also predates WKA, and explains that John Elk was not a citizen at birth, not because of where he was born, but because of his quasi foreign allegiance: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

Yes, Elm was taxed. Other than the 14A, the 1866 CRA was the law in effect, which said "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed" were citizens. The 14A citizenship clause was intended and considered to mean the same thing, but with an improvement to the verbiage, replacing "not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed" with "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

[Josh R]

Let's assume you are correct. How do you deal with Wong which appears to conflict with Elk? It seems to me Elk is limited to its facts (Indians only).

Since Elm was taxed, that should have decided the case. He was a citizen under the CRA. The court should not have analyzed 14A citizenship.

[David Nieporent]

1. I wonder why you keep ignoring the part of Elm that clearly explains that Indians, like diplomats, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., but aliens who are here are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. (and owe "allegiance" to the U.S. besides.)

2. I'm not sure why you think Abraham Elm wasn't born on a reservation. You seem to be misreading the Elm decision, which does not say that. It says that he was "born and had always resided within the town of Lenox, Madison County," but that was an Indian reservation.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in legal news, apparently Trump is no longer persona non grata with a top rate law firm:
"So Trump will be represented by the co-chairman of Sullivan & Cromwell, assisted by no fewer than four former U.S. Supreme Court clerks." This is his appeal of the "hush money" case.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/01/the-times-they-are-a-changin.php

[Martinned2]

Money talks, and all that crypto money Trump has been raking in talks very loudly.

[tylertusta]

No, it's not about the money. Trump had a net worth of over $2 billion. Even when he had over $3b no one would touch him.

Before, law firms and their lawyers didn't want to be blacklisted just for working with Trump. They especially didn't want to be prosecuted or disbarred, as many have been since 2020.

Since Democratic opposition to Trump has ebbed since his clear victory over Harris in November, there's clearly less of a personal and professional risk in working with Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

Kraken lawyers lied. Over and over. On stuff they had signed. About material evidence. In an attempt to overturn an election.

Are you saying they didn't do that, and it was all some conspiracy to deny Trump representation?

Or do you have something else in mind?

Or, Trump doesn't pay his lawyers. He's also a nightmare client.

You more and more seem to be leaning into the 'Trump is not extraordinary' tact. That requires a lot of things to be waived away as part of vast liberal conspiracies.

[tylertusta]

Kraken lawyers lied. Over and over. On stuff they had signed. About material evidence. In an attempt to overturn an election.

The 'Kraken' was about Michigan and Georgia, yet Democrats in groups like the 65 Project went after them nationwide.

Are you saying they didn't do that

No.

... and it was all some conspiracy to deny Trump representation?

Conspiracy implies some level of coordination. I think it was less that and more of a fear of boycotts by leftist groups who sought to isolate and destroy Trump and his allies among elite society. This war part of the larger resistance (small 'r') to Trump among left-wing circles which included boycotts and attacks on his businesses.

As for the attorney matter, you may have forgotten the 2017-2020 years of Resistance to Trump, but the rest of us haven't. For example, during the Mueller investigation, Trump was passed over by no less than five law firms. Sources reported to CNN:

"Well-known Washington lawyers cited several reasons for declining the President in recent weeks, according to multiple sources familiar with their decisions. Among them, Trump appears to be a difficult client and has rebuked some of his lawyers’ advice. He’s perceived as so politically unpopular he may damage reputations rather than boost them. Lawyers at large firms fear backlash from their corporate clients if they were to represent the President. And many want to steer clear of conflicts of interest that could complicate their other obligations."

"“With a figure who is as polarizing as the President, it makes the decision about whether to represent him a more difficult one,” said Philip West, chairman of large Washington law firm Steptoe & Johnson. The firm was among several to decline to represent Trump last year. “Any large law firm has clients that have very strong feelings.” "

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/28/politics/donald-trump-lawyer/index.html

Or, Trump doesn't pay his lawyers.

As you have so often told me, speculation on your part is not proof.

He's also a nightmare client.

Yes. But lawyers are more than happy to represent nightmare clients that pay.

You more and more seem to be leaning into the 'Trump is not extraordinary' tact.

And thus the Resistance rears its ugly face again.

Please tell me: do you plan on being a part of a new Resistance movement against the Trump administration?

That requires a lot of things to be waived away as part of vast liberal conspiracies.

Lmao!

[Sarcastr0]

"Democrats in groups like the 65 Project" accomplished what? Any sign of a chilling effect, or are you assuming it so you can posit yet another lib-caused thing that makes Trump look bad when actually he's good?

"Well-known Washington lawyers" is hardly the set of all good lawyers. They have a pretty specific set of equities and reputational needs.

I think it was less that and more of a fear of boycotts by leftist groups who sought to isolate and destroy Trump and his allies among elite society
OK. Any support for that, or just vibes?

"Trump doesn't pay his lawyers."
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Trump+doesn%27t+pay+his+lawyers

And there's nightmares and there's national profile twitter rants nightmares. Again, Trump is extraordinary.

[tylertusta]

OK. Any support for that, or just vibes? ... "Trump doesn't pay his lawyers." https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Trump+doesn%27t+pay+his+lawyers

For someone who insists on nitpicking on asking people to back up their statements with sources, you seem to have a problem with doing it yourself.

You've gone from vague handwavy gestures towards things that don't actually back up what you say to what is now just "Look it up yourself."

In case you haven't noticed in the year or so that I've been commenting here, I typically reciprocate how people treat me. How you conduct yourself is how I reply to you.

So... go look it up yourself.

Also, I've noted you've ignored other parts of my comment. Should I assume the worst about you? That you conceded everything else I've said, including that you're part of the Resistance? Shall I take your comments out of context and post them in the worst light?

If I were to keep to my reciprocity standard, I'm well within the bounds of how you've treated me in the past.

[Sarcastr0]

What a flounce.
There are a ton of sources in that link. I could just link one.

Fight about that if you want, but you e made it clear you are here for the fight not facts.

[tylertusta]

You couldn't even bother to do the most basic courtesy to me, yet you insist I'm arguing in bad faith?

Stop peeing on our legs and telling us it's raining.

[David Nieporent]

Yes. But lawyers are more than happy to represent nightmare clients that pay.

He doesn't pay, but we are not. I've dumped lucrative clients over the years, and I — and multiple lawyers I know as well as ones I know only via social media — turned to each other repeatedly over the years and said, "If my client did that, I'd fire him" after one of Trump's shenanigans. Clients who are uncontrollable are just not worth it. Not for a successful lawyer. (If you're broke and have no other work on your plate, maybe you're desperate enough. But that's precisely the opposite of who we're talking about.)

[tylertusta]

I'm sure you wouldn't represent Trump for many other reasons, and his antics is just icing on the cake for you.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'd represent him, if I were the last available lawyer on Earth.

Hey, I would do that for anyone.

[David Nieporent]

I'm sure you wouldn't represent Trump for many other reasons, and his antics is just icing on the cake for you.

That is correct. But the point is that I wouldn't represent even someone I liked and agreed with if he acted as Trump does as a client. Clients make our lives difficult enough with the things they do before they hire us; if they refuse to cooperate with us when we're trying to clean up their messes, the agita is just not worth it.

[David Nieporent]

No, it's not about the money. Trump had a net worth of over $2 billion. Even when he had over $3b no one would touch him.

They wouldn't touch him because he wanted them to make sanctionable arguments.

But it's not about Trump's money, I agree; it's about power. Trump is corrupt down to his individual strands of DNA, and they figure that if they represent him, it'll be good for all the rest of their clients who need government favors.

[tylertusta]

They wouldn't touch him because he wanted them to make sanctionable arguments.

Even pre-2020 Trump? Which occasions pre-2020 were Trumps attorneys making sanctionable arguments that were actually sanctioned?

[Commenter_XY]

Former Senator Robert 'Sticky Fingers' Menendez (D-NJ) sentenced to 11 years. Adios!

[grb]

See, corrupt politicians can be tried & convicted for corruption. But will Justice Roberts have his back like he put out for Trump?

[John F. Carr]

The judge has not decided whether he will report to prison soon or wait a few years while the appeals run their course.

[Jmaie]

I heard his statement. Will Trump make mention that the former Senator agrees with him vis-a-vis the Southern District conducting political motivated trials?

(Maybe he has already, I can't be bothered to check)

[grb]

Just me or is the comments page freezing-up repeatedly for anyone else?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not me.

[grb]

It's definitely my &$*@& computer.....

[Mr. Bumble]

It only happens to assholes.

[Frank Drackman]

Funny, it never happens t

[John F. Carr]

It happens to me too. What are you implying?

[Josh R]

The number of arrests of unlawfully present people is up from last week (500 last week, now over 1000 a day with Stephen Miller hoping for 1500). Let's say there will be 500,000 removals. As I mentioned last week, Obama average just under 400,000 a year over 8 years.

What isn't yet clear is what is the number of removals possible if you limit them to those convicted of crimes and those with deportation orders? If it goes beyond that, it isn't at all clear it will be popular

[Brett Bellmore]

I think they've been very clear that those guilty of crimes, or with deportation orders, are just higher priority, but if you're here illegally you ARE on the to-do list.

"Question wording greatly affects support for deportations"

No shit. That's usually the case when most people don't really have an opinion, and are just guessing from the question what the pollster expects to hear.

[Commenter_XY]

Last week, you said 180K. Now you say 500K. What will it be next week? You've ridden this broken horse for a while.

Josh R, if you are an illegal alien, you are a criminal who has broken our laws and will be deported. The removals will not be limited, with the exception of DACA.

I'd be fine with 2MM annually, or more. Illegal aliens need to leave, asap.

[Josh R]

I don't know how many will be deported. I'm just noting an overreach for what is popular (in spite of your opinion) is possible.

Also, unlawful presence is not a crime. Many unauthorized people overstayed their visas. They are not criminals.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Aren't foreign nationals who are convicted of crimes deported anyway? (After they complete their sentence.) That is how it works in the rest of the world...

[Frank Drackman]

Typical Liberal with the old "Static" Anal-lysis,
it's like carrying a pistol, I haven't shot anybody (as far as anyone knows) in 40+ years of carrying, but it's the peoples I haven't had to shoot, who suddenly find some other White Schlub to fuck with when I nonchalantly pull out the .357 to make sure the Safety (just kidding, Revolvers don't have "Safeties", don't need them) is off.
It's not just the Ill-legals who get a free ride back to Bogota on a C-17 (not a bad ride actually, but the Flight Attendants suck), it's the millions who won't come, or suddenly decide to return home.

Frank

[RedheadedPharoh]

Does Biden's pardon of Milley cover treason?

[Brett Bellmore]

It covered everything related to his job, and, yes, that would include the treason. Only Hunter got the Grade A, good for all (federal) crimes whatsoever, pardon.

Probably because Dad knew he had some nasty skeletons in his closet.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, it's because he knew that Hunter Biden was a serial killer in Washington D.C., loon.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Sex trafficker,
Chinese sellout,
Druggie,
Felon,
Incestuous pedophile,

Yes yes yes yes.

Serial killer , no.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, he could have just given Hunter the same deal as the rest of the family, a pardon for all non-violent crimes. He didn't.

We're allowed to notice that and draw inferences from it.

[Sarcastr0]

The level of evidence Brett requires to assume someone is a violent criminal is really low!

But God forbid someone doesn't presume Trump's innocence even after he's been found liable and even convicted.

[Brett Bellmore]

Somebody who knows him like a father, literally, thought he needed a pardon for violent crimes, too. That rationally leads to at least a suspicion dad knew he'd committed some, just like dad knew he'd committed financial and drug crimes.

[Sarcastr0]

Rationally? Ain't nothing rational about you on this Brett. It's fucking nuts to decide there's only one explanation and it's secret violent crimes.

You're rationalizing, sure. But not rational.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're unfamiliar with the word "suspicion", I take it?

[Sarcastr0]

Saying someone is probably guilty of infamous crimes is fine then.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, if you have suggestive but not conclusive evidence, such as somebody who knows the person well giving them a pardon that would be good for any infamous crimes, while other people just get a more limited pardon, it's fine to be suspicious that they may indeed have committed an infamous crime.

[Sarcastr0]

It's suggestive after you pick you favorite explanation and call that an 'inference.' You keep repeating your preferred narrative which is not the only one supported by the facts.

You are allowed not to make wild speculations sometimes.

People generally tune how easily they'll decide something is probable based on what it implies.
That'll keep them from saying someone is probably a violent criminal, and being found to be a nutter.

And also you are profoundly inconsistent. This inference is in marked contrast to the threshold you have required for Trump,

See also Hillary the Felon.
Or Obama's mysterious birth.

[David Nieporent]

Or, what a sane human being would rationally think is that Joe Biden wanted to pardon Hunter for the crimes he was prosecuted for, realized that if he did so the GOP would just come after Hunter for something else, and said to himself, "Okay, I'll just issue him a blanket pardon to make it simple," not realizing that a conspiracy theorist would say, "If it's a blanket pardon then he must have done everything that could be covered by that pardon."

[Mr. Bumble]

So wise one from Whitelandia. What is the history of Presidential preemptive pardons?

[David Nieporent]

Can anyone explain the ankle biter's reference here? Does he know something about the demographics of NJ that I don't? (Does he know anything about anything that anybody doesn't?)

[Mr. Bumble]

...and what is the history of presidential preemptive pardons?

[Mr. Bumble]

So a population 85% white and 5% black can't be reasonably referred to as Whitelandia?

[grb]

Does your new sock puppet name cover Stupid?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Read a book every once in awhile dude. Don't go through life being so ignorant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock_puppet_account

[grb]

Rather pedantic, aren't you, for an Child Nazi allowed to post from mommy's basement? I think that's what we established with your previous incarnation.

(Now do "incarnation". Let's keep you busy so we're not bothered by your trolling bigoted bullshit)

[not guilty]

"Does Biden's pardon of Milley cover treason?"

Theoretically it would, but any suggestion that he in fact committed treason is laughable. The operative text of the pardon states:

A FULL AND UNCONDITIONAL PARDON

FOR ANY OFFENSES against the United States, including but not limited to any offenses under the United States Code or the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which he may have committed or taken part in during the period from January l, 2014, through the date of this pardon arising from or in any manner related to his service as Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/pardon-warrant-3-19-jan-2025.pdf

Treason is an offense under the United States Code, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2381, so it is within the ambit of the pardon.

Why do you ask, Redhead?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Because he committed treason and needs to be held accountable.

[David Nieporent]

He could not have committed treason since we are not at war. Nothing he did would have constituted treason if we were at war anyway. And there are not two people to testify to any overt act if he did. So, like your attempts to get laid in your life, you're 0-3.

[RedheadedPharoh]

In the U.S., a citizen promising to inform an adversarial government about a sneak attack would almost certainly be breaking federal laws, even if they haven’t acted on the promise yet. Here’s a breakdown of the legal implications within the U.S. legal system:

---

1. Treason (Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution & 18 U.S.C. § 2381)

Definition: Treason involves "levying war" against the U.S. or "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Application: A promise to warn an adversary about a sneak attack could easily be interpreted as "adhering to the enemy" and providing "aid and comfort." Even if no attack has occurred, the promise itself signals intent to help the enemy.

> Punishment: Treason is punishable by death or imprisonment and a fine, with the additional consequence of being barred from holding any U.S. government office.

---

2. Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 793–798)

Provisions: The Espionage Act criminalizes the transmission of defense-related information to foreign governments that could harm the U.S. or benefit a foreign nation.

Application: Even if Milley hasn’t yet provided information about the sneak attack, the promise could be seen as a preparatory step toward espionage. Under U.S. law, intent to commit espionage (or conspiring to do so) is itself a crime.

> Punishment: Penalties range from years in prison to life imprisonment, depending on the severity of the act and whether it occurred during wartime.

---

3. Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371)

Definition: Conspiracy laws criminalize agreements between two or more parties to commit an offense against the U.S. or to defraud the U.S.

Application: If Milley makes the promise as part of a broader agreement with an adversarial government or its agents, they could be charged with conspiracy. Even if they don’t follow through, the agreement alone could meet the legal threshold for prosecution.

> Punishment: Up to 5 years in prison and/or fines, though penalties can escalate if the conspiracy involves espionage or treason.

---

4. Providing Material Support to Foreign Entities (18 U.S.C. § 2339B)

Definition: This statute makes it illegal to provide "material support or resources" to foreign terrorist organizations or other entities hostile to the U.S.

Application: A promise to share information could be interpreted as offering "material support," particularly if the adversarial government is designated as a state sponsor of terrorism or is hostile toward the U.S.

> Punishment: Up to 15 years in prison, or life imprisonment if the material support results in the death of U.S. personnel.

---

5. Attempt and Solicitation (18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 373)

Attempt: Even attempting or taking a substantial step toward aiding an adversarial government could result in prosecution. This could apply if the promise is made as part of an effort to follow through with the act.

Solicitation: If Milley is encouraged by the adversarial government or is solicited to make the promise, both parties could face prosecution under federal law.

---

6. First Amendment Concerns

Some might argue that making a "promise" is merely speech and protected under the First Amendment. However, courts have repeatedly ruled that speech is not protected if it:

1. Incites imminent lawless action (Brandenburg v. Ohio),

2. Constitutes a "true threat," or

3. Intends to further criminal acts (like espionage or treason).

The promise would almost certainly be interpreted as intent to engage in illegal activity, thus stripping it of First Amendment protection.

---

To a pathological bootlicker like you no Democrat elite could ever do wrong, but sadly for you the patriots are in charge now.

[not guilty]

What facts -- not ipse dixit assertions -- evince treason by General Milley?

By no stretch of the imagination has General Milley levied war on the United States.

The Peoples Republic of China is not an enemy of the United States. It is an international rival, but Congress has not declared war. Indeed, China is the third biggest trading partner of the U. S., behind only Canada and Mexico.

As for the other elements of treason, adherence and giving aid and comfort to an enemy are separate and distinct elements. As SCOTUS opined in Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1, 29 (1945):

[T]he crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions which do aid and comfort the enemy — making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength — but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.

Discussion of how someone would act in a contingent and hypothetical situation which presupposes that the President of the United States has given a batshit crazy order does not suffice. Treason is not an inchoate or contingent offense.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The Peoples Republic of China is not an enemy of the United States."

There's your problem right there. They absolutely are an enemy of the United States.

[David Nieporent]

Did you bother to read the very next sentence explaining why you're wrong?

[Brett Bellmore]

Did you bother noticing that we're not at war with, say, North Korea, but a general conspiring with Kim would still be treasonous?

[Sarcastr0]

Moving from law (crime of treason) to not law (treasonous) is bringing in new goalposts.

[David Nieporent]

We're not talking about whether it would be "treasonous"; Trump's conspiring with Putin was treasonous. We're talking about whether it would be the actual crime of treason.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : " ... but a general conspiring with ..."

You're so full of it. However lengthy, the narrative :

According to a September 2021 Axios report, in mid-2020 Pentagon officials were concerned about the Chinese having received bad intelligence from dubious sources that had them worried about a possible surprise U.S. strike against China. In a report released in November 2021, the Pentagon confirmed these Chinese worries and that Esper had directed Milley and the deputy assistant defense secretary for China Chad Sbragia in mid-October to reassure their Chinese counterparts that the U.S. "had no intention of instigating a military crisis against China". Milley called his Chinese counterpart on October 30.

In Woodward and Costa's book Peril, the authors wrote that on October 30, 2020, four days before the U.S. presidential election day, Milley called his counterpart in China, General Li Zuocheng, quoting Milley as saying: "I want to assure you that the American government is stable and everything is going to be okay... We are not going to attack or conduct any kinetic operations against you ... If we're going to attack, I'm going to call you ahead of time. It's not going to be a surprise". The authors wrote that Milley again called Li in January 2021, two days after the 2021 United States Capitol attack, quoting Milley as saying: "Things may look unsteady... But that's the nature of democracy... We are 100 percent steady. Everything's fine. But democracy can be sloppy sometimes". Unnamed defense department officials said Sbragia had called his Chinese counterpart two days earlier, with the authorization of then-acting secretary of defense Christopher C. Miller. One briefed on Milley's call said that it was "implausible that (Milley's call) would have been done without" Sbragia's knowledge.

Both calls were by video conference where fifteen people were present, including a State Department representative and notetakers. CNN reported that Milley consulted with Esper in conducting the October call. Politico reported that a former senior defense official said Milley asked Miller for permission to make the January call, and that Miller said Milley "almost certainly" informed him about making the call, but he did not recall receiving a detailed readout afterwards. On the same day, Miller told Fox News that he did not authorize the call and called for Milley to resign or be fired, stating, "If the reporting in Woodward's book is accurate it represents a disgraceful and unprecedented act of insubordination by the Nation's top military officer".

From that, three conclusions :

1. Nothing the General did remotely approached conspiracy or treason.

2. This whole kerfuffle was a fabricated Nothing created by Fox News.

3. If Brett (and the whole of Right-wing-world) wasn't obsessed with 24/7 victimhood, they wouldn't treat this seriously.

[Brett Bellmore]

"If we're going to attack, I'm going to call you ahead of time. It's not going to be a surprise"."

That certainly more than remotely approached treason.

[Sarcastr0]

Certainly!

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, certainly. If you can't recognize that somebody in the military promising an adversary that in the event we plan a surprise attack against them you'll spoil the surprise is treasonous, there's no point in even discussing the matter with you.

Biden didn't give him that pardon for the lutz. He gave it too him because Milley would otherwise have been up on charges shortly after Trump took office, and a conviction seemed to be an open and shut case based on his own public statements.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "That certainly more than remotely approached treason"

Try thinking, Brett. Just for once. There are only three possibilities:

1. General Milley is a deep undercover spy for China who committed treason. Yes, that's your preferred narrative, but only because it maximizes your outrage and victimhood. Otherwise it's absolute nonsense - if for no other reason that Milley did most or all of your jokey "treason" in front of multiple witnesses and only after asking permission.

2. General Milley reassured the Chinese with words about an event he knew wasn't even remotely possible. That's my view.

3. General Milley actually thought Trump was capable of launching an unprovoked attack on China. But if that happened, it would have been certified insanity. I doubt even a servile cultist like yourself contests that. If Trump began preparing an unprovoked attack on China, I would hope someone would take rational sensible proportional steps to protect the country. I wouldn't call anything like Milley's actions treason in that case.

To my eye, the second possibility is obviously true. Yes, Trump's mental illness increasingly manifested itself just before and after the election, but Milley more than anyone knew there were no plans for a surprise attack. All he did was reassure a bunch of paranoid old men in the closed-off upper reaches of the Chinese government. This was because (a) they were more paranoid that usual because of bad intelligence, and (b) they have nuclear weapons.

Please consider careful thought before you turn on the Hysterical Outrage Machine. You might find you enjoy the quiet.

[Sarcastr0]

As previous threads with you have pointed out that that's not treason because
1) It's not clear if he was lying or not, and
2) no actual warning actually occurred.

Biden didn't give him that pardon for the lulz
Yeah, he did so because he expected the exact mania for persecution regardless of actual crimes that we're seeing.

[David Nieporent]

That certainly more than remotely approached treason.

Again: how does lying to the Chinese government even remotely — let alone more than remotely — approach treason?

[not guilty]

"That certainly more than remotely approached treason."

Uh, no. Treason is not an inchoate or anticipatory offense. Hence the constitutional requirement that "No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That's nothing! Can you imagine the sheer treachery if Milley then reneged on his promise!?!

[not guilty]

Brett, treason is a wartime offense. When did Congress declare war on China?

The word "enemies" is not defined in Article III, § 3 of the Constitution nor in 18 U.S.C. § 2381. As a penal statute, § 2381 must be construed strictly. Indeed, SCOTUS has repeatedly opined that "the crime of treason" in particular "should not be extended by construction to doubtful cases". Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1, 47 (1945), quoting Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75, 127 (1807).

The Supreme Court has stressed repeatedly that when choice has to be made between two readings of what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate, before choosing the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite. Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, 214 (1985). The Court there quoted Chief Justice Marshall:

"The rule that penal laws are to be construed strictly, is perhaps not much less old than construction itself. It is founded on the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals; and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department. It is the legislature, not the Court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment."

United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95 (1820).

Congress has elsewhere defined the word "enemy" as limited to wartime. For example, for purposes of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C. § 4302 states in relevant part:

The word “enemy,” as used herein, shall be deemed to mean, for the purposes of such trading and of this chapter—

(a) Any individual, partnership, or other body of individuals, of any nationality, resident within the territory (including that occupied by the military and naval forces) of any nation with which the United States is at war, or resident outside the United States and doing business within such territory, and any corporation incorporated within such territory of any nation with which the United States is at war or incorporated within any country other than the United States and doing business within such territory.

(b) The government of any nation with which the United States is at war, or any political or municipal subdivision thereof, or any officer, official, agent, or agency thereof.

(c) Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, other than citizens of the United States, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States or the successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term “enemy.”

Per 50 U.S.C. 2204(2), "the term 'enemy' means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States".

To suppose that the third largest trading partner of the United States is an "enemy" is nonsensical.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Okay, then what about the massive invasion of Chinese goods into the country?

Mere trading partners don't "invade", do they?

Therefore, China must be an enemy of the United States.

It's all basic logic...

[ThePublius]

https://johnalucas6.substack.com/p/whither-general-milley-9cf

[Sarcastr0]

The obsession for a scalp continues to make most of Biden's blanket pardons look justified.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Sarcastr0: indeed.

[Mr. Bumble]

Funny how the Dems felt about preemptive pardons when they thought Trump might issue them.

[Sarcastr0]

One might argue the difference is between crimes occurring, and the open endorsement of 'you show me the man I'll figure out a crime' on the right.

[Mr. Bumble]

None of these clowns will bother to read it.

[grb]

This merits highlighting again: From the AP, 22Jan :

"Donald Trump took office eight years ago, pledging to “drain the swamp” and end the domination of Washington influence peddlers. Now, he’s opening his second term by rolling back prohibitions on executive branch employees accepting major gifts from lobbyists, and ditching bans on lobbyists seeking executive branch jobs or vice versa, for at least two years. Trump issued a Day 1 executive order that rescinded one on ethics that former President Joe Biden signed when he took office in January 2021."

[Dan Schiavetta]

Should be what we used to call “front page news”.

[Mr. Bumble]

Unlike this story which has been hardly noticed:
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/suspect-in-custody-at-us-capitol-claimed-to-have-knife-molotov-cocktail/3826455/

[Michael P]

More details on that arrest: https://abcnews.go.com/US/person-claiming-molotov-cocktail-knife-stopped-capitol/story?id=118153992

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"They"?

[Sarcastr0]

Another deflection.

Better get used to them.

[hobie]

Menendez...eleven years. You lie and defraud the government, you should go to prison

[Mr. Bumble]

He has always been a sleaze, but how did he defraud the government?

[Frank Drackman]

it wasn't what he was convicted of

[Krayt]

Take this as irresponsible early speculation, but a radar track of the helicopter seems to show it following the river and near-missing 3 planes before, including the one immediately before where it turned erratically.

Hmmm...

[John F. Carr]

My first reaction when when the helicopter pilot had traffic in sight he was looking at a different airplane.

[Frank Drackman]

Want a scary read? the Cockpit Voice Recorder for PSA Flight 182, a 727 that collided with a Cessna over San Diego in 1978
Here's the "Money Shot" (Saves you 45 minutes of horrible "Recreation" on "Mayday!")
09:01:11 First officer: "Are we clear of that Cessna?"
09:01:13 Flight engineer: "Supposed to be"
09:01:14 Captain: "I guess"
09:01:15 First officer (Fifteen)
Between 09:01:15 and 20 Unknown ((Sound of laughter))
09:01:20 Off-duty captain "I hope"
09:01:21 Captain "Oh yeah, before we turned downwind,
I saw him at about one o'clock,
probably behind us now"
9:01:31 First officer "Gear down"
09:01:34 ((Clicks and sound similar to gear extension))
09:01:38 First officer "There's one underneath! "(Sound of Impact)
09:01:39 Unknown "(Expletive)"

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

They keep saying an "Army" Blackhawk, but I'm guessing it's from the DC Army National Guard, with Mayor Muriel Bowser Commanding,
Call me an Asshole (OK, on 3, "You're an Asshole Drackman!") but my only Helicopter rides as a Navy Flight Surgeon were a 1 hour "Familiarization" at Whiting Field that scared the whee out of me as the other students tried to hover, the bad things about Helicopters?
1: Fixed Wing Aircraft, if left to their natural state, love to fly, and will continue flying, unless you do something stupid (See, Pinnacle Air 3701)
2: Helicopters, left to their natural state, not only want to crash, but in a loud and violent manner that returns all of their components (and occupants) to their natural states
3: Even if you survive the impact, good luck surviving Edward Scissorshands whirling Rotor of Death.
4: Every Helicopter Rotor is secured by something called a "Jesus Nut", nuff said'

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Pussy!

[Frank Drackman]

The so-called "Safety" of Commercial Air Travel is an Illusion thanks to the Professionalism of US Pilots (International Carriers, not so much, see "Egypt Air Flight 990", "Air France Flight 447" and "Aeroflot Flight 593") at standard enroute Altitudes every Airliner is close to the "Coffin Corner" (worst Aviation term ever, right up there with "Final Descent" and "Departure") for stalling, all it takes is a few seconds of a Crazy Moose-lum, Inexperienced Copilot with 300 hours (most of it on Autopilot), or a 15 year old kid at the controls to turn your flight into an "Air Disasters" Episode

[Joe_dallas]

https://x.com/stillgray/status/1884858597462442427

I agree that this is very early speculation - and using a trageity to point blame.

legal insurrection has and helicopter crew training chief with comments which may be better informed initial take.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/01/d-c-officials-believe-no-one-survived-the-plane-army-helicopter-collision/

[Krayt]

That's interesting, but like some other analyses I've seen, all are from the supposition the plane goofed, or didn't see the helicopter.

The plane is not deliberately hard to see. Did the helicopter get in its way? Why was it even near?

Eh, we should know more later today.

[Krayt]

"They were on a continuity of government training mission."

Oops? Was this out already?

Later: "Mr. President, what is a continuity of government mission?

"I don't know what that refers to...it's only continuity in the sense that we wanna have very good people...

Continuity of government is a contingency plan to make sure government maintains leaders during a war, typically a nuclear attack. "Designated Survivor" TV show is related to that.

Was this practicing whipping along the Potomac to reach the airport with a VIP aboard, not using a Chinook? Which might be a target for a confederate mole on the ground prepped for such hostilities?

What a great spy novel!

[Reallynotbob]

No, no, no. It was DEI that caused the crash. Trump says so.

Good thing we'll be cutting the FAA air traffic controllers again.

[Cue DeepStaterConspiracy nutjobs to announce their bad take that this was a false flag event designed to save civilian ATC employees from termination, the "evidence" of which is the absence of any survivors to be questioned by Congressional committees.]

[David Nieporent]

The conspiracy nutjobs I've seen online actually took the tack of saying that it was obviously an assassination of one or more of the passengers.

[Martinned2]

Speaking of Crooked Timber, this is also quite a way to start a blog post:

Politics has returned to Europe’s wealthy protectorates, which, after the phone-call on Jan. 20, 2025, between the then-President-elect and the Danish prime minister, suddenly find themselves faced with an open-ended era of shakedowns by its guardians and an unreliable big neighbor [sic] to the East. Neither its political class nor its aging, nostalgic population is prepared for this.

https://crookedtimber.org/2025/01/30/on-the-end-of-nato-a-european-perspective/

[Brett Bellmore]

I visit Crooked Timber from time to time, just to remind myself that, yes, a faction of the left is literally insane.

[John F. Carr]

The combination of "wealthy" and "nostalgic" put the song "Blood on the Rooftops" in my head. Lyrics by Steve Hackett.

"Better in my day, oh Lord. For when we got bored we'd have a world war, happy but poor."

[Krayt]

Their "soft power", i.e. economic might, would protect them as they could out-produce Russia if push came to shove.

Well, yes, but do you have enough equipment to fight them to a near standstill while you ramp up? Clearly the US can, and simply treating it as an RTS with supply lines. But that's active supplies, not hypothesized ones. The North in the US Civil War had vastly bigger production capabilities, but almost got swamped by a massive attack.

Similarly the US massively dominated the production power of Japan, but that didn't stop Japan frok a quick and effective strategic attack. There's even the apocryphal line about a sleeping tiger, which in any case suggests they were aware of the danger and did it anyway.

Nothing historical gives confidence of sitting safely behind soft power.

[tylertusta]

Similarly the US massively dominated the production power of Japan, but that didn't stop Japan frok a quick and effective strategic attack. There's even the apocryphal line about a sleeping tiger, which in any case suggests they were aware of the danger and did it anyway.

The comment by Yammamoto was likely apocryphal.

But Japan knew full well that they had a time limit with which to seize the resources in Southeast Asia. The US was quite openly building a massive fleet that Japan had no hope of beating after 1943-1944. The fuel embargo made the decision much more sharp and with an even shorter time limit of early-to-mid 1942.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine ruled that a 2021 law reviving time-barred sexual abuse claims was unconstitutional.

the retroactive application of section 752-C(3) contravenes centuries of our precedent and multiple provisions of the Maine Declaration of Rights as well as the Constitution’s provisions regarding separation of powers.

Robert E. Dupuis et al. v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, 2025 ME 6

There were thirteen cases consolidated for appellate review. The lead plaintiff alleged abuse in 1961. He had to sue within two years of becoming an adult c. 1969. When the legislature extended the statute of limitations in 1985 and 1991 and abolished it in 2000 it did not attempt to revive old claims. The 2021 law, now found unconstitutional, did attempt to revive old claims. It neccessarily only applies to abuse that was at least 33 years earlier. (People who turned 18 in 1988 had 12 years to sue under the prior law.)

The decision was 5-2.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I do a CLE on this in New York, where revival statutes (including sexual abuse suits) have generally survived due process and ex post facto attack.

[Mr. Bumble]

The better to get DJT.

[David Nieporent]

It had literally nothing to do with DJT.

It's true that EJC utilized one of those revived statutes of limitation, but this long predates Trump.

[Ridgeway]

Wasn't it originally a gift to the plaintiffs' bar (which has unbelievable clout in NYS politics) so they could more easily/effectively go after the Catholic church? Then there was a follow up as part of the Me-Too movement.

Or am I misremembering?

[David Nieporent]

You are correct. The plaintiff's bar in NY is very powerful. (For years one of the three people who effectively ran the state was Sheldon Silver, who was of counsel at one of the big plaintiff's law firms, although he was gone by the time of the Child Victims Act.) And it was primarily because of the Church scandals, though the boy scouts were also a popular target.

[Joe_dallas]

https://x.com/stillgray/status/1884858597462442427

did this policy affect the DC crash this morning

First impression that this was caused by combination of errors including air traffic control

[Mr. Bumble]

The lack of sufficient qualified air traffic controllers (for whatever the reason) is certainly a problem.

[tylertusta]

Impossible to say.

We need more and better qualified ATCs, however. The radio doesn't care what the color of your skin is. This is quite literally a life or death profession.

[Sarcastr0]

Really mask off with you lot, eh?

Every single thing goes bad, You dig up some DEI program of unclear relation, and posit that any minorities in the general vicinity are of suspect merit.

[David Nieporent]

I guess I should be glad for the existence of DEI, because without these people would be blaming the Jews.

[tylertusta]

Antisemitism is well established... within the Democratic Party, that is.

There's no anti-Jewish wing of the Republican Party that takes over college campuses yelling "Death To Israel" and "From the River To the Sea."

[SRG2]

No - the anti-Jewish wing of the Republican party does things differently

Neo-Nazis: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/26/neo-nazis-trump-extremism
Christian nationalists: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ssqu.13248

They're at least as Republican as the people who take over campuses are Democrats.

[David Nieporent]

The same posters here who routinely say racist things also say antisemitic things.

[David Nieporent]

"Jews will not replace us!"

[tylertusta]

"It’s all about the Benjamins, baby!"

[Sarcastr0]

DMN hasn't said that Dems don't have some antisemitism.

On the other hand, you: "Antisemitism is well established... within the Democratic Party."

So you haven't provided evidence that contradicts him; he has contradicted you.

There's also one big antisemite out and proud in this thread, and he's one of yours.

[Ridgeway]

On of the most disappointing (to me) things about the rise of Trump is that it has allowed/encouraged right-wing antisemites to crawl out from under the rocks they had been living under since William F. Buckley kicked the Birchers out of the mainstream conservative movement and subsequently called out Pat Buchanan for levels of antisemitism far below what we see today.

For at least 3 decades up until 2016, pretty much the only american antisemitism I saw came from the left side of the political spectrum. Now, it is coming out of both ends, like a bad stomach flu.

Sure there was David Duke, but he was roundly condemned by 99.9% of Republicans, which bears out my thought. "Vote for the crook -- it's important!" still makes me smile.

[tylertusta]

I can hardly believe you'd make so many casual factual mistakes, yet here you are, pretending that water isn't wet.

"Jews will not replace us!" - This was from the Charlottesville riot, not from any elected Republican nor was it endorsed by any Republican in office at the time, at least not that I'm aware of. It has the most tenuous relation to my claim about antisemetic college campus protestors, but doesn't disprove my point at all (what does it have to do with college protestors?).

Meanwhile, I replied with: "It’s all about the Benjamins, baby!", which was said by Representative Ilhan Omar, the elected Democratic Congresswoman.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oh, you think the Charlottesville rioters (who, as I recall, were not rioting--the carnage happened the day after the rally) were all or mostly Democrats? Strange, I would have guessed differently!

James Alex Fields, after all, was an "avowed Nazi" and (surprise, surprise) a registered Republican and a MAGA supporter.

Infamously, hyper-toxic (and not very Democrat) Nick Fuentes also attended the Charlottesville rally. I'm not sure if Fuentes is a Republican, as his rise took place before the complete MAGAtization of the Republican Party, but I'd be willing to wager that he will soon be allowed back in (if he is indeed no longer a Republican).

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : "Really mask off with you lot, eh?"

A bunch of Righties here insisted the Baltimore bridge accident had to be because of Black people. There was obviously no evidence of this. There wasn't even a wisp of a hint of a conjecture behind the charge. It was just because that's what their kind does : Look to scapegoat the race they hate.

As I recall, Ed was one. Did tylertusta take that opportunity to happily roll around in filth too?

[SRG2]

Most of these crackers really believe that if an African-American or other minority has an important or critical position, they attained it through DEI or affirmative action, unless they're Clarence Thomas.

(FWIW the gorgeous and charming Gabby Thomas recently posted how crackers were doubting that she earned her admission to Harvard because, yanno...)

[David Nieporent]

The thing is, there's a chance she didn't — but if so, it would have been because she's a world class athlete/celebrity, not because she's black. Olympic gold medalists do not need boosts from anything else.

[Reallynotbob]

Thomas might actually be an excellent example of DEI in action; it just happened to be the conservative version. He was less competent than other candidates (Bork notwithstanding) but he was a minority, which helped him over the hurdle after Anita Hill credibly accused him of sexual harassment.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I have seen no indication that ATC in any way was responsible for the collision.

Still a reprehensible policy, and the sort of thing we’ve hopefully seen the last of for a while.

[tylertusta]

ATC may be involved. Too early to say conclusively yet, as we may not have all of the radio communications available to the public yet.

Other factors from what we know today:

- The helicopter pilots were wearing NVGs, which limit their field-of-view and depth perception.
- The pilots probably mistakenly were looking at another plane that was landing, so they didn't see the plane that crashed into them.
- The bright landing lights of the passenger plane plus the small relative motion for the helicopter pilots may have caused them to misjudge the distance. CBDR is a bitch, especially if you have no depth perception.

Edit: I say that ATC may be involved because there have been many midairs near DC that ATC are ultimately responsible for preventing.

See this article from last year:

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-ntsb-probe-wednesdays-near-miss-between-planes-washington-airport-2024-05-31/

[Reallynotbob]

Luckily, the radio transmissions are coming out. And--it really shouldn't shock anyone--the ATC warnings were on point.

Now, who wants to take an early pool on the skin color of all involved? Put your prejudices where your mouths are.
ATC = ?
Helicopter pilot = ?
Canadaair pilot = ?

[Voize of Reazon]

I expect there will be plenty of blame to go around.
Relying on visual separation at night, in very busy airspace, with a helo route underflying an approach path with at most 200' of separation even if nobody makes a mistake...
Shut down that airport and make the pols take the ride out to Dulles or BWI.

[Reallynotbob]

Pete Hegseth says the helo crew was wearing night vision goggles.

ATC told the helo to cross behind the jet, not under it.

But by all means, shit down the airport because the military messed up.

[Voize of Reazon]

Maybe they should have invalidated the night mission checkride they were on by taking off the goggles.
Maybe they should have verified they had identified the right other aircraft.
Maybe ATC should have told them to hold until the jet was clear, they were in Class B airspace and separation was his responsibility.
Maybe the FAA shouldn 't publish flight routes that don't guarantee adequate separation.

Sure, somebody made a mistake somewhere. Safety protocols need to tolerate people making mistakes but packing more activity into an area than it can safely accommodate makes that impossible.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Maybe you should have some idea of what you're bitching about before offering suggestions on how to fix things?

No?

[Voize of Reazon]

Definitely. Here's a quote from another guy who obviously doesn't know what he's talking about:

While the quality of air traffic control in the US is the “gold standard of the world,” safety zones need to be bolstered so there’s more altitude separation between low-flying aircraft and helicopters, said former US Airways Capt. Chelsey Sullenberger.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Do you want to know why I know you were bitching without any idea of the facts?

"Maybe ATC should have told them to hold until the jet was clear, they were in Class B airspace and separation was his responsibility."

PAT 25 requested visual separation after confirming that they had visual on the CRJ. That request was granted, which means ATC was no longer responsible for separation. It was entirely upon the crew of PAT 25 to ensure they did not fly into that airplane.

They also were more than 100' in altitude above what the route permitted, and were too far out from the shoreline where Route 1 was actually located, which also calls into question your assertion that the FAA publishes flight routes that don't guarantee adequate separation.

They are adequate if you do what you're supposed to do, and don't fly well outside of the flight paths.

Thank you for your appeal to authority, but you don't know jack shit of what you're talking about.

[Voize of Reazon]

That request was granted

At the discretion of the tower controller. It was his responsibility, that he agreed to delegate. That didn't break any rules, but the outcome would have been different if he had chosen differently.

They are adequate if you do what you're supposed to do, and don't fly well outside of the flight paths.

What was the minimum altitude of the jet, on short final with the runway in sight? Answer: there is no minimum. They are constrained only to make a normal landing in the TDZ without excessive maneuvering or rate of descent.

[tylertusta]

Before shutting it down, they should not require crazy approaches just to mollify noise complaints.

[Voize of Reazon]

What crazy approach do you think played a part here?

[tylertusta]

Here's the RNAV approach that the passenger jet would have followed:

https://www.flightaware.com/resources/airport/DCA/IAP/RNAV+(GPS)+RWY+33/pdf

At IDTEK, you turn to 334 and have 1.4 miles until you get to Runway 33. That's a 50 degree turn right before you get on final.

Contrast that with the nice straight-in approach for a runway like O'Hare's 27L where you're on 273 for the entire stretch:

https://www.flightaware.com/resources/airport/ORD/IAP/RNAV+(GPS)+Z+RWY+27L/pdf

I would imagine not having to work helicopters amongst tight approaches/depatures would have prevented this problem.

[Voize of Reazon]

That's not the approach they used, they were on the ILS for runway 1 and when the tower asked if they could circle to 33 they agreed.
You can see their path here.

[tylertusta]

Huh?

They used the RNAV approach to Runway 33. You can see that they entered the approach at KATRN.

[Voize of Reazon]

Checking the audio I was wrong about the approach but not about the runway.
Several approaches overfly KATRN, but they told ATC they were on another one, the Mount Vernon Visual for 1.

[Frank Drackman]

Every big Airport's busy and the final safety device is the Mark-1 Eyeball, think about that when you see your Captain using his "Cheaters", and if you sit on the Left side taking off to the North you get a great view of JFK's grave.

[Sarcastr0]

It's the Washington Times, who are not above some headline juking.

The headline is from allegations only:
"A trial set for summer 2025 will determine the truth of allegations already found plausible by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia."
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/feb/1/editorial-faa-turned-away-qualified-air-traffic-co/

[tylertusta]

And is the article wrong?

[Sarcastr0]

It's headlining allegations as fact.

[tylertusta]

Clearly it's a NYT and WaPo-quality publication!

[Sarcastr0]

Whattaboutism, eh?

[tylertusta]

I thought you were all about pithy remarks!

Can dish it but not take it?

[Sarcastr0]

You deflected.
Take the L.

[tylertusta]

I'm just doing what you do.

[tylertusta]

For those who missed it, when I asked Sarcastr0 about whether the article was wrong, he immediately deflected and said that the article was "... headlining allegations as fact."

What followed was turnabout being fair play.

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/01/29/wednesday-open-thread/?comments=true#comment-10893971

[Brett Bellmore]

The FAA Is Being Sued For Throwing Out Air Traffic Controller Applications Based On Applicants' Race

No recent updates on how Brigida v FAA is going, but they do claim to have turned up a lot of evidence of the Obama administration engaging in fairly unsubtle racial discrimination in ATC hiring.

[Sarcastr0]

Is there any harm in waiting for it to be more than a claim?

[Brett Bellmore]

You want to bet on it just being a claim?

[Bwaaah]

Would they do such a thing? Race-based hiring?

Sarc couldn't imagine that.

Correction: Sarc won't admit that, even though that's what all federal agencies were ordered to do by the White House and Democrat-sponsored "affirmative action" statutes that called for no less than that (but refused to explicitly say so).

"More BIPOCs. No quotas. Just race-based numbers on which you'll be judged."

He/they can't/don't defend that which they implicitly demand, but which is overtly offensive to an overwhelming majority of people. Sarc, ever the weasel, dances around the obvious as if it is not.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett, I want to wait until there is evidence beyond 'it happened like this once before', not make bets.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Aviation expert Joe_dipshit, here to surprise everyone with his evidence-free theories of ignorance!

Tell me something asswipe: When a pilot requests visual separation from an aircraft, who is taking responsibility for not flying into other airplanes at that point?

What is the maximum allowable altitude of Route 1, which PAT 25 was flying? What was the altitude of the collision?

It's never too early for you dipshits to post your racist hot takes, and you're all too cowardly (probably a good choice) to post under your real names.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sounds like the Democrats are planning on repeating a past mistake.

[tylertusta]

I bet you this will be funded by a foreign power just like the last time they considered this.

[Sarcastr0]

Awesome. So now we have 2 posters super into unneeded partisan speculation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hey, the ballot proposal qualified, and it's certainly not being pushed by Republicans.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah this isn't the State of Jefferson folks.

But your assumption that course everyone not Republican must be a Democrat just shows how partisan-brained you are.

[tylertusta]

What's this? Whataboutism?!

Good heavens! You're all about breaking your own rules today!

[Sarcastr0]

Seems dumb. Also not really Democrats, just an initiative:
"Secretary Weber clarified on January 28, 2025, that her role is simply to approve the initiative process, not to endorse the idea of secession. She emphasized the importance of verifying information and addressing misinformation about the process. Signature gathering must conclude by July 2025."

Texas has their governors talk about secession, not this rando from Fresno nonsense. You've never called them out repeating a past mistake.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Attacking Fort Sumter?

[Mr. Bumble]

Bummer.
Marianne Faithful dead at age 78.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/30/health/bird-flu-mmwr-pause-trump-kff-partner/index.html

The stupidity of Trump and his supporters leads them to make decisions which may very well result in their own demise.

Jolly good, I say. They deserve it.

[SRG2]

Cause of the Titanic sinking