Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[santamonica811]

Thoughts on Trump's tariffs? Good idea? (If so, what is your prediction on how it will help America and normal Americans? What will be the short-term [1 month] effect? The 6-month effect? Any longer effect?

Bad idea? If so, why? Will Mexico and Canada follow-through on their (totally expected) retaliatory tariffs? What will be that effect on our day-to-day prices? The effect in the first month? 3-6 months from now? Longer term???

Anyone surprised that the tariffs on China (so far) are only 40% of the amount on Mex/Can? Which of Trump's tariffs will have the most positive impact (if you think they're good) or the worst impact (if you think they're bad)?

Be honest? Did anyone think he'd follow through on his threat to slap tariffs on Mexico and Canada? (Full disclosure: I personally did not think he'd follow through. Certainly not in the first few months of his presidency. I would have lost big money if I'd placed a bet on my own instincts here.)

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Some of the dumber Trump supporters here will claim it's a good thing, and it will force policy concessions from Mexico and Canada.

What they won't acknowledge, is that extorting your neighbors and allies, and threatening to damage the economy of everyone involved until there's only one country left standing, is a fantastic way of losing friends and ensuring that the reputation of the United States is ruined.

Everyone with a brain already knew he was a lying sack of shit, and now he's violating the international treaty he signed.

Putin is like that too.

There aren't many good reasons (if any) to enter into a treaty with someone whose promises are empty lies. Fuck Trump and everyone who supports him.

[Mr. Bumble]

What "treaty" are you referring to?

[mggaviles]

USMCA, no?

[Mr. Bumble]

OK, NAFTA 2.0. Not really a "treaty".

[Martinned2]

Someone should probably tell the office of the US trade representative that: https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement

Not to mention the US Congress: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-116publ113/html/PLAW-116publ113.htm

[William of Brooklyn]

Are you suggesting that the president (ANY president) lacks the authority, under the law, to enact tariffs? And yes, international agreements of trade do have the effect of federal law, even though they are not "treaties," as defined under the Constitution. But even treaties have only the effect of federal law, and can be abrogated by the United States, or by the president (if so empowered) at any time for any reason.

[SykesFive]

According to the U.S. Constitution, the power to enact tariffs is part of the taxing power. Article I, Clause 8, section 1.

Congress made a limited delegation of the tariff power to the President under the Trade Act of 1974. This gives the President the power to impose tariffs against a foreign power if the foreign power violates an international trade agreement or is "unjustified, unreasonable, or discriminatory." This did not give the President general power over tariffs.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Some of the dumber Trump supporters here will claim it's a good thing, and it will force policy concessions from Mexico and Canada."

I don't know if it's a good thing, but it certainly is intended to force policy concessions from Mexico and Canada.

As Charles de Gaulle said, "No nation has friends, only interests."

Canada is an ally of ours, that doesn't mean they don't occasionally do stuff that harms us for their own gain, or because they just don't care. Trump has set out to make them care.

Mexico isn't even an ally, they're just a neighbor. They routinely do stuff that's to our detriment, in part because they don't really control their own territory, they're approaching being a failed state.

And neither is our friend.

[Martinned2]

As Charles de Gaulle said, "No nation has friends, only interests."

Yes, De Gaulle was wrong about that, and screwed up European collaboration for more than a decade as a result.

[Mr. Bumble]

That would seem to be the history of France since there was a France.

[Martinned2]

It is. It is also the history of Europe, of the other countries that were memers of the EEC at the time, the history of the UK (which first applied for membership when De Gaulle was president, only to have him veto their application), etc.

I'm not sure what your point is, though.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it would be a better world if nations had friends, I agree. But Canada is certainly following de Gaulle's position here, and so needs to be treated according to it.

[Sarcastr0]

Certainly!

[Martinned2]

Wait, your complaint is that Canada isn't bending over and spreading its cheeks like a friend would do? Clearly you have different ideas about friendship than I do.

[Swede425]

Don't you mean "yet".

[Dr. Ed 2]

No Brett, FRENCH Canada is -- Quebec and Ontario Provinces are, I don't think the rest of Canada is. And that is the message that Trump should be giving -- vote out the liberals and all this will end.

[SykesFive]

Accepting much of that as true, Quebec and Ontario have 60 percent of Canada's population (always have). Basically what they say goes. Add British Columbia and you get up to about 75 percent.

But Ontario is not "FRENCH Canada"!

[Martinned2]

The Canadian conservatives are also campaigning on an anti-Trump platform, both in Ontario and for the Federal elections.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know if it's a good thing, but it certainly is intended to force policy concessions from Mexico and Canada.

No, it isn't. Trump. Hates. Trade. He has said explicitly that he wants to stop trade. The fentanyl thing is the pretext for the casus belli for this trade war, but it's got absolutely zilch to do with Trump's goals.

[Bob from Ohio]

" He has said explicitly that he wants to stop trade. "

When?

[David Nieporent]

On Truthsocial. He ranted that we should make everything in the U.S. and not trade with them because he thinks we "lose" when we trade.

[Martinned2]

Yes. Trump's entire world view is that every "deal" has a winner and a loser. The whole concept of a mutually beneficial arrangement is alien to him. So if, say, Canada benefits from its trade relationship with the US, ipso facto the US must be the loser.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Trump hates trade deficits you filthy liar.

No one but economically illiterate dumbass libs wants to be on the deficit side of trade

[David Nieporent]

No one but economically illiterate dumbass libs wants to be on the deficit side of trade

Bilateral trade deficits are meaningless accounting fictions. No actual person who has more familiarity with economics than running a lemonade stand as a child cares. Mercantilism might have made sense as a worldview 400 years ago, but it's been long recognized as a stupid idea — you may have heard of Adam Smith? — and it makes less than no sense in criticizing an arrangement where our debts are denominated in U.S. dollars.

We don't win by accumulating more dollars, and we are not impoverished by buying stuff from other countries. We get actual valuable stuff, and they get… inherently valueless pieces of green paper, which they can use only to buy stuff from us.

[Brett Bellmore]

We don't win by accumulating more "dollars", certainly, but dollars are one of the chits indicating who's accumulating more value.

The pieces of green paper are inherently valueless, except for the part where you can use them to buy stuff. That part IS kind of important. Run a big trade deficit long enough, and other people can buy your country right out from under you.

[Sarcastr0]

Another thing that determines value - stuff. Hence DMN "We get actual valuable stuff."

If you don't think it's valuable, then I would ask why you hate markets?

Run a big trade deficit long enough, and other people can buy your country right out from under you
You continue to think national deficits are just like personal deficits.

[David Nieporent]

The pieces of green paper are inherently valueless, except for the part where you can use them to buy stuff. That part IS kind of important.

Yes, and that's what we did it for! And then you're complaining that we spent the money to buy stuff!

Run a big trade deficit long enough, and other people can buy your country right out from under you.

At which point we would have the money, and they wouldn't!

But how do you think we export if they don't have money to purchase stuff? How does buying goods from us constitute "buying your country right out from under you?"

[Armchair]

"At which point we would have the money, and they wouldn't!"

And they own your land, your businesses, your job...
Then you can spend your money on more cheap trinkets and will have nothing.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah. So we need to protect the dumbass Americans from the clever foreigners.

Thank goodness the free market has you to keep it on the straight and narrow!

[David Nieporent]

Then you can spend your money on more cheap trinkets and will have nothing.

No, you'd have cheap trinkets. Which are still better than pieces of green paper.

[Armchair]

David....Wow...

[RedheadedPharoh]

Why isn't every country striving for this status if it's so beneficial?

Are we the only economic geniuses that understand the true benefit of running trade deficits?

That's the whole problem with y'alls idiot America Last/Trump * -1 belief system. It doesn't stand up under the scrutiny of empiricism.

[myself]

As a Canadian we have long considered you as a friend and ally, and we were told you thought of us the same.

It seems we were wrong and you really only see us as a target to extort and perhaps conquer in the future.

I guess that makes us suckers, don't worry, we won't forget this lesson.

[Brett Bellmore]

As an American, I was freed of the illusion that Canada was America's friend, when back in the early 70's you slapped a huge tax, payable immediately, on foreign owned beachfront property. And my family lost our cottage on Lake St. Clair, that we'd had since the Great Depression, had to sell it at a steep discount to pay the damned tax.

That cottage might not mean much to you, but it had been a center of my extended family's social life for generations.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Looks like Canada upgraded.

[Sarcastr0]

That's...petty as fuck.

Like, I can get having a personal beef with Canada - that's very American.

But you've turned your bad experience into a geopolitical judgement.

That's mighty dumb.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it was pretty petty. But Canada did it anyway.

[myself]

You sure you don't mean this?

It sounds like an idiotic move by the Conservative Premier of Ontario at the time, though nothing to do with beachfront or foreigners.

Either way, I'm sorry to hear your family lost its cottage.

p.s. It sounds like Trump has finally come to his senses and backed off.

[Brett Bellmore]

Quite certain it wasn't that. It was specifically a tax on foreign, and only foreign, owned beachfront property. We might have been able to pay it, if it hadn't been due almost immediately, precluding any time to raise the funds.

The new tax was intended to force the transfer of beach property owned by Americans to Canadians, at fire sale prices. Worked, too.

[myself]

I searched a bit and that's what I found, though there could be something else.

Also, I'm guessing you were fairly young at the time. It would be pretty typical for the outcome of a law to be remembered as the very specific intent of a law.

[bernard11]

Often, maintaining friendly relations with another country, especially a long-time allies and neighbors, is very much in a country's interest.

So, by the way is keeping trade as free as possible.

And tariffs are often not in the national interest. They may seem to be, because they benefit specific industries and workers, but that doesn't reflect the damage they do elsewhere, even without considering possible retaliation.

[bernard11]

Mexico isn't even an ally, they're just a neighbor. They routinely do stuff that's to our detriment, in part because they don't really control their own territory, they're approaching being a failed state.

So Trump wants this almost-failed state to implement rigorous measures to help us solve what is, after all, our problem and not theirs, and the way Trump wants to do it is by making their economy much worse, so the Mexican government has more problems and fewer resources than now.

You're really scrambling.

[Brett Bellmore]

"and the way Trump wants to do it is by making their economy much worse,"

No, try to keep up: He wanted to do it by threatening to make their economy much worse. If they capitulate, no tariff! Did that somehow escape your attention?

[Brett Bellmore]

And, they just capitulated. So, no tariff.

[David Nieporent]

As I predicted, Trumpkins are so gullible that Trump could declare victory after being punched in the face and they'd believe him. They did not "capitulate." They gave him a meaningless promise that benfits nobody and accomplishes nothing.

[myself]

Yeah no. Big business told Trump how big a disaster the tariffs would be (auto industry would basically have to shut down) so he took the deal that was offered all along:

In a social media statement, Trudeau said Canada is implementing the $1.3-billion border security plan first unveiled in December, which includes “reinforcing the border with new choppers, technology and personnel, enhanced coordination with our American partners, and increased resources to stop the flow of fentanyl.”

[Joe_dallas]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/217526/revenues-from-customs-duty-and-forecast-in-the-us/

Tarriff's rose under Biden

Did any leftists complain?
Did any leftist even care that tarriffs rose under Biden?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, there were plenty of complaints! Do you think the left was a big fan of Biden?

Though note the scope of these tariffs is fundamentally different in kind from past practice.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 52 seconds ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Yes, there were plenty of complaints! Do you think the left was a big fan of Biden?"

Plenty of complaints - When and where?
The left not a big fan of Biden - Thats a different story line when the left was trying to hide his dementia

[David Nieporent]

When did "the left" do that? And what dementia? Still playing doctor, I see.

[Joe_dallas]

DN cant rebut the fact that Biden was suffering serious mental decline through out his presidency, especially since he was an active participant in trying to hide his declining mental state.

[Sarcastr0]

I see you've veered way off the subject of tariffs.

How'd that happen?

[Joe_dallas]

Note also that DN cant dispute that tarriffs went up under Biden, so DN chose to change the subject

[Sarcastr0]

You set this as the subject:
"Tarriff's rose under Biden

Did any leftists complain?
Did any leftist even care that tarriffs rose under Biden?"

No one disputes Biden didn't lower Trump's tariffs. But that's not what you talked about - you made a charge of hypocrisy.

Both wrong and irrelevant.

And THEN you went over to Biden's mental capacity.

Just really spinning out there today.

[RedheadedPharoh]

When you rewrote history.

[Reallynotbob]

Dementia or not... Biden didn't pick a trade war for zero reason.

The ripple effects of the past several weeks are going to be long-term problems. The message is that the US won't honor military (NATO) or trade alliances, nor will we uphold our foreign aid promises (USAID). That radically reduces our "soft power" -- which Trump never understood is the US's greatest power.

The anti-immigrant policies may staunch some of the Texas-border flow of migrants (whom our economy actually needs in order to keep growing) but they are too broad and abusive, and have amplified public hostility, and thus are reducing the draw for desirable immigrants to come to the US. 20th-Century US advanced itself significantly through brain drain. In the same vein, cutting off or threatening funding to the sciences further reduces the desire for the world's best STEM academics to do their work here. There's no good reason to hurt those systems.

...unless you're Trump and his cronies, who are looking to accrete power for the sake of personal gain. Whatever else you can say about the alleged "Biden crime family" -- he never made a power grab.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

To give Trump credit, if he manages to make the US a worse shithole than the shitholes all those illegals are fleeing, they will definitely stop coming...

[bernard11]

I did. So did a lot of others.

I was quite disappointed that Biden did not reduce tariffs.

[myself]

As a Canadian I'll do everything I can to not buy American, reduce my consumption of US media, and my country will look to establish trade ties with other nations.

This will extend long after the tariffs have ended.

[Bob from Ohio]

Knock your self out.

I'm worried sick that you will reduce "consumption of US media", which I despise.

[myself]

Do you understand the concept of soft power? The ability to influence other nations through exporting US culture, the ability to get favourable trade deals through negotiations with friendly nations, etc, etc.

To put it another way, if I was a US adversary looking to end the US's reign as a super-power I'd be giddy right now.

[Bob from Ohio]

"favourable [sic] trade deals "

Our trade deals haven't been favorable to us. One of Trump's points.

People in Canada or Germany or Zimbabwe or where-ever enjoy US movies and music when they are superior to native stuff. As long as that's true, our soft power will continue.

Go watch some government mandated Canadian contact, you hoser.

[Sarcastr0]

Would you say America's growing enjoyment of anime has given Japan much soft power over us?

[Bob from Ohio]

Talk to "myself" above, he's the one who brought up "exporting US culture"

[Sarcastr0]

Tons of etc's in his post you seem to have missed.

[David Nieporent]

Our trade deals haven't been favorable to us.

We get stuff more cheaply. That's definitionally favorable to us.

[santamonica811]

Bob,
"favour" is a correct spelling (just as 'favor' also is). One is preferred in British English and the other in American English. But both are correct. (And, of course, the person writing the original comment could be writing from a Commonwealth country. Or could have grown up and been educated in same.)

I lived in England for a while as a kid, and my instinct is to spell lots of words the "British way." If I'm writing multiple drafts, I can almost always catch them and make the appropriate changes. But, if I'm, say, dashing off a quick comment here; it's super-easy to miss one of those olde schoole spellings. 🙂

[Brett Bellmore]

I got the same effect from reading a lot of really old books as a child.

[santamonica811]

Ah, interesting. You must have read A LOT as a kid, for your reading to have had that much effect. (As the child of a librarian and a professor; I'm of the belief that it's simply not possible to have had too much exposure to books growing up.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Er, Trump negotiated the trade deal you're now saying "isn't favorable" to the US.

All part of the plan!

[Kazinski]

I'm not happy with the tariffs especially for Canada, and I am worried that they will backfire and give Trudeau a boost and rob Canada of the conservative government it so desperately need.

I agree with Ilya the president has too much power in setting tariffs, but I disagree with him that lawsuits are the answer, I think Congress should assert itself and remove some the President's power, that Congress gave him, to unilaterally set tariffs.

I'm also not happy with the 51st state talk, and the verbal aggression towards the Danes and Greenland.

I hope Panama will quiet down now after they have announced they are pulling out of China's Belt and Road initiative.

I am happy about the progress on immigrant deportations, buyouts of federal workers, and DOGE aggressively getting a handle on federal spending, and I am looking forward to real cuts in the future. While DEI cutbacks are not a big money saver, they may well make the federal government more efficient.

I want the President focusing on cutting back the federal government and making the bureaucracy more responsive to the will of the people, as expressed in election results.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Note that they aren't in effect yet.
He has to include Canada lest he be accused of racism, and he wants to make it too expensive for Mexico not to secure its border.

[bernard11]

he wants to make it too expensive for Mexico not to secure its border.

WTF. Illegal immigration is an American problem, not a Mexican one.

Sure, they can do a lot to help, but not if they're in a recession, and are angry at the US.

[myself]

Trudeau is already resigning. And Pierre Poilievre makes Ted Cruz look likeable and charismatic.

More than that Mark Carney is entering the race with a resume that seems to be winning over dedicated conservatives.

[Commenter_XY]

sm811, there was zero doubt in my mind after his inaugural speech, and certainly after the 1st press conference with the new press secretary, that POTUS Trump would deliver. This will help POTUS Trump in other contexts with world leaders b/c they know he will deliver on what he says (they knew that before, but probably needed the reminder).

Why only 10% and not 25%? I do think the China tariff has more 'bite', because there is no more de minimus exception for Chinese retailers (i.e. Temu, Shein, etc) to ship product to the USA without inspection and tariff duties now being paid. That's a billion packages annually now subject to tariffs.

We will see spot price increases, short term. I don't think CAN will matter much b/c much of the trade is raw materials we have; but MX and CHN will be more broad. It is overall inflation that I watch, and energy prices. Energy cost must come down for the dampening effect it has on overall inflation.

Is it a good idea? My answer is it depends on the goal...economic, foreign policy, national security. Tariffs are a tool to achieve those aims, and because of our economic power, a tool we can actually use to great effect. Nobody gives a shit if Uganda applies a 10% universal tariff, but the entire world will give a shit when we do.

Wait and see....for 3 years.

[Mr. Bumble]

Until the imposition of the income tax (which like so many progressive programs was sold to the public with lies) the major source of funding for the federal government was through tariffs.
Tariffs also led to the growth of American industry (after the Civil War) which turned the US into the industrial powerhouse of the late 19th and early 20th century.
"From 1871 to 1913, "the average U.S. tariff on dutiable imports never fell below 38 percent [and] gross national product (GNP) grew 4.3 percent annually, twice the pace in free trade Britain and well above the U.S. average in the 20th century," notes Alfred Eckes Jr, chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission under President Reagan.[18]"

[Reallynotbob]

"From 1871 to 1913, "the average U.S. tariff on dutiable imports never fell below 38 percent [and] gross national product (GNP) grew 4.3 percent annually, twice the pace in free trade Britain and well above the U.S. average in the 20th century,"

Correlation but not causation. Duties were large, but income tax was absent. Meanwhile, that was a period of significant population growth through... immigration. In fact -- the immigrant population in 1900 was about the same proportion of immigration we now experience as "too much." Worked out okay then too.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time

[Commenter_XY]

Ah heck, I misspelled de minimis....the DC Circuit helpfully provided that spelling lesson last Friday in Short Circuit.

[David Nieporent]

After 40 years of writing about stuff, and 20 years as a lawyer, I still got that wrong often enough that I set up an autocorrect macro on my computer.

[SimonP]

Right, this is the line I've seen online MAGA adopt - there'll be some pain, but it's for a long-term good... wait and see! You all are just as stunned as every right-thinking person is. All you can do is try to deflect criticism for a moment, before the hard impacts start to settle in. You can't manage a coherent defense.

We're all fucked, and you're the ones who fucked us.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wasn't that short term pain for long term gain exactly how the left justified things like EV and 'renewable' energy mandates?

[SRG2]

"Whatasbout?"

One idifference is that there's no linkage inn the case of Trump's tariffs.

Basically when it comes to tariffs, Trump is economically illiterate, you Trump supporters are too stupid to realise it or are nonetheless compelled to support it because Trump. You're a bunch of economic flat-earthers.

[Commenter_XY]

Their lack of self-awareness is stunning. Just remember, these are the same people who told us for four years the cauliflower was 'sharp as a tack'. They have no credibility whatsoever.

They can cry a little harder and make themselves look asinine.

[SimonP]

I'm perfectly "self-aware" that the greening of the economy, under Biden, was built on incremental improvements in fuel efficiency and targeted subsidies designed to encourage the development of a greener economy. None of it was about imposing "short-term pain" on the economy or driving small businesses into the ground. It was an all-carrot approach to a better future.

But it's futile to even rehearse the facts with you fucking fascists. Anything Trump does is justified, in your view. You'll just reason backwards to the argument as needed.

[bernard11]

The only people looking asinine are Trumpists and other tariff fans.

[Reallynotbob]

It's how one justifies surgery, too. What's your point? Some are good ideas and some are dumb.

[SimonP]

It's sure easy to make the argument you want to make when you lie about the underlying facts, isn't it, Goober?

[Krayt]

And "don't worry about that inflation!" which we knew we would cause you with mathematical certainty.

[bernard11]

My answer is it depends on the goal...economic, foreign policy, national security. Tariffs are a tool to achieve those aims

And a hammer is a tool to tighten a screw.

First, tariffs don't help the economy.

Second, alienating long-time allies strikes me as poor foreign policy.

Finally we come to national security. It might make sense to impose tariffs on strategically important goods to encourage domestic production. Of course there are lots of other ways to do that, but most of them end up looking a lot like tariffs. The difficulty is that it's very easy to define your buddy's product as critical to national security.

That's one version of a generally overlooked problem with tariffs. They provide another avenue for corruption and favoritism.

[Commenter_XY]

It would appear the attention of CAN, MX is now properly focused on solving our problem (illegal aliens, fentanyl). Too bad it took the threat of walloping their economies, maybe next time, they'll listen sooner and avoid the hassle.

Let's see where we are in 30 days. 😉

[Sarcastr0]

Properly focused.
That’s the big concession for this nonsense.

What a maroon.

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

I just watched a wickedly delicious video by an Economics professor on the unprecedented success of Javier Milei doing his Trump-like thing. Trump has no choice.That childish girly Trudeau has to be treated for the buffoon he is. He wants a gun duel with the new guy in town --- GREAT
And Mexico is a cesspool , maybe the people will be incited to an American-style revolution. You either face these jerks or you have a long drawn-out descent.

[Kenneth Almquist]

I wasn’t expecting the tariffs on Canada and Mexico. During his first term in office, Trump negotiated the USMCA; in his second term he is violating it. Trump seems to want to drive U.S. credibility to zero.

[Martinned2]

USMCA already made Trump's credibility zero, because it was premised on his unilateral decision to trash NAFTA. But yes, Trump 2.0 will gave the general effect of making US credibility zero too.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump lost credibility on account of promising to trash NAFTA, and then actually doing it? How does that work?

[Commenter_XY]

I don't understand the illogic either.

[Mr. Bumble]

Martinned2 will soon explain.

[bernard11]

He didn't trash NAFTA, and a good thing too.

USMCA simply tweaked it.

[Martinned2]

It works by showing that America's promises are worth nothing, at least not while Trump is president. And Trump 2.0 has shown that it's not so much an issue with Trump, that will go away when he is president, but that generally any treaty or agreement to which the US is a party isn't worth the paper it's written on, because there will always be another lunatic president who burns it all down.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, you're conflating America's credibility and Trump's personal credibility. That doesn't make much sense, but at least it explains the claim.

You have to understand that our partners in NAFTA were not faithfully observing the terms of the treaty themselves. For instance, Mexico was doing a brisk trade in laundering Chinese goods, they'd come to Mexico, get relabeled as manufactured in Mexico, and then shipped to the US as Mexican products under NAFTA.

So we wound up in unilateral pseudo-NAFTA relationships with countries that weren't part of NAFTA, and so had no reciprocal obligations themselves in regards to US products.

An example of what I mean by Mexico and Canada not actually being our friends.

[Martinned2]

Actually no, I was very clearly distinguishing between Trump's credibility in the eyes of the world and the credibility of the US more generally.

It's the distinction between "Trump will ignore any and all treaties the US has signed up to" and "the US will ignore any and all treaties it has signed up to".

[Brett Bellmore]

"USMCA already made Trump's credibility zero, because it was premised on his unilateral decision to trash NAFTA. "

In fact, you were equating them, not clearly distinguishing them.

[Commenter_XY]

I am still not following his illogic, heh.

[Martinned2]

I'm afraid that's a problem on your end.

[Bob from Ohio]

"America's promises are worth nothing"

He invoked a re-negotiation clause in a 20 year old treaty and then re-negotiated an amendment. No promise broken at all.

[Reallynotbob]

I bet that's not your viewpoint when your ISP triples your per-gig price because "rates are subject to change." And also your view when your no-ads streaming subscription suddenly has ads on it because "our terms and conditions have changed." No promise broken, so what's the big deal?

[Bob from Ohio]

I have no idea what my "per gig price" is and I have no "no-ads streaming subscription".

However, I do believe these changes are because you have no binding contract on rates so the price increase violates no promise.

[Reallynotbob]

Right. But it still makes the consumer mad. (Or you can imagine since you've never experienced such a thing.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"But it still makes the consumer mad. "

Ok, consumers are dumb sometimes.

I, on the other hand, realize that those providers and Trump broke no promises so would not get mad.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

...and then he abrogated the terms of that treaty. The one he had "negotiated".

[SimonP]

He's talking about the credibility of the United States as a partner in international agreements, Goober. You fucking idiot.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Simon, please take a moment to breathe.

One Jason is enough!

[David Nieporent]

USMCA already made Trump's credibility zero, because it was premised on his unilateral decision to trash NAFTA.

Yes, but at the end of the day it was just "Let's rename NAFTA so that Trump can claim credit for replacing it," so nobody cared.

On moral grounds, Trump should be opposed on everything, because he's stupid and evil and wants to burn down the country, but on practical grounds, it's much easier to let him think he's won by granting some meaningless concession. His supporters are far too ignorant to know that when he touts a victory it isn't one, so it's mostly a win-win. (As we've already seen in this presidency, with his Colombia fiasco.)

[Martinned2]

Yes, but at the end of the day it was just "Let's rename NAFTA so that Trump can claim credit for replacing it," so nobody cared.

Sort of. Just like now with Colombia and Canada/Mexico, the result seems to have been that Trump trashed the credibility of the US, annoyed everyone, and got essentially nothing in return.

[Mr. Bumble]

How do you figure he got nothing in return?

[Martinned2]

They all just agreed to keep doing what they were already doing before.

[Mr. Bumble]

Columbia taking back deportees, Mexico sending 10,000 troops to help control the border and Little Fidel sending Sgt. Preston and his dog Yukon King to the border is nothing?
Also, Venezuela releasing six detained Americans, Panama agreeing to decouple from Belt and Road and deport illegal migrants crossing its country before they get to Mexico is nothing?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, it is nothing. Cosmetic. Will change none of the actual problems. Not the real ones in the real world, nor the fake ones Trump made up.

Pretext for Trump to back off but allow suckers like you to declare victory.

Drama up to 11; results down at 1.

[Martinned2]

Yes. To take an example, Colombia is taking back deportees just like it's been doing for years. Under Biden it was even accepting Venezuelans, not just Colombians.

https://reason.com/2022/04/26/biden-is-deporting-venezuelans-to-colombia/

[Mr. Bumble]

The linked article makes no mention of the number deported to Columbia by Biden. Also, you ignored the the release of detainees and the Panama's concessions.

[David Nieporent]

What concessions?

What about the concessions Trump made to Venezuela?

[Mr. Bumble]

Panama's decision to decouple from Belt and Road, allow free passage for US warships and to deport migrants passing through Panama directly.

[Swede425]

I mean, he said he'd do it.
Trump: If you don't stop the flow of fentanyl and illegals coming from your country to ours, I'll impose tariffs. And I'll increase them over time.
Canada: Yeah, we're not going to do that.
Trump: Then I'm going to do it.
Canada: Still not doing it. And we'll impose our own.
Trump: Tariffs imposed.
Canada: OMFG! Who fucking does that? I mean, what the hell? This is totally out of left field! I thought we were buddies, pals even! Now WE'RE imposing our own tariffs!
Trump: Yeah, ok.
Leftists: ZOMG! That's stupid! That's illegal! You don't have the authority! You can't do that! It won't work! What are you doing? What's this supposed to accomplish! It still won't work!

Here's the thing: it will work. And Canada knows it. And leftists know it, too. But more importantly? Trump knows it.

[SRG2]

Here's the thing: it will work.

Faith-based economics...

[Swede425]

Oh, ye of little faith.

[SimonP]

The magical thinking within the MAAGA contingent is fucking intense.

I realize that's how someone like Trump wins - lie about everything, let people believe what they want. But it's wild watching them lie to themselves in real time. Every news cycle telling us about the chaos going on in the White House, every stupid self-own by Trump, is magically transformed into a good thing by these geniuses. They will be grinning right through it, as they lose their jobs, their medicines become more expensive, their business dries up, their communities hollow out. It'll all be the Democrats' fault, a necessary cost in Trump's Great Reorganization.

[Swede425]

LOL!
Trump said "vote for me and I'll do these things".
So we did. And now he's doing those things.
And you don't like it. And I don't care.
He's been VERY busy, hasn't he?
And the usual suspects can't deal with the fact that there are some big changes coming. I can live with that.
Flooding the zone and the left doesn't know whether to shit or go blind. Regardless, these changes are why he was elected.
Your concern is noted.

[SimonP]

I'm not really interested in anything you have to say. You're a drooling idiot.

The "magical thinking" I'm talking about is exactly this - thinking Trump has accomplished anything he promised by signing a raft of EOs, thinking that the implementation of those EOs will address any issues your lot purports to care about, thinking that these stupid tariff threats are winning genuine concessions from other countries.

What you and your ilk are interested in, and satisfied by, is an entertaining flurry of events that make you feel powerful and in control. You don't know what the presidency is actually about or what our federal government actually does, and you don't actually care. All that you see is a bunch of "liberals" angry over what Trump is doing, so you react with a child-like glee - see, he's doing what we wanted, which is owning the libz!

Meanwhile, what we will see is the decline of the U.S. in world affairs. We will be taken less seriously, other countries will pivot to be less reliant on us, we will become increasingly isolated. Our politics will become more divisive and corrupt, and all the progress we made in the 20th century will erode as more and more idiots like you are cultivated and vote for idiots like Trump.

[windycityattorney]

It could just be the case that the average american voter is even dumber than most people thought. Easily swayed by propaganda. Exit polls seemed to indicate that inflation and the cost of normal goods (groceries or gas) was a huge factor this past election and its possible Trump may have implied that he would fix it on day 1.

Welp its day 14 and he just lit a fuse to blow some shit up.

Crude oil is going up as I type so that should hit the pumps with higher prices here in a jiffy. I am not sure how long it will take for the cost of produce to go up but I imagine its inevitable they will go up.

Just recently, there is talk of "pain" for the consumer but not to worry. Its all part of the grand plan from the brain trust that brought you $Trump coin. I am actually surprised any die hard MAGA's have any savings left after all the other scams this grifter d- bag has pulled on his followers.

[Life of Brian]

Welp its day 14 and he just lit a fuse to blow some shit up.

As an attorney, I'm sure you've never postured to try to gain an advantage a single time in your life.

I am not sure how long it will take for the cost of produce to go up but I imagine its inevitable they will go up.

It's actually looking not inevitable at all. Oopsie.

[santamonica811]

Brian,
Perhaps it makes sense for both sides to see which way inflation actually goes? And then we can make proud/embarrassed proclamations about how right/wrong we were about Trump. (Of course; this is the internet, and making guesses about the future is a sine qua non of commenting about politics. But we should certainly not be definitive about what will (not) happen.)

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, agree that time will tell the real story vis-a-vis inflation in general. Here, I was just responding to Windy's doom/gloom/despair/gleeful anticipation about "inevitable" price increases from tariffs that were pretty clearly just a negotiating tool and indeed were put on hold about 37 seconds after he had finished typing his screed.

[bernard11]

pretty clearly just a negotiating tool

I don't understand, LOB.

If they were "pretty clearly just a negotiating tool" then wouldn't it have been clear to Canada and Mexico also that it was a bluff?

I don't play much poker - just a bit - but I do know that obvious bluffs don't win a lot of pots.

[Life of Brian]

If they were "pretty clearly just a negotiating tool" then wouldn't it have been clear to Canada and Mexico also that it was a bluff?

Not sure why you substituted the word "bluff." He wanted a result -- heck, stated last month before he was even in office what that was -- and used the tariffs as a lever to get that result.

If either our Northern or Southern neighbors had been shortsighted enough to just dig in and enact what relatively small-scale retaliatory tariffs they could rather than just spending a fraction of that upcoming economic loss on actually cleaning up their act on the border as politely requested, I have little doubt the lever would have remained and perhaps even ratcheted up until they blinked. Fortunately they came to their senses quickly (though I give Trudeau credit for putting on a good show and holding out for a few hours longer).

I don't play much poker - just a bit - but I do know that obvious bluffs don't win a lot of pots.

If this was anything like a poker game, it was effectively played with all the cards face-up. They were both in a poor negotiating position, and I suspect everyone but the diehard TDS junkies could see that clearly enough.

[Reallynotbob]

The trick there is "stop the flow of fentanyl and illegals" -- it's an unattainable target. Also, 2 weeks isn't a realistic timeframe for that sort of thing.

Trump could have said, "impose the following things at your border," or "enter into a special agreement about this," or a bunch of other things that would make progress toward his goal. Instead, he insisted on the impossible as an excuse to impose the tariffs he intended to impose anyway.

And now that we're in a trade war, there's no incentive for Canada to do anything at all about immigration on their side of the northern border.

[myself]

Oh, you're mad we didn't stop the virtually non-existent flow of fentanyl going south? How about you address the actual flood of guns going north?

Or more to the point, get a President who is still aware enough to remember to talk about his the invented pretext (fentanyl) before he talks about the real (dumb) concern (trade deficit).

[SykesFive]

There's no evidence of a Canadian fentanyl problem, though. If American foreign policy is now "beat up Canada till they stop the flow of fentanyl" then we have a serious problem because there isn't a flow of fentanyl from Canada.

Iraq couldn't turn over the WMDs because there weren't any WMDs.

[Swede425]

Why, even Pierre says there's a fentanyl problem and he's going to be their next PM. He's absolutely opposed to our tariffs but at least he's honest about the drug problem that Canada refuses to deal with.

[Brett Bellmore]

Canada Is Becoming a Fentanyl Exporter, and a Target for Trump

It's not as big a source as Mexico, to be sure.

[bernard11]

I sometimes suspect that this is the point.

Tout Canada as a huge supplier of Fentanyl to the US and then put up some ridiculous tariffs as a stick to get them to do ... something.

Six months later, when the volume of Canadian fentanyl is still low, point to it and claim a victory for the tariff policy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or maybe the point is that, unlike the almost failed state of Mexico, Canada is actually capable of solving the problem, once it's made their problem, too.

[Sarcastr0]

Hey, check out my tiger-repelling rock!

[David Nieporent]

If it's easy to stop the alleged flow of fentanyl from Canada to the U.S., then why doesn't the U.S. just do it? If the U.S. is incapable of guarding the border, then why do we think the Canadians are capable of doing so? (Same questions apply to Mexico.)

[Moderation4ever]

I think that the tariffs are really only good in a few instances and certainly not for a country with well-developed industries like the US. They are more important for a smaller country developing new industries. The tariffs may get some desired short-term response but lead to longer term problems. Countries subject to US tariffs should learn to develop broader markets that lessen their dependance on the US markets. My prediction is that US will see itself shrink in importance in world markets.

[Martinned2]

Yes, crazy that Canada has allowed itself to become so dependent on selling things to the US!

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, they should be selling to the EU. Let us know when they do.

[Martinned2]

It's almost as if countries do most of their trade with countries that are nearby!

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

[Mr. Bumble]

"Yes, crazy that Canada has allowed itself to become so dependent on selling things to the US!"
Want to square that circle?

[Bob from Ohio]

I think he was being sarcastic.

[Armchair]

I think the tariffs in some way were to be expected. In fact, I think the tariffs, the retaliatory tariffs, and the resolution to the issue have all been pre-planned. Remember, Trump had "very productive" meetings with Canada and Mexxiico

I expect they will be temporary (~2 weeks or less with Canada), and that Canada will quickly come to the table with an agreement on a "joint task force" of some sort immigration/drug control concept. These tariffs are absolutely devastating to the Canadian economy. But, using them temporarily does a few things. 1) It makes it clear Trump isn't making empty threats. 2) It shows Trump is taking "action". 3) It allows Canada to point to the tariffs as a reason to take action (that part of their government wanted to take anyway). 4) The retaliatory tariffs demonstrate that Canada is "independent." All this would likely be taken into account in the initial meeting to set it all up.

Mexico is in a similar situation, but has some key differences. The migrant flows are far, far larger. And while Mexico might be more amenable stopping the migrants, they are more resource limited than Canada. In some ways it's easier for Mexico to "let the migrants through and let the US deal with them" than "spend the military and security forces to stop/return the migrants to their own country". The concept of tariffs changes that calculus for Mexico.

[Bwaaah]

^that

[Sarcastr0]

You think this is all a show put together by Trump and Canada and Mexico?
For the benefit of Mexico and Canada's misguided voters, I presume.

That seems to be Armchair's speculation. Are you really buying into that?

[Krayt]

Pre-planned with their help? I doubt it.

Wrenching the thumbscrews so hard fast capitulation will probably happen, rather than an extended trade war, probably planned by one side.

I pass no judgement on it as policy, either tactic or goal, just note it as manipulation in passing.

[Sarcastr0]

What is your evidence this was planned?

Concession seem pretty pretextual.

[Commenter_XY]

Better plan on a longer wait, Armchair. The tariffs will be around for a while.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh hey Commenter brainlessly believed Trump 4 hours ago.

Now, of course, it was just another Art of the Deal masterstroke.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Better plan on a longer wait, Armchair. The tariffs will be around for a while.

Put it in a frame.

[Armchair]

I said less than 2 weeks. Less than 24 hours, well....

But at least Commenter made a call.

[Commenter_XY]

China tariffs still in place. Better plan for a while.

[Armchair]

China's a different beast from Canada/Mexico. I predict THOSE tariffs may be around a while.

[Commenter_XY]

The tariffs are 'on hold' = in place, not being acted upon

Commenter_XY did make a call. He has made several.

Recent...Sovereign wealth fund, anyone? 😉

[Sarcastr0]

The tariffs are 'on hold' = in place, not being acted upon

Pathetic retcon.

Better plan on a longer wait, Armchair. The tariffs will be around for a while is about actual, active tariffs.

Even Armchair noted your flip.

You said what Trump told you to, and then turned on a dime when Trump told you what the new normal was.
Surely you don't think anyone will believe otherwise?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sovereign poverty fund, you mean?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, I’m starting to appreciate exactly why he tries so hard not to do that.

[Armchair]

I appreciate people who are willing to make a call, rather than those who always avoid making calls.

It's easy to criticize.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’m agreeing with you!

[Martinned2]

Canada will quickly come to the table with an agreement on a "joint task force" of some sort immigration/drug control concept

Given that they have elections going up, that seems like an excellent way for Trudeau to absolutely guarantee a conservative majority in the next parliament.

Remember (and this is something the UK constantly forgets too) not everything is about domestic US politics. Other countries have domestic politics too, and sometimes the only non-political suicide thing a politician or party can do is to tell Trump to go fuck himself.

[Martinned2]

Here is that effect in action, with the conservative/populist prime minister of Ontario, who has also called an election:

Ford ‘ripping up’ Ontario’s $100M contract with Elon Musk’s Starlink system

Doug Ford says the Ontario government is “ripping up” its $100-million contract with Elon Musk’s Starlink to provide high-speed internet to northern and rural communities.

Ford, who plunged the province into an early election last week, said in a social media post Monday that effective immediately, the Progressive-Conservative government is banning American companies from provincial contracts.

The move follows U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to enact a 25 per cent tariff on all Canadian and Mexican imports beginning Tuesday; Ottawa and the provinces are retaliating, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau imposing immediate tariffs on $30-billion worth of goods, followed by further tariffs on $125 billion worth of American products in 21 days.

“Every year, the Ontario government and its agencies spend $30 billion on procurement, alongside our $200 billion plan to build Ontario. U.S.-based businesses will now lose out on tens of billions of dollars in new revenues. They only have President Trump to blame,” Ford said in his post.

https://globalnews.ca/news/10995669/doug-ford-elon-musk-starlink/

[Bob from Ohio]

So Ford would rather have his citizens lack internet so he can stick it to Musk. He sure isn't his brother [RIP].

Canada can't win a trade war with the US so long as Trump is wiling to take the moderate impact. Its 1% +/- of our foreign trade, its 70% of theirs,

[Reallynotbob]

Seeing how the MAGA public swallowed their own tongues over 50-cent/gal gas price increases, I wouldn't be so sure the voters are ready to tolerate the "moderate impact" you're anticipating.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick" used to be the US approach.

Now it's "hit everyone with a stick until they do what you want."

There's an Aesop's fable on point. Which is to say, this approach was discredited more than 2000 years ago.

[Martinned2]

Nobody wins a trade war. Politically, the only way to win a Canadian election is to make sure Trump doesn't win.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Nobody wins a trade war."

Religious dogma.

[Reallynotbob]

Correct. Religious dogma thrives when economies collapse.

[Bob from Ohio]

No, the "Nobody wins a trade war" mantra is just a religious belief of the "free" trade fanatics.

[David Nieporent]

Trade is inherently good (if it wasn't, the parties involved wouldn't do it!), and therefore interfering with trade is inherently bad.

[Mr. Bumble]

That simplification is inherently stupid.

[Armchair]

"Nobody wins a trade war."

But it's possible to lose it much, much worse than the other guy.

"Politically, the only way to win a Canadian election is to make sure Trump doesn't win."

Well, politically one way to LOSE a Canadian election is to get into a trade war with your largest trading partner, drop your economy by 5% of GDP, & drive your country into a recession when simple concessions avoid it all.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Er, losing it "less than the other guy" is still a loss...

Will Trump voters thank him for "only" screwing them a bit, and not a bunch?

Of course they will!

[David Nieporent]

Remember, in his first term he started a trade war with China, and then announced that China had agreed to buy $50 billion worth of agricultural products and declared victory. Only they hadn't, and didn't, and he had to use other taxpayer money to compensate farmers so they wouldn't take a hit.

[Sarcastr0]

You really seem committed to the idea that this Canadian tariff thing will make sure the next Canadian election goes conservative.

Do you have any evidence that Trump cares about that? Or should? Or that a good use of foreign trade policy is monkeying in neighboring elections?

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess the next parliament is going to have a conservative majority, then.

Trudeau says U.S. tariffs on Canada will be paused for 30 days

"OTTAWA — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the U.S. has agreed to pause tariffs on Canada for at least 30 days after he spoke with President Donald Trump this afternoon.

Trudeau says in a social media post that Canada is implementing its $1.3-billion plan to strengthen the border and appointing a "fentanyl czar."

Canada also plans to launch a joint strike force with the U.S. to combat organized crime, fentanyl and money laundering.

Trudeau says the pause will last at least a month "while we work together."

The news comes after Mexico struck a similar deal with Trump this morning."

[Armchair]

Armchair: "Canada will quickly come to the table with an agreement on a "joint task force" of some sort immigration/drug control concept. "

Reality, several hours later: "Canada also plans to launch a joint strike force with the U.S. to combat organized crime, fentanyl and money laundering."

Damn I'm good.

[Voize of Reazon]

Canada already cane to the table with a $1B proposal to beef up the border. Trump's response was there was nothing they could do to avoid tariffs.
That's because this isn't about fentanyl, or immigration, or trade, or defense. It's about Trump putting on a show of flexing his muscles.
Which raises the question, who is the audience for this show? Despite all the rhetoric about being accountable to the people, as a second-term President he no longer has a direct reason to care what the voters think. They can't punish him if they're unhappy or reward him with another term if they're pleased. Maybe there's a secondary effect because voters are Trump's leverage to keep members of Congress in line, but I don't think that's the answer.
I think the audience is his own ego. He admires Xi, Orbán, Putin, even Kim, and wants to be a "strong man" like them. That's the purpose of these actions, and why there was nothing Canada or Mexico could do.

[David Nieporent]

Despite all the rhetoric about being accountable to the people, as a second-term President he no longer has a direct reason to care what the voters think.

Yeah, it's not about reelection. (He would've done many things differently in his first term if he cared about that.) It's about adulation. He wants a cult following, people to worship him as if he were smart. This is a man who has always known that nobody respects him, and he's desperate for it (without having to earn it, of course, because he's lazy).

[Armchair]

"That's because this isn't about fentanyl, or immigration, or trade, or defense"

Seems like it is from the latest press release.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-canada-mexico-china-sheinbaum-trudeau-017efa8c3343b8d2a9444f7e65356ae9

[DixieTune]

The long term effects include making our manufacturing more competitive.

The only people who hate tariffs, and who gaslight the American people through their control of the media, are the rich, as outsourcing benefits the capital class, and the capital class only.

[Martinned2]

That, and people who like not paying more for products or services than strictly necessary. But I hear that American consumers aren't worried about inflation at all, so I'm sure they don't mind buying US-produced products for twice what it would cost to make the same thing in China or some other country.

[DixieTune]

You're assuming, without evidence, that the manufacturers will be able to pass the costs of the tariffs onto the consumer. It's likely that's not the case, and that it'll come out of their obscene profits.

[Martinned2]

If they make obscene profits, you want more competition, not less. (And more antitrust enforcement.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Obscene profits"?

Are you one of those MAGAloids who call Democrats "Marxist"?

[David Nieporent]

It doesn't even make sense. If they're making "obscene profits" — whatever that even means; it's actually something DixieTune pulled out of his ass five seconds before posting his comment — then it would mean that they have pricing power, which means that they can pass along the costs of the tariffs.

[Martinned2]

The relationship between pass-through and market power is actually a fascinating topic. It comes up in antitrust all the time, because pass-through is a defence (of sorts) in follow-on damages suits. Here is 200 pages of RBB analysis: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a74a3a940f0b619c86593b8/Cost_Pass-Through_Report.pdf

Tl;dr, under perfect competition all marginal costs get passed through. In a monopoly, the monopolist eats maybe half. In oligopoly markets anything can happen. With the right model and the right assumptions, you can even get more than 100% pass-through.

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside the bizarre fixation on manufacturing, our nation's manufacturing output is at all time highs.

I really love the fact that the people who most throw around the word "marxist" as an epithet are the people adopting marxist talking points, but the people who hate tariffs are consumers, who have to pay tariffs.

[DixieTune]

See above.

[Armchair]

"our nation's manufacturing output is at all time highs."

Not...really. Certainly not with the emphasis you're giving it.

The attached link is a good example. From roughly 1940 to 2007, the nation's manufacturing output steadily increased. Even as manufacturing employment went down, output still increased. And then...it stopped increasing. Industrial output dropped after 2007. It recovered by by 2014, but then just stayed stagnant, despite the nation's population increasing during all that time.

It's in pretty stark different to the 2000's where it went up by ~10%. Or the 1990s where manufacturing output increased by 50%! Or the 1980s, where it went up by ~20%. Or the 1970s where it went up by ~25%. Or the 1960s when it nearly doubled......

Manufacturing output has been flat, really since 2008. And...it's a concern. A real one. Despite all the productivity gains, all the population gains...flat.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/INDPRO

[David Nieporent]

Not...really.

Yes… really. As your graph shows. Look, you're free to say "I wish it were higher." But that doesn't change what it actually is — at all time highs — and contradicts Dixietune's claim that trade has "decimated our manufacturing base."

[Armchair]

Sure...an "all time high"....if you don't adjust for population growth. And ignore it was technically higher in October of 2022. And even higher in 2018. And...2014 for that matter And ignore productivity gains.

If you ignore all those little details...sure...an "all time high".

Just like how Mickey Mantle had the highest number of home runs ever hit* (*Except for the other people)

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Thoughts on Trump's tariffs? Good idea?"

Bad idea.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Good idea?"

IDK but the post war "free" trade regime smashed the whole "Rust Belt" and destroyed our steel, furniture and textile industries so its worth a shot.

[Reallynotbob]

Some industries cratered, true. But overall the US benefitted more than it would have otherwise, and more than others.

https://medium.datadriveninvestor.com/why-is-us-gdp-growth-so-weirdly-constant-c73024d56103

[Bob from Ohio]

"Some industries cratered, true."

F**k those workers and their families!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Look at you, pretending to care about people suffering financial difficulties! Full of shit, as usual.

[Life of Brian]

But overall the US benefitted more than it would have otherwise

Maybe I missed something in your linked article, but I'm not seeing how presenting a bunch of graphs of different countries' GDPs and ultimately saying "no frickin' clue why the US's was smoother!" says anything at all about the contribution of free trade to the US GDP, much less your counterfactual.

[Reallynotbob]

The US experienced a greater growth slope than our competitors during the free trade period. Steel may not be our big seller anymore, but the economy benefitted relatively speaking.

@Bob -- Yes, the tobacco farmers are out of work, too. If only there were other things in the economy for them to do. Propping up failing industries (coal?) is a bigger FU to those families in the long run.

[Bob from Ohio]

"bigger FU to those families in the long run"

Learn to code! in the wild.

10,000 laid off in one mill, you all should immediately get new jobs at similar pay! Easy peasy!

[Reallynotbob]

But the government didn't close that mill. The market did. The government could prop up the mill. But that leads to bad outcomes in the longer term. Or... go with me here... the government could invest in the replacement technology or sector for strategic international or security advantage and repurpose as much of the workforce as possible. See, e.g., green energy initiatives; CHIPS Act, EVs, etc.

We could do it your way and compete in textiles again against Thailand and Malaysia. But how? Send the 10-year-olds back to the mills? Gut all the worker safety laws? What's your competitive plan?

[Bob from Ohio]

"But the government didn't close that mill."

The government's "free" trade policies did.

"Send the 10-year-olds back to the mills? Gut all the worker safety laws?"

We had industry dominance well after that era ended here.

But Thailand and Malaysia did and continue to do those things. So we require adherence to US standards or do tariffs or both so they can't dump cheap products.

[David Nieporent]

The government's "free" trade policies did.

By not shutting down the mill's competitors, the govt practically closed the mill itself!

[Life of Brian]

The US experienced a greater growth slope than our competitors during the free trade period.

Again, how does that speak to the question of what the US's growth slope would have been had free trade and all its glorious knock-on effects not happened?

[DixieTune]

Yeah, we decimated our manufacturing base and added jobs for Instagram influencers. Lovely.

[David Nieporent]

We didn't decimate our manufacturing base — again, manufacturing output is at all time highs — but so what if we did? There's nothing magic about manufacturing over other production.

[Mr. Bumble]

What other production?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not if they all pay their taxes...

[bernard11]

And what replaced all that?

Do you think all those industries just disappeared without any new ones. Do you think we are better off buying furniture cheaply or making it expensively?

[Life of Brian]

Do you think we are better off buying furniture cheaply or making it expensively?

Furniture is actually an interesting example. Maybe we should step back and consider exactly why, even when factoring in shipping literally halfway around the world, it might be materially less expensive to import heavy, voluminous hunks of wood assembled with fasteners and glue, sometimes padded and wrapped with cloth, than it would be to locally produce it a relatively short distance from where the wood grows.

Because the materials and workmanship are of poorer quality and we'll have to buy it again in a relatively short time?

Because they're made under conditions we won't allow in this country but are happy to outsource to others?

There's a lot more to the equation than today's sticker price, but that's really the only one that gets bandied about when trumpeting the virtues of this sort of outsourcing.

[Krayt]

I do not think they're a good idea.

But, should they succeed against logic and pull in unexpected windfall taxes from a roaring economy, that balances the budget, Congress (and the states) will do what they did last time during the Internet Boom:

Start slapping their faces like Curley sniffing the Limburger, and going woo woo woo woo woo, shuffling about, rising to the challenge, and start increasing spending until the budget is no longer in surplus, then roaring by that without so much as a by your leave, until well back into the red.

The amount spent is severed from any need analysis, and is inflow plus borrowing a percent of the GDP. Lavish as needed.

[David Nieporent]

Thoughts on Trump's tariffs?

Tariffs are taxes. 'Nuff said. The only thing worse than taxes (I guess enough wasn't said) is market-distorting taxes that attempt to pick winners and losers.

[santamonica811]

Thoughts on Major League Baseball? More specifically, on the Dodgers, and how their spending impacts the rest of the league. I've been a huge Dodgers fan my entire life. And I'm looking forward to this season with excitement. I don't think there's been a team this powerful on both sides of the ball since the fabled 1927 Yankees. Maybe even stronger (although it feels like sacrilege to type this)?

But is this amount of spending really fair--esp to small-market teams? The Dodgers have a huge fan base, and also pull in an obscene amount of money from a fantastic TV deal that the new owners negotiated when they bought the team several years ago. I am 99% delighted to see what this powerhouse lineup (assuming that there will be only the normal amount of attrition during the season due to injuries) will do over 162 games. But there is that small (fairness-oriented) chunk of my heart/conscience that is saying, "This feels a little like a 7-footer dunking on Jr. High students in basketball."

Any predictions on the comings season? [I follow the Dodgers, but I'm interested in hearing from fans of any teams.]

[Krayt]

Several elections ago, Democrats bleated about the holy goodness of spending limits on presidential elections, and the federal funding of it with some kind of matching funds, if a party voluntarily kept their spending below a certain limit. This had the feel of targeting corporate rich Republicans or something. Then Obama pulled in way more than that, and both parties waved bye bye to federal co-funding for good.

Thr big city teams need a viable league or they have nothing to win over. But maybe all the limits and pseudo-taxes for going over are finally buried as the cost of doing business.

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

NO, itis the pernicious effects of Bernie Sanders' MMT pollicy, as stupid an Economics doctrine as ever gained followers.

Biden the lazy seems to have embraced it will all fours.

https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/bidenomics-also-known-mmt
Bidenomics, Also Known As MMT

[bernard11]

It's a delicate balance. Obviously the other teams need to be competitive, or the fans lose interest.

OTOH, sports is about standard narratives: Dramatic comebacks, brash upstart vs. wily veteran (or, over-the-hill veteran gets his last hurrah), heavily touted newcomer fails, or doesn't, and so on.

And heavy favorite fails to live up to expectations is another. It helps maintain interest in the underdog teams, and provides drama and emotion whether the overdog (h/t Reggie Jackson) wins (resentment, "wait 'til next year," etc.) or loses (schadenfreude, "we showed those arrogant bastards," etc.)

[Krayt]

[Frank Drackman]

Dodgers only have 4 titles in the last 60 years, I’d say only the Braves of the 90/00’s squandered more great pitchers with less to show for it (Miami has same # of WS titles as the Braves) Dynasties have a way of burning out

[Josh R]

The mid-to-late 90s Yankees were a more balanced team than the 27 version with all-star quality players throughout the roster. The Dodgers, like those Yankees, will fall. However, the Yankees are almost always in the hunt (missing the playoffs only 5 times since 1994).

[santamonica811]

Josh,
Agreed that, lately, the Yankees (like the Dodgers) are almost always good to very good to great, and that they are always in contention. I was genuinely shocked at how badly the Yankees were in the Series last year re fielding and base-running. The Dodgers were the better team, but not by that much. No way the Series should have gone only 5 games. You can't do much as a coach to improve a player's ability to hit a curve, or to run much faster. But for major league players, I just don't understand how, 6+ months into a season, every single player understands the fundamentals of running the bases, of a pitcher *always* running to cover first base on *any* ball hit to that side of the infield, etc..

I was, of course, glad the Dodgers benefited from the Yankees continuous mental and physical errors. But however the Yankees were teaching fundamentals in Spring Training and during the season...I think their coaching needs to be reevaluated.

[Krayt]

Sketchy is as sketchy does. The sketchy ads this web site runs cause my phone to grind to a halt, sucking CPU power, until a reset watchdog kicks in about a minute later. It does this once every 3-4 days*.

No, I don't use an old or off brand phone. It's a late Galaxy model with Android. It's the only web site that has such problems.

I would also like to submit that the web site itself might be considered sketchy by the transitive property. At least an act cleanup is in order.

* 2x today, including this submission.

[Michael P]

Alternatively, you can pay not very much per year (at least for USians) and get zero ads at all.

[tylertusta]

Use a javascript blocker extension. Firefox mobile has them.

[hobie]

Yeah, this site is full of bugs and ad bugs and regularly crashes my browser. So 1990's.

[tylertusta]

I genuinely haven't seen an ad on this site in years because of the javascript blocker.

[santamonica811]

Thanks to this thread, I just went into my older Samsung phone, into settings, and disabled JavaScript. No more of those freakin' pop-up ads.

Question: I see that, now that I've disabled JS, I can carve out exceptions, so I can designate websites (eg, online banking, apparently is a popular one) where we want JS to run properly. But, I'm wondering, can people do this in the opposite way? That is, rather than the default now being "No JS" with affirmative opt-in's; to have the default be to have JS running normally, with some specified "opt outs" where it will not work? Reason has been a horrible experience, and there are endless pop up ads and videos, and when I click on a new thread, the pop-ups come back. Arrrgh. So, Reason would definitely be my first Java opt-out, if this second approach is actually possible. (I don't do a ton of browsing on my smartphone, so JS hasn't been as annoying for me, generally, as it apparently is for lots of other people who don't use their desktop computers for 99% of online browsing/use.)

[Absaroka]

You don't specify what browser and script blocker you are using.

I'm on a desktop, linux/firefox/noscript. Noscript has a little wrench icon for 'options'. One of those is a tab labeled 'Per Site Permissions'.

[santamonica811]

1. I'm talking about on my Samsung Galaxy phone, not my desktop computer. (Although I hate hate hate the popups on this and only this website, so if you know anything about Windows 11 + Firefox, and I can have a normal viewing experience on this one website; I'd love to hear your suggestions.
2. I think my phone uses Chrome. [Edit: Nope, a quick Google just now says that Galaxy phones use Samsung's own browser.] Any tips for that???

[Absaroka]

I'm like the last person in America who isn't married to a phone, so no first hand experience, but FWIW:

-noscript+firefox on windows should work pretty much like it does on linux
-noscript is available for chrome. FWIW, 'brave' is a chrome based browser, available for android and windows, that has pretty good privacy/protection without breaking too much. I just used it to open VC without seeing any ads. My usual browsing tools are firefox+noscript for sites I visit regularly, with noscript tuned to only allow the essentials, and brave for anyplace I don't want to spend time crafting noscript rules to access.

For the general question about noscript, it is a whitelister, i.e.the general default is to block everything not excepted. It sounds like you want a blacklister, which would block only specific things. I'm not aware of such a thing, which doesn't mean there isn't one.

I think my first advice would be to try brave (from the app store) and see if it makes things livable. If not, try noscript and just be liberal about clicking allow. Before too long you might have most of what you need whitelisted. But if brave gives you what you want, it might be the easy button.

[Commenter_XY]

One more legal question about impoundment. Is there an easy fix?

What stops a Team R Congress from wording 'shall spend' to 'shall spend up to, but not more than' in their appropriations bills? Doesn't that give a POTUS (any POTUS) a back door impoundment power?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't see how it is possible to force a President to spend.

[Martinned2]

Not a Republican president anyway.

[Krayt]

=D

[David Nieporent]

WTF is it with you people? It's called a law. Laws force presidents to do all sorts of things. That's how laws work. The president is not an independent source of law under the constitution; he exists to carry into execution the laws passed by Congress.

(Now, if you just mean "how it's possible to force a president to obey the law," well, that's another story, since SCOTUS says presidents can't be prosecuted and the GOP Congress says that Trump can try to overthrow the government and it's no big deal.)

[Martinned2]

If that's something Congress wants to do, I don't see the constitutional problem. In many areas that seems like a realistic way to talk about government budgets, because there will always be a gap between the amount of money you appropriate to buy X or subsidise Y and the amount of money the government actually ends up spending.

[Commenter_XY]

M2, exactly. If you have a unified Congress and a POTUS of the same party, it sure would be a fast way to make spending reductions. Give the POTUS (and his team) the ability to spend less, not more, through the appropriations process.

[Martinned2]

If Congress and the President agree, they can just appropriate less money. If the goal is to reduce spending, it is always better to not put a single person in charge of which amounts do and do not get spent. I would have thought the downsides of one-person rule were pretty obvious by now.

But just because it's a bad idea, doesn't make it unconstitutional. I would think that something pretty close to a 1933-style Enabling Act would still be constitutional. (Or at least the arguments against are arguments that have been newly invented in recent decades.)

How the appropriations process should address the inevitable difference between budget and actual spending is a separate question. In many countries they do that through a combination of general rules/principles and ongoing budgeting. That is, they adopt supplementary budgets for the year while the year is already ongoing, to reflect outturn spending and tax revenue information.

[David Nieporent]

What stops a Team R Congress from wording 'shall spend' to 'shall spend up to, but not more than' in their appropriations bills? Doesn't that give a POTUS (any POTUS) a back door impoundment power?

No; it gives him a front door power. Of course Congress can say "up to." Sometimes they do.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Am I the only one who doesn't believe ANYTHING advertised on the internet? There is so much fraud out there, so much snake oil being sold that I'm starting to wonder where is the FTC, FDA, etc.

Maybe some people fall for it, but I would *not* purchase a good or service because of internet ads, because there are so many bad actors.

[Martinned2]

It's almost as if it is a bad idea to appoint agency heads with a well known track record for hating the organisation they are put in charge of.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, in many cases that's exactly what he's doing. This is a hostile takeover of the bureaucracy, not a tea party.

[Sarcastr0]

Hating the thing you're taking over is not actually a good way to do a hostile takeover.

I think you're not clear on the concept.

[Commenter_XY]

Whether it is a good way or a bad way is irrelevant. It (right-sizing) is happening, is what actually matters here.

That, and shedding some much needed transparency on what our Fed disbursements actually are. We can thank DOGE for that.

[Martinned2]

Yes, those DOGE guys camped out in the Treasury are definitely promoting transparency.

Seriously, how gullible can you be?

[Commenter_XY]

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[Martinned2]

It would be, yes. But you just elected someone who uses fake tan instead of sunlight, literally and metaphorically.

[hobie]

Since he's doing work for the the federal government, I assume all of Musk's emails and conversations are subject to retention and discovery under FOIA

[Brett Bellmore]

I would certainly hope all his federal job related ones would be, anyway. Non-work related emails have never been subject to that sort of retention requirement.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe he should check with Madam Hillary for advice on records retention.

[Martinned2]

How about people who don't have a federal job in the first place, but who somehow still have access to all sorts of sensitive data?

https://securityaffairs.com/173776/security/elon-musk-s-doge-granted-full-access-to-sensitive-treasury-systems.html

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, the specific Musk employees who were selected to have that access are now covered, at least. They are also covered by federal privacy regulations as a result.

[Sarcastr0]

Whether it is a good way or a bad way is irrelevant

You are a brainless cheerleader who says everything is happening in a good way. So you don't even think this.

shedding some much needed transparency on what our Fed disbursements actually are.
https://www.usaspending.gov/

What additional info do you need? Congress can pass any reporting requirement it wants - and does.

You're far too ignorant to even do the brainless cheerleader job with any effectiveness.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Why are you still employed? Have you not been DOGE'd yet?

[Commenter_XY]

It IS a hostile takeover, Sarcastr0. The shoe is now on the other foot.

Don't say I didn't warn you. Because I did.

[Sarcastr0]

Hostile takeover is not what this is.

You yourself aren't talking about it like a takeover, but like dumb destruction.

Not that you're consistent in your cheerleading.

[Commenter_XY]

Those grapes are mighty sour aren't they? Enjoy.

Oh, more bureaucritter departures from Treasury Department. 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

Reveling in misery of others as a way to disengage when you're caught lying.

What a sad sack you've become.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That’s not what “sour grapes” means!

[RedheadedPharoh]

Reveling in people finally being held accountable you mean.

[Riva]

No. It’s called an election, the corrupt, incompetent Democrats lost, and this is badly needed reform for agencies that have grossly abused their power. And it is not people who “hate” the agency that are being placed in charge. It is people who understand the need for reform.

[David Nieporent]

Bot just programmed to repeat talking points — corrupt, abuse power, incompetent, lawfare, etc. — but never to have any specifics because those aren't in the talking points.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is more to the Canadian tariffs than meets the eye:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/02/02/canada-strips-us-alcohol-donald-trump-tariffs-trade-war/

Note the clear reference to the Canadian elections, and banning American products Province-wide is going to blow up in their faces.

There is a lot of dissatisfaction with Trudeau and that's what Trump's 51st State is playing to.

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

Think back to high school. You knew that spineless guy with the fairy haircut always playing to whoever will stroke his ego.
Trudeau will fail , no doubt, just let's see how long it takes Canada to wise up to how little tariffs affect his rich life compared to theirs.

As of 2024, Justin Trudeau’s Net Worth is $96 Million USD. In addition to an annual salary of $379,000, Trudeau earns millions more through his investments and business ventures.

[RedheadedPharoh]

It's kinda mind-blowing how rich all these politicians are getting.

[Krayt]

It's kinda mind-blowing how rich all these politicians are getting.

Really?

Fundamental Theorem of Government (without apologies to Algebra, Geometry, and Calculus) Corruption is not an unfortunate side effect of the wielding of power. It is the purpose of it from day one.

This is born of observation of actual operation and implementation across the surface of the Earth, and through all human history.

With a free press, they just have to be more careful.

I've just taken the step others have always feared to.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I have not seen it phrased that way before.

But man, that resonates.

What's sick is how many bootlickers and State worshippers are completely blind to this. That's what be raised in government schools does these days.

Makes you dumb as dirt and an acolyte of the State.

[Martinned2]

I think it's more a matter of the fundamental theorem of democracy.

Fundamental Theorem of Democracy if voters elect corrupt politicians, they get corruption.

[Sarcastr0]

Calling a personal ideological statement a fundamental theorem doesn't give it any more weight.

Sometimes government is corrupt, sometimes it isn't. Insisting on more than that is not supportable, no matter how many times you type mathy-sounding words.

[Martinned2]

Poilievre and the liberal leadership contenders are basically competing on who is best placed to tell Trump to go fuck himself.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And what Trump is doing is letting the Canadians know what the consequences of that could be.

[Krayt]

Oh yay! In spite of the confirmation box, I still fumble-fingered flagging your comment. But they also implemented "Unflag Comment"!

Yay! Finally!

Why programmers should be kept well away from product design.

[Martinned2]

Why, pray tell, did you think my comment needed to be flagged?

[Mr. Bumble]

Is that even a thing?

[Dr. Ed 2]

And the badly needed purge of the ED department begins:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careersandeducation/ar-AA1yfLmU

[Noscitur a sociis]

So as a result of the purge, the employees you don’t like get full pay and don’t have to even pretend to do any work either.

Can’t handle the winning, folks!

[Bob from Ohio]

They can't do any harm at least.

[Commenter_XY]

I really hope we see a post soon from Professor Blackman on Letters of Marque. What are they, who issues, how they work, the outermost legal limit, etc.

They're coming back. My understanding is the last Letter of Marque issued by the US government was in 1942. Basically, it is a hunting license for a cut of the take, right?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I remember reading that the U.S. signed an international agreement a long time ago which prohibited Marque.

[Brett Bellmore]

U.S. Privateering Is Legal

There are such international agreements, however the US is not a signatory to them.

[SRG2]

Even if they were, legislation can set treaty obligations aside.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>A leaked email from John Brennan verifies that the 51 intelligence agents that endorsed the Hunter Biden laptop letter did it with the specific intent of enabling Biden to mislead the American public during his election campaign.

https://x.com/GeorgePapa19/status/1885800253414158601

What should happen to those 51 election interferers and sacred democracy underminers?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Experiencing the DC Jail comes to mind.

[David Nieporent]

Why, visiting some of the Trump people still in there?

[tylertusta]

They should have their security clearances revoked. This has already happened.

Other than that, they should be constantly and publicly ridiculed over their misuse of their credibility (to destroy whatever credibility they have left).

[David Nieporent]

1) That is not what the email said.
2) No intelligence agents signed the letter.
3) That is not "election interference" or "undermining democracy." It's called campaigning. It's what Americans (but not Russians) are supposed to do.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Wait, so the "Laptop is Russian Interference" letter signed by 51 current and former intelligence operatives was just campaigning? Many were active CIA contractors.

And it's what Americans are supposed to do?

And it's common for a campaign effort to result in coordinated mass censorship? I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you'd also claim that Hillary funded Steele Dossier which was used to spy on a presidential campaign, then a sitting President was also "campaigning".

[David Nieporent]

1) They were all former, not current, intelligence employees.
2) Yes, Americans are supposed to campaign. It's called participating in elections. (Again: fine for Americans, but not for Russians.)
3) There was no censorship, mass or otherwise, coordinated or otherwise. The laptop was openly and widely discussed throughout the media and on social media from the moment the NYP story about it was published.
4) Obviously the Steele dossier wasn't itself campaigning, since it wasn't even released during the election. It was campaign research, though, which is part of campaigning, sure.
5) Nobody spied on a presidential campaign. Even setting aside the description of a search warrant as "spying," the only formal use of the dossier was to get a warrant for Carter Page, who was not even part of the campaign by that time.

[RedheadedPharoh]

"America witnessed a coordinated campaign by social media companies, mainstream news and the intelligence communities to suppress and de-legitimize the existence of Hunter Biden's laptop and its contents," Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said in his opening remarks.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/former-twitter-execs-house-committee-removal-hunter-biden/story?id=96979014

You're a bootlicking liar. It's scary, truly scary how far govie worshippers will twist and contort their memories to continue to bootlick the State.

https://nypost.com/2025/01/23/us-news/ex-politico-reporters-reveal-cowardly-editors-buried-bombshell-hunter-biden-laptop-stories-other-scoops/

>“Correct, they punished The New York Post, that didn’t help,” Caputo went on, referring to The Post being locked out of its Twitter account due to what was later revealed as back-channel pressure from the FBI.

[David Nieporent]

"America witnessed a coordinated campaign by social media companies, mainstream news and the intelligence communities to suppress and de-legitimize the existence of Hunter Biden's laptop and its contents," Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said in his opening remarks.

Oh, well, if James Comer says something, who can argue with it?

Note, of course, that he used vague weasel words: "suppress and de-legitimize," which doesn't even mean anything.

>“Correct, they punished The New York Post, that didn’t help,” Caputo went on, referring to The Post being locked out of its Twitter account due to what was later revealed as back-channel pressure from the FBI.

But that's a lie. There was no such pressure of any sort, and "they" didn't do anything.

[David Nieporent]

And again: we now know that the laptop was a complete nothingburger that had nothing derogatory about Joe Biden on it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Trump 2.0. What will week three bring?

[RedheadedPharoh]

USAID, the head of the Deep State Snake, is going down.

That's what week 3 is going to be about. Some of the stuff already coming out is just disgusting.

It's why unelected Dictator Zelensky was just out there going "We never got $100B of the aid". The first rat is jumping ship.

[David Nieporent]

USAID is roughly one half of one percent of the U.S. budget.

[RedheadedPharoh]

USAID is how the Deep State did things it was otherwise illegal for them to do.

Like censor Americans, bribe politicians, prosecute ex-presidents, and overthrow other country's democratically elected governments and replace them with tyrants or terrorists.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I would bet a significant amount of money that the first time you thought about or even heard of USAID was 72 hours ago.

[Riva]

Do think about it often? Does anyone enjoy spending their free time contemplating the inner workings of CIA slushfunds?

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. But I also knew what it did generally and didn’t make up a reason to be mad at it as soon as some right-wing activists and oligarchs decided to be mad at it. You most likely recently “learned” it was a “CIA slush fund” within the last 48 hours because of Musk, who probably “learned” what USAID was within the last two weeks.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Or because Noam Chomsky, Ted Kennedy, the President of Ecuador, RFK Jr and countless foreign governments have been making the claim for decades. It's pretty much common knowledge.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/04/03/cuban-twitter-and-other-times-usaid-pretended-to-be-an-intelligence-agency/

https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/AA2RFE4CPSKBZ78P

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/LOC-HAK-22-6-15-4.pdf

It's you who has been ignorant. Woefully so. Not a good look dude.

[David Nieporent]

Um, did you bother to look at the links before posting them? The second one doesn't show anything other than that employees of the U.S. talk to each other, and the third one directly contradicts your claims.

Setting that aside, what's a bit hard to understand is why "USAID advanced U.S. interests overseas" is somehow supposed to be an indictment of USAID.

[RedheadedPharoh]

dupe

[David Nieporent]

Yes, you are.

[David Nieporent]

USAID did not censor Americans, bribe politicians, prosecute ex-presidents, or overthrow other country's democratically elected governments and replace them with tyrants or terrorists. (Although once again Horseshoe Theory strikes; before you were endorsing Occupy Wall Street economic theory, and now you're parroting Noam Chomsky on foreign policy.)

[RedheadedPharoh]

They just funded the NGOs that did do those things.

P.S. the Occupy Wallstreeters grew up and just a few years ago were getting Pfizer tattoos.

[David Nieporent]

No NGO "censored Americans, bribed politicians, prosecuted ex-presidents, or overthrew other country's democratically elected governments and replace them with tyrants or terrorists."

[Commenter_XY]

Much wailing, and knashing of teeth. And more bureaucratic right-sizing.

And a raft of lawsuits. 😉

[Martinned2]

Belgium now has a new federal government following the elections in June. Bart de Wever, the leader of the Flemish nationalists, has realised his life's ambition of getting his hands on the top job. This is the first time the NVA has held the prime ministership.

Otherwise, the coalition includes the Flemish social-democrats and christian-democrats, the Walloon liberals, and a smaller Walloon social-democratic party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024%E2%80%932025_Belgian_government_formation

I know this is going to cause confusion among my American friends.

For the record, the main opposition parties will be the far-right VB, and the left-wing Walloon and Flemish socialist parties. The Flemish liberals and greens are smaller than they once were, but will also be prominent in the opposition.

[Michael P]

How long will this government last before it loses a majority in the parliament? The last time I looked, Belgian governments tended to last about eight months, with long gaps before a new coalition formed.

[Martinned2]

Sometimes, but equally the politicians involved dislike these negotiations as much as the next person, so they have a strong incentive to avoid collapsing the government as long as possible.

The most recent cabinets (parliament is elected for 5 years, so a cabinet serves for five years minus however long it took to negotiate), skipping over various interim solutions related to the Covid pandemic, Charles Michel suddenly leaving to run the European Council, etc, as well as the periods when these governments served in a caretaker capacity:

- Di Rupo (6 December 2011 to 22 July 2014)
- Michel I (11 October 2014 to 9 December 2018)
- De Croo (1 October 2020 to 10 June 2024)

So basically the last three general elections (2011, 2014, and 2019) resulted in lengthy negotiations (the three cabinets listed took 541 days, 139 days, and 494 days to negotiate respectively), but once formed the governments were pretty stable. The instability was more in the period after the "main" government fell, with further acrimony and other instability after the coalition had already broken down.

In this case, having a Flemish nationalist PM is a risk factor, but Bart de Wever is an experienced politician, and he will manage to avoid annoying the Walloons too much. (It helps that the PS, the Walloon socialists, are in opposition. They aren't as pragmatic as the MR.)

More generally it's a bit of an odd cabinet, with nationalists and social-democrats, but skipping some parties (like the Flemish liberals) who are ideologically between those two.

And, like elsewhere in Europe, the far right is a source of instability, because centre-right and right-wing parties feel the need to respond to that challenge somehow. In Flanders, the NVA and the VB feel like they compete for voters, and the NVA might do something to push back against the VB that creates friction with its coalition partners to the left. Then again, the VB is one of the oldest far right parties in European politics, at least in terms of its parliamentary representation, so the Flemish are used to having it around.

[Bob from Ohio]

"his life's ambition of getting his hands on the top job"

Small dreams in small ponds.

But at least in Michael P you found the only American interested in Belgian politics.

[Martinned2]

The man's dream is to make the pond smaller still. He wants to secede from Belgium somehow, to create an independent Flemish state.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Hey whaddya know? Another "conspiracy theory" turning out to be true.

I present to you: The Great Replacement (aka government/Democrat instigated White Genocide).

https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/unpd-egm_200010_un_2001_replacementmigration.pdf

[Krayt]

The very title describes something both parties bought into for decades: importing younger (i.e. taxpaying) folk hand over fist to help shore up Social Security.

It wasn't until Democrats started squeaking things like, "It's possible there'll never be another Republican president again!" that panic set in.

They could have continued hammering on making pitches to Latinos, after all, the most recent previous Republican president, as well as several prominent candidates, were southern border state Republicans, and that kind of thing was their cup of tea.

But no. Someone who knows history and how powerful xenophobia is, stepped in and crushed that effort for at least a generation.

[Krayt]

And yes, I know his Latino votes went up. Maybe some think he makes sense. Maybe a lot was Democrats shooting themselves in the foot.

"Vote for those who caused inflation, or someone who wants dictator tanks rolling through Europe." Nice choice.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Maybe some think he makes sense."

Try to remember that, with very few exceptions, only latinos who are citizens get to vote. Sucking up to illegal aliens doesn't necessarily endear you to citizens of the same ethnicity.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I don't know anyone personally who is at risk of being swept up by the new Trump ICE squads and deported before anyone notices.

I'd bet they do.

[Frank Drackman]

Probably was a Drone that brought down the Filthy-Delphia Learjet, and I don’t get it, I thought people went TO May-He-Co to get medical treatment not from there

[Dr. Ed 2]

There are birds bigger and heavier than drones -- count me as skeptical. Birds can and do bring down planes, but that quickly???

[Krayt]

One captain pointed out the harsh angle and speed were consistent with a stall. One of several stall causes involved one or more engine failures.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That makes more sense.

[Commenter_XY]

From Short Circuit last Friday, my absolute fave part of VC for the snappy summaries, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces discussed the cumulative error doctrine. Fascinating.

Is there an Article III analog to the cumulative error doctrine?

here is the decision
https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/opinions/2024OctTerm/240186.pdf

[Michael P]

https://www.tba.org/index.cfm?pg=LawBlog&blAction=showEntry&blogEntry=28817 says there is a circuit split about the doctrine that has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. https://casetext.com/analysis/appeal-cumulative-error-doctrine summarizes several circuit-level precedents.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes. It’s called the cumulative error doctrine.

(In practice, it’s kind of illusory: I can’t remember ever reading a case that was resolved on cumulative error grounds. Kind of like the rule of leniency in that regard.)

[not guilty]

It happens, albeit quite rarely. See, United States v. Parker, 997 F.2d 219, 221 (6th Cir. 1993) (reversing drug conspiracy and possession conviction and sentence of life without parole).

[Commenter_XY]

NG...Why isn't it used more?

[not guilty]

It is routinely raised as an appellate issue by criminal defendants. But it is rarely successful. A case such as Eric Parker's reversal is the holy grail for a criminal appellate attorney.

[Noscitur a sociis]

In order to win on appeal, it’s not enough for a defendant to show that there was a mistake in the trial court: it has to be a mistake that mattered. (Who has the burden on whether it mattered and what they have to show depends on exactly what the issue is: to keep things simple we won’t get into that.)

The cumulative error doctrine allows a court to reverse if there were a lot of mistakes that didn’t matter individually, on kind of a “sum of the parts is greater than the whole” theory.

The thing is, if the court doesn't think any of the mistakes mattered, then they’re probably not going to reverse. And if they do think any of the mistakes mattered, then they don’t need the cumulative error doctrine to reverse. Even in not guilty’s example, they didn’t find one way or another that the individual errors mattered: if for some reason they had been precluded from relying on a cumulative error theory they could (and, I’m confident, would) have still reversed.

[David Nieporent]

In order to win on appeal, it’s not enough for a defendant to show that there was a mistake in the trial court: it has to be a mistake that mattered.

The technical appellate term for "Yeah, the lower court screwed up, but look, the guy is obviously guilty and you're nuts if you think we're letting him out of jail" is "harmless error."

[not guilty]

"Even in not guilty’s example, they didn’t find one way or another that the individual errors mattered: if for some reason they had been precluded from relying on a cumulative error theory they could (and, I’m confident, would) have still reversed."

Au contraire. The majority on the Parker panel identified four distinct errors, "that cumulatively necessitate reversal of the convictions." Judge Martin specifically opined that "Taken in isolation, these errors may be considered harmless. . . . After examining them together, however, we are left with the distinct impression that the due process was not satisfied in this case." 997 F.2d at 221.

[Commenter_XY]

So getting your client off on this cumulative error doctrine is the equivalent of your client winning a judicial lotto = rarely successful

[Martinned2]

In Finland some corners of politics and academia seem to have kicked off the debate about whether Finland should have its own nuclear deterrent, since they clearly can't count on the US anymore. Nobody in the US or Western Europe understands these guys' mindset, living next door to Russia/the Soviets/Russia for so long. They don't mess around.

https://bsky.app/profile/nikoekon.bsky.social/post/3lhbe3j33ik2z

[RedheadedPharoh]

Finland should prepare to defend itself. This is good. They should not be dependent upon a foreign nation for their self-defense.

Every country in Europe should do the same and stop relying on US taxpayers and armed forces.

[Brett Bellmore]

NATO was set up as a reciprocal treaty as a face saving measure for Europe. It was really just us promising to defend them from the USSR, at a time when their economies were devistated by WWII, and they couldn't afford to do it themselves.

It has long since ceased to have any justification, collectively Europe's economy is virtually as large as that of the US now, and Russia is much weaker than they used to be. They've just gotten used to not having to carry their own load.

[Martinned2]

Such a pity that the US didn't get anything out of NATO. All those decades of other NATO countries supporting the US military adventures abroad must be a figment of my imagination. (Not to mention the countless billions of US arms purchases.)

[Brett Bellmore]

I wouldn't say we got nothing out of NATO. Just a lot less than we put in.

[Sarcastr0]

And you base this judgement on...?

I kinda think being the de facto head of the multinational arsenal for democracy helped us punch above our weight both diplomatically and power projection-wise.

Isolationist bully America is a vastly weaker nation.

[Brett Bellmore]

I kind of think that being the de facto head of a multi-national arsenal for democracy warped our politics, and compelled us to run much higher military spending than our own national security demanded.

Isolationist America is a much healthier nation, having an empire has been bad for us.

[Sarcastr0]

Isolationist America is a much healthier nation
This is absolutely not true. Not supported in history, or in economics, or in military/security (since the competition for talent, technology, and rare resources is global)

Isolationist countries are on their way out. There ain't no inward perfection in national politics.

compelled us to run much higher military spending than our own national security demanded.
1. LOL if you think NATO was the cause not the effect.
2. Lack of NATO isn't going to change the Pentagon budget. So we might as well make the most of it, not piss it away for no good reason.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Now tell us about Greenland and the Panama Canal!

[Brett Bellmore]

Panama seems to have backed down on handing part of control of the canal to China, so that's apparently sorted.

Panama pledges to end key canal deal with China, work with US after Rubio visit

Let's see how things work out with Greenland.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You should check your facts.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/02/americas/panama-china-belt-and-road-initiative-rubio-visits-intl-latam/index.html

“China is running the Panama Canal that was not given to China, that was given to Panama foolishly, but they violated the agreement, and we’re going to take it back, or something very powerful is going to happen,” Trump told reporters.

Hours earlier, the diplomatic stir caused by Trump’s repeated and publicly stated desire for the US to retake control of the canal had appeared to ease after Secretary of State Marco Rubio, making his first overseas trip as the top US diplomat, met with Panama’s President Raúl Mulino.

Though Mulino told Rubio that Panama’s sovereignty over the canal was not up for debate, he also said he had addressed Washington’s concerns over Beijing’s purported influence around the waterway.

Panama would not renew a 2017 memorandum of understanding to join China’s overseas development initiative, known as the Belt and Road initiative, Mulino said, also suggesting that the deal with Beijing could end early. </blockquote

[David Nieporent]

Panama seems to have backed down on handing part of control of the canal to China, so that's apparently sorted.

Yes, Panama agreed not to do something that it never was doing. Once again, you prove to be the gullible-est of rubes.

[Bob from Ohio]

"must be a figment of my imagination"

Pretty much. The Brits, aside, its Desert Storm and that had nothing to do with NATO. The brief Iraq and Afghan adventures were useless and driven by Bush political need for a "coalition". No military advantage at all.

[Martinned2]

Every time I think I know how terrible the US education system is, I'm surprised again.

[Bob from Ohio]

Educate me then. List some of those ""US military adventures abroad"?

[Martinned2]

Educate yourself. Wikipedia is your friend (for now).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States#20th-century_wars

[Krayt]

The more nuclear nations, the more chance for conflict accidents, or "missing" nukes, further downstream proliferation, and so on.

Abandoning Finland because some guy thinks it sweet is silly.

I'm fine with mostly neutered Europe. They've been problematic in living memory. I'd like to rub my chin and declare it "Problem solved for all time!" but this is still a brief interlude historically. Talk to me again in a millenium.

(Huge buildings blowing up)
Robbie: What's happening!?!

Tom Cruise: You see it, we're under attack!

Robbie: Is it the terrorists?

Tom Cruise: No. No, this came from some place else.

Robbie: What, like Europe?

Tom Cruise: NO, ROBBIE! NOT LIKE EUROPE!

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think that us being dicks to them about NATO will neuter Europe.

[David Nieporent]

Stupid people only think things through about 5% of the way. We don't want other countries to have nuclear weapons. It's better for us if they rely on our nuclear deterrent. Yes, up front it may cost a bit more, but it means that not only do we control their use, but there's less opportunity for proliferation to people who we absolutely can't afford to have them (i.e., terrorist groups.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

They fought a war with the Soviets -- 1939 I believe.

[Martinned2]

Did they ever...

[tylertusta]

I'm sure everyone should care what a Finnish professor and a Soros think tank staffer write about.

[Commenter_XY]

As soon as I saw the blue sky part, I knew it would be uber-lib tripe.

[Martinned2]

Yes, that's the Trumpist approach to international relations: IDGAF

[tylertusta]

Perhaps you should explain why Americans should care what some random professor and a foreign Soros think tank are saying.

You belittle "IDGAF" from us Americans, but I'll bet that you generally don't give a shit about what the Cato Institute thinks about US-EU relations.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I'm sure everyone should care what a Finnish professor and a Soros think tank staffer write about."

And who cares? Finnish nukes are no threat to us.

[tylertusta]

In the grand scheme of things, we (the USA) benefit from having only a select few countries in the nuclear weapons club.

This is why we offered to share US nuclear weapons with NATO countries during the Cold War. The US retains nominal control of the weapons and our allies can only use our weapons if we agree to it.

[Bob from Ohio]

Time for the kids to walk on their own.

We ought to give Taiwan 6-10 unrestricted nukes and delivery missiles.

[BrotherMovesOn]

https://youtu.be/-lDb0Dn8OXE?si=Ztw1sc5okK_lrGVY

[apedad]

Federal Courts Authorize IRS “John Doe” Summonses to Trident Trust Entities

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia entered an order earlier this week authorizing the IRS to serve John Doe summonses on TT (USA) Holdings Inc.; Trident Corporate Services Inc. and Trident Fund Services Inc., entities that are members of a multinational group of affiliated companies generally operating under the trade name “Trident Trust” and collectively referred to as the “Trident Trust Group.” These summonses seek information about U.S. individuals who may have used the Trident Trust Group’s services to underreport their worldwide income and conceal their ownership of certain foreign assets that U.S. individuals are required to report to the U.S. government.

The United States is not alleging that any of the entities engaged in wrongdoing. Rather, the IRS uses John Doe summonses to obtain information about possible violations of internal revenue laws by individuals whose identities are unknown.

A declaration from an IRS revenue agent that accompanied the petitions alleges that at least nine U.S. taxpayers used Trident Trust Group’s services to avoid compliance with U.S. tax laws. The declaration further alleges that the IRS learned of this noncompliance through the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program, a program that allowed U.S. taxpayers to voluntarily disclose foreign accounts or entities used to evade tax in exchange for settling their civil liabilities on fixed terms.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-courts-authorize-irs-john-doe-summonses-trident-trust-entities

Not sure about this. If the summons are only for the nine taxpayers who voluntarily disclosed info, then why use the John Does?

Otherwise, it sounds like a fishing expedition.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Otherwise, it sounds like a fishing expedition.

What do you think investigative subpoenas are for?

[Martinned2]

Slowly the British are starting to understand that their only possible move on the international plane is to build the best possible ties with the EU, since they have no reliable allies anywhere else.

Keir Starmer first UK PM to join EU meeting since Brexit

[Michael P]

Alternatively, Starmer continues to sell out the British public to the parasites in Brussels.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/2008341/Starmer-Brexit-youth-mobility-sell-out

[Martinned2]

Yes, if you're a deranged lunatic that's definitely what you could say.

[John F. Carr]

He voted Remain. He's not trying as hard to sabotage Brexit as the post-referendum Tories.

[Bob from Ohio]

"no reliable allies anywhere else"

Military allies? In Europe? LOL [except the Poles]

[LawTalkingGuy]

The French military is still one of the most powerful militaries in the world, you know.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure they are as they proved by their past performance in two world wars and Indo-china.
Remember when Iraq's army was considered on of the most powerful.

[Bob from Ohio]

"one of the most powerful militaries"

One of the tallest midgets, yes.

[They do have some good troops, just not enough for modern warfare.]

Totally dependent on US for airlift and force projection.

[Frank Drackman]

No, I don't know, neither does anyone else.

[Martinned2]

The EU, meanwhile, is taking advantage of the opportunity to strengthen its ties with Canada and vice versa.

Last night PM Trudeau called Council chair Costa in an apparent move to coordinate retaliation against the US, according to an EU official.

No decision was taken but will likely be discussed with EU PMs at today's #EUCO summit. The EU and Canada will remain in close contact in the coming days.

https://bsky.app/profile/davekeating.bsky.social/post/3lhbgujjotc2s

[ThePublius]

Well, the EU can FAFO. If they screw with the U.S. in trade, this could collapse:

"Over the last several years, the U.S. has become the EU’s biggest LNG supplier, providing 45% of the bloc’s LNG needs last year, according to ICIS, a commodity intelligence service. That’s three times more than in 2021. Germany takes nearly all of its LNG from America.

Thus far in 2025, the trend seems to be continuing, as European demand for LNG is expected to rise this year."

They could literally go back to burning their furniture in Germany to keep warm in winter, with their idiotic energy policies.

[tylertusta]

The EU is already angling for a confrontation with the US over their attempt to regulate US tech companies into oblivion.

[Martinned2]

If US tech companies can't work without violating their customers' privacy and monopolising their industries, that seems like a US problem not a Europe problem.

[tylertusta]

Europe trying to regulate American markets is indeed a US problem.

I hope that the current government makes Europe regret trying to do it.

[Martinned2]

Americans can do what they like in America. But when Americans come to Europe to sell products and services in European markets, they have to obey European laws.

[Commenter_XY]

Just remember, turnabout is fair play, M2.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That's essentially what he said.

American companies coming to Europe need to play by EU rules, and vice versa.

[Kazinski]

If that was all it was there might be some room for negotiation.

You don't remember when Thierry Breton sent Elon Musk a letter, using EU Commission letterhead, warning him not to broadcast his interview with Trump at the height of the presidential campaign?

Telling him action will be taken if the interview was available to be viewed in the EU, and reminding him there is already a pending against him.

https://x.com/ThierryBreton/status/1823033048109367549?lang=en

[Martinned2]

I do remember that. I also remember that his boss then told him to knock it off.

https://www.ft.com/content/09cf4713-7199-4e47-a373-ed5de61c2afa

Just because someone writes a letter on EC letterhead doesn't mean they are authorised to speak for the EC in a given matter.

[Krayt]

It's the thought that counts?

[Kazinski]

Sure, but the transgression was sending the letter saying that they would consider airing the interview when they decide the enforcement action.

Leyen would have been perfectly fine with that as long as he didn't come out and say it out loud.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You knew that Breton's letter did not warn Musk "not to broadcast his interview with Trump", but you said it anyway...

[Kazinski]

That's bull, there is no other way to read that letter, that's a completely fair paraphrase.

Here is the way The Hill framed it:
"EU sends warning letter to Musk ahead of Trump interview
by Julia Shapero - 08/12/24

The European Union sent a warning letter to X owner Elon Musk on Monday reminding him of the bloc’s rules against promoting “harmful content” ahead of the billionaire tech mogul’s interview with former President Trump on the social platform."

“With great audience comes greater responsibility,” wrote Thierry Breton, the EU’s commissioner for Internal Market, in a post on X. “As there is a risk of amplification of potentially harmful content in in connection with events with major audience around the world, I sent this letter to @elonmusk.”

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4824438-eu-sends-warning-letter-to-musk-ahead-of-trump-interview/

Martinned isn't disputing that either:
"I do remember that. I also remember that his boss then told him to knock it off."

See, you don't need to be dishonest to try to make your argument, if you actually have one.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You're trying to lecture me on honesty? Lol.

There are numerous ways Musk could have both (a) broadcast his Trump interview on Xitter and (b) observed EU law. Evidenced by the fact that he did broadcast the interview and yet was not prosecuted or fined under any EU law. What does that tell you?

(Be honest!)

[Martinned2]

If only there was some other way the EU could satisfy its energy needs. But Trump says Europe shouldn't invest in renewables, so that can't be it. And it's not like there are countries with lots of fossil fuel reserves who could supply Europe. Difficult, that one...

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe they should have, oh, refrained from demolishing perfectly functional nuke plants?

[Bob from Ohio]

"And it's not like there are countries with lots of fossil fuel reserves who could supply Europe."

Russia and the Arabs! What could go wrong!

[Martinned2]

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

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

[David Nieporent]

They could literally go back to burning their furniture in Germany to keep warm in winter, with their idiotic energy policies.

Or they could go back to buying Russian supply.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem is that most Canadian exports are not competitive if shipped 3000-10000 miles.

[apedad]

Hospital administrator sentenced for stealing man’s identity at hot dog stand, forcing victim into mental facility

For three decades, Matthew David Keirans pretended to be someone else. He obtained a birth certificate, credit cards and worked as a high-level hospital administrator. He even tricked cops into thinking his victim was the one who stole his identity, forcing the victim into jail and a mental hospital because law enforcement deemed the man crazy.

The scheme started in the late 1980s when he and William Woods worked at a hot dog cart in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Prosecutors say Keirans stole the Woods’ identity and proceeded to use it “in every aspect of life” for the next 30-plus years. He obtained several false documents including a Kentucky birth certificate with Woods’ name on it.

Over the years he applied for — and obtained — loans using the victim’s information, netting some $250,000. In 2013, he became a high-level administrator working at an Iowa City hospital by submitting a fake I-9 form, social security number, date of birth and other identification documents in his Woods’ name while working remotely from his home in Wisconsin.

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/hospital-administrator-sentenced-for-stealing-mans-identity-at-hot-dog-stand-forcing-victim-into-mental-facility/

One of the craziest cases I've ever read.

[Drewski]

Yikes. Woods spent 14 months in jail and 5 months medicated in the looney bin before he got anyone to seriously investigate his story. Keirans got 12 federal years and $16K in fines and restitution (probably just about all his assets), which sounds about right.

I wonder if Woods has a failure to investigate claim - he was arrested in LA and I know California has such a tort but I don't know much about it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem is that there is no due process provisions to the mental health laws.

[David Nieporent]

Is that as true as everything else you've said?

[Swede425]

LOL!
David Hogg in now the DNC vice-chair.
He's going to help Democrats reach out to the yoots!
With the same success Tampon Timmy helped vice-president Unburdened reach out to men.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm kind of amazed that Democrats have the incredible gall to say that Musk is putting out Hitler vibes, and then vote Mr. Hitler youth to be their vice chair.

Honestly, the only reason they're not doubling down on their mistakes is that they decided to treble down, instead.

[Sarcastr0]

Incredible post. Start by crying about overuse of Hitler; pivot to invoking Hitler youth in the same sentence.

Don't try this at home, kids - for professionals with zero self reflection only!

[Brett Bellmore]

Live by the vibes, die by the vibes.

Policy-wise, any attempt to analogize Musk to Hitler is a stupid joke, so the left decided to rely entirely on cosmetics to do the PR hit.

Well, Hogg is just as bad on cosmetics, and a lot more fascist on policy.

[Swede425]

He's a gun grabber.
You know who else was a gun grabber?

[Commenter_XY]

Maxine Waters? 🙂

[Swede425]

True.
You know who else who else was a gun grabber?

[Commenter_XY]

David Hogg? 🙂

[John F. Carr]

Carl Rowan grabbed a gun.

[Sarcastr0]

Amazing lack of self-reflection.

Maybe *neither of them* is Hitler.

more fascist on policy
We've established you have a special definition of fascist that just means more regulations of business than you want.
Here, I expect you're just calling liking gun control fascist. Which is still missing the definition.

[Ed Grinberg]

Here, I expect you're just calling liking gun control fascist. Which is still missing the definition.

Hmmm, why would he suggest there's any connection between striving to build a totalitarian regime and "gun control"? He must be totally crazy!

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, I think there's a correlation.

But not so hard as every totalitarian state bans guns, nor that every gun ban law is due to a plan to become a totalitarian state.

I believe our constitution includes an individual right to self defense.

But gun rights proponents offer some nutty arguments.

[Bwaaah]

I just realized what Sarc consistently gets pretty right: spelling, grammar and punctuation.

If there's a life after death, Sarc may get a chance to use language for its purpose: to communicate useful ideas. In the meantime, he'll just have to settle for well-structured but aimless expressions of his BDS.

[Sarcastr0]

"Mr. Hitler youth" is what Brett said, and what I took issue with.

You want to speak on that subject, or just whine about me?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I said "Hitler youth", not Hitler. Thanks for noticing the distinction.

I also said, live by the vibes, die by the vibes. And Hogg has that Hitler youth vibe down pat, he'd be perfect in a movie. No sane person thinks Musk resembles Hitler in anyway.

On a policy level, Hogg presently falls short of true Hiterian evil, so far as I know; It's hard to find anything on his views on topics besides gun control. He's REALLY bad on that topic, though. Musk, by contrast, is almost an anti-Hitler.

So, I stand by it: Vibe wise, Hogg is more like Hitler than Musk, and policy wise, too. But he hasn't started raving about final solutions yet, so far as I know.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And Hogg has that Hitler youth vibe down pat, he'd be perfect in a movie.

Far be it from me to defend David Hogg, but… what the fuck are you talking about?

[David Nieporent]

I'm not sure if this is what it is, but… ever since Musk did the Nazi salute and was called out for it, MAGA has been running around trying to whatabout every photograph where someone had a raised arm, saying "See, nazi nazi nazi." (Their goal, of course, is not to find actual nazis, but just to muddle the charge.) They found one the other day where Hogg had a raised arm. Of course, photographs don't show whether the person was doing a Seig Heil or just pointing or waving, but even setting that aside, Hogg's hand was in a fist, not extended, so it wasn't a Nazi salute even in the picture. But that did not stop them from saying nazi nazi nazi.

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess you haven't had much exposure to Mr. Hogg...

[Noscitur a sociis]

That’s correct, which is why I’m asking you to enlighten me.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Musk doesn't resemble Hitler because he gave a Hitler salute. After all, plenty of people other than Hitler gave the Hitler salute during his time (and after it).

After reviewing the video a few times, I don't think Musk intended to give the Hitler salute (unlike the AfD in Germany, which really is trying to do so--but with "plausible deniability"), but he was too autistic to perceive in advance how his unusual and emphatic gesture would appear to anyone with a still camera. But, I could be wrong...

Moreover, I have it on good authority that Musk is not "America's Hitler" anyway. (And wouldn't he be more "Africa's Hitler"?)

[David Nieporent]

I think Musk intended to give the Hitler salute, but was doing it because he's basically a troll, not because he's an actual Nazi. (But, again, see Popehat's Rule of Goats.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"Mr. Hitler youth"

More Mr. Child of the Corn.

[hobie]

Was it Boebert or Green that stalked and taunted him on the sidewalks of DC?

[David Nieporent]

Ms. Jewish Space Laser herself, MTG.

[hobie]

That was a low point for me. I figured she would be arrested, instead she was re-elected. Seems to be a pattern

[Longtobefree]

Yep.
Nothing says "diversity" like two white men leading the tribe.
Seems all the speculation about democrats lacking leadership were/are correct.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Followup on the Vermont Border Shootout:
https://vtdigger.org/2025/02/02/key-figure-in-zizian-group-tied-to-vermont-border-patrol-shooting-faked-death-in-2022-and-is-wanted-in-2-states/

Radical vegans. Wonderful...

[Frank Drackman]

The whole "They" bit when referring to one person is annoying.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Unless it refers to someone who is schizophrenic...

[Stephen Lathrop]

I hoped to console myself that the MAGA movement featured a populist tendency. I hoped that would combine with this nation's republican tradition, to deliver a merely authoritarian Trump administration, but one at least slightly pitched toward improving the welfare of million of Trump supporters. Alas, it has already become plain as day that Trump's ambitions are not authoritarian. They are totalitarian.

What else to make of en masse dismissals of every species of watchdog in government, including:

– Inspectors general;

– Top and mid-level professionals in the FBI;

– Top and mid-level professionals in the Justice Department;

– Corruption of the U.S. Marshall's service to empower a physical attack and break-in by non-governmental Trump cronies on secure government computer systems;

– Systematic gathering of political intelligence to discover and purge anyone in government who ever opposed any policy Trump does not presently wish to pursue;

– An attempt to help Musk and allied unauthorized private interests get personal access to the most-secure nexus of federal fiscal disbursements;

– Appointment of anti-Secretaries to run the Justice Department, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and the Defense Department;

– Threats to force on erstwhile American allies a requirement to back Trump's unrelated domestic political agenda, or be punished with tariffs;

– Mass pardons of Trump-loyalist thugs, to enable a brown-shirt-style campaign of intimidation with threats of violence, against anyone whom Trump chooses to target by a passing public mention;

– Pointed retaliatory withdrawals of security from former government officials whom Trump's malicious antics have put in physical jeopardy;

– Repeated overtly racist and bigoted attacks, along with threats of firings, mass incarceration, and deportations, on tens of millions of Americans whom Trump denounces by class as public enemies;

– Attacks and denunciations of university professors, with demands that many be dismissed, reminiscent of the Nazi purge of Jewish professors from university positions in Germany;

That list, far from complete, announces unmistakably the onset of an actually totalitarian regime, bent on unaccountable and unchecked policies enforced with lawless violence.

[Swede425]

Guys, Stephen's not consoled.
And now I'm sad.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Me too! I have a huge case of the sads.

I sure hope President Trump can earn his approval!

[Commenter_XY]

Ah, you have a case of SADS (Super Angry & Depressed Syndrome), like so many in DC today.

[David Nieporent]

You realize how pathetic it makes you and what passes for your political movement that what you actually care about is not governing, not policy, but just making your political opponents suffer, right? I mean, you people were happy that 60 people died in a plane crash because you thought it made DEI look bad.

As a libertarian, I want to end a bunch of government programs because i think they're beyond the proper scope of government (either government entirely or the federal government specifically). You just want to fire a bunch of people because you think they're liberals and you're happy if they're sad.

[Swede425]

Here's the thing: We can govern, make policy, AND make our political opponents suffer.
Your delusions aside, nobody is happy that people died.
Now, back to your regularly inane posts.

[David Nieporent]

Your delusions aside, nobody is happy that people died.

Oh, you people were positively ecstatic about it, until you found out that she was a white woman and not black or trans. (Though I see our most prominent resident Nazi is still keeping hope alive that she was a lesbian.)

[Swede425]

Davey, four long years.
Pace yourself.
At this rate you'll lose all your joy.
And I know how important that is to you guys.

[Kazinski]

I don't doubt a lot of it is retribution, but what makes it necessary is you still have large cohorts of unelected bureaucrats talking about "resistance", noncompliance, and malicious compliance.

Not to mention the government is too damn big.

If it seemed that this time it would be different and permanent Washington had learned its lesson 2016-2020 then I might agree with you.

But as it is, I say if 10% of the bureaucracy wants to act like Hamas hiding out in tunnels, and most of the rest of the bureaucracy wants to shelter them, then then we know what happened in Gaza, to complete the analogy.

And Congress seems to agree, because Trumps picks are being confirmed.

[Sarcastr0]

Large cohort%

Learned their lesson

I’d say 10%

Not a very well thought out plan to shrink government. Not a well put forth rationalization for retributive suffering.

MAGA means not having to think too hard.

[Kazinski]

Yes, I'd say 10% are in active resistance, which of course completely justifies decimating the bureaucracy.

[shawn_dude]

Trump has established control over the GOP. They call him an "insurrectionist" on Jan 7th and then kiss his ass to keep from being primaried--or worse--by MAGAts next election. (Looking at you, Lindsey Graham.)

[Commenter_XY]

David, the proper term is retribution.

[David Nieporent]

Relabeling it doesn't change the point: this has nothing to do with governing.

[Riva]

A good start. And just so you know, it’s not “totalitarian” to remove from authority those involved or complicit in the gross abuse and weaponization of federal law enforcement, or even those hacks negligent in overseeing the degradation of the agencies. Quite the opposite actually.

[David Nieporent]

The government is supposed to weaponize law enforcement against criminals. That's literally the role of law enforcement.

It is totalitarian to declare that you are above the law and therefore anyone who tried to investigate you is "abusing" the law.

[Krayt]

I've listed the abundant evidence of concerted effort to turn the government's investigative and prosecutorial power against a political opponent qua opponent many times, starting with the sheer volume of investigations, peculiar and tortuous stretch goal paths, motivated by downstream ideas, like felony, useful for other initiatives, or getting him cancelled off a state ballot or two, or sending fed investigation info down to the states "just in case he pardons himself", various other bullet points.

I even coined a new verb, faceting, to describe the process of prancing around going, "What? What? This is all honest and not about that at all!"

Worse, Donald "Lock her up!" Trump may deserve it in the cosmic justice sense.

But We The People said nono to this kind of behavior.

[Sarcastr0]

You've stamped your foot a lot, not provided evidence.

When your count as evidence 'number of investigations is too high' you are be holding yourself to too low a standard.

I even coined a new verb
Zounds.

[Bwaaah]

The people spoke. That was the election. And that's a whole lot of "foot stamping" you dismiss, nitwit.

Deaf. Just deaf.

[Sarcastr0]

That's nowhere near on topic.

Coming to an argument with 'Trump won, you should shut up' just going to make you look like you've got nothing, and are being petulant about it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Some people said that about Franklin Roosevelt....

[SRG2]

Musk apparently has access to the US Treasury system: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/musk-rips-fraudulent-treasury-payments-reports-mount-doge-has-access-federal-payment-system

Overall it seems that Trump is letting Musk run rampant over IT systems, payment systems, etc. with no oversight. Apparently he also has access to internal systems that allow him to see what his competitors are offering.

I don't recall giving a private citizen such control over the Federal government being one of Trump's promises but I am very sure that his supporters here will defend it.

[RedheadedPharoh]

DOGE wasn't a secret.

[SRG2]

DOGE wasn't. DOGE helping reduce waste in Federal government isn't the same thing as giving Musk apparently unfettered access to Federal systems. Duh.

[ThePublius]

Who says Musk has unfettered access to Federal systems? Receipts?

[SRG2]

The reports - not denied - are that Musk has extensive access and I've not seen any reports of any limitations on that access. Perhaps his access isn't truly unfettered, just wide-ranging. Still not what was promised.

But it's Trump so you approve.

[RedheadedPharoh]

He's uncovering abuse, fraud, waste, and corruption of unfathomable degrees.

e.g.
- $600 million per year the Pentagon was spending on Sushi
- Air Force was spending $1,280 per paper coffee cup
- $230k per month was being spent by the IRS on Starbucks Cinnamon Roast K Cups, but everyone was working from home!

[Brett Bellmore]

"Air Force was spending $1,280 per paper coffee cup"

I remember reading up on the case of the insanely expensive Air Force coffee maker. It wasn't quite so insane once you got the details: It was going on the flight deck of a military plane, and the specs required it to not spray hot coffee all over the place while pulling negative gees during a cabin depressurization accident.

I thought at the time that the Air Force was being pretty reasonable in not wanting hot coffee sprayed on the pilots in the middle of all that.

[Swede425]

I've been in the back of a Bradley.
Downright jarring at times.
No fancy coffee coffee makers.
We'd just put it in a thermos and secure the thermos.
Those Air Force guys get all the good stuff.

[SRG2]

Then there were those incredibly expensive hammers - but then had to be made of materials that did not flake at all nor could spark. I'm not saying that they were worth what the Pentagon did pay but these are seldom straightforwardly wasteful, unlike some billlion-dollar ships and aircraft projects.

I also don't believe the GOP have real interest since they got rid of the people overseeing distribution of money and materiel in Iraq after the war.

[Life of Brian]

As best I can tell, this originated from a parody account about a week and a half ago.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Apparently he also has access to internal systems that allow him to see what his competitors are offering."

In theory, that's public information.

If he's really doing something wrong, I am sure one of his competitors will sue him for it...

[SRG2]

<iIn theory, that's public information.

You're so desperate to defend Trump and Musk you will just spew any amount of ignorant bullshit.

Many commercial interactions with the Federal government are not public owing to commercial confidence. Duh, duh and triple duh,

[Commenter_XY]

Musk's oversight is POTUS Trump. Works for me.

I am very much looking forward to see in granular detail how the fed govt pissed away trillions, SRG2. On his reco, allegedly, USAID is history and part of the State Dept. Another 600 non-essential DC-based bureaucritters gone.

[Martinned2]

Hence the summary of this approach as "authoritarian". The longer version is: "Commenter_XY doesn't care about the law, he only cares about loyalty to Trump."

[RedheadedPharoh]

Reform is not "authoritarian". You Chinese shill.

[SRG2]

Reform is not inherently authoritarian, for sure. It depends what's being done. Hitler's Enabling Act reforming the German political system is a good example of an authoritarian reform.

But why are you complaining? You're an authoritarian. Surely you approve of authoritarianism.

[RedheadedPharoh]

What am I trying to make you do or not do? Ban your a gas stove? Not eat red meat? Hire people based upon superficial attributes? Destroy your suburbs with mandated mixed density housing? Sexually groom your children in secret?

Oh wait, that's you fucking tyrants.

[Sarcastr0]

Pissed away trillions?
Again, ignorant cheerleading.

The federal budget is public, as are federal outlays.

This is the second hand of the clock, it's not actually useful to anyone trying to track fund movement.

The main mischief here is 'transparency' but unauthorized stop-fund orders and the like.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Which is why the Pentagon always passes it's audits! It's totally public and transparent!

And like how everyone knew the Air Force spends $1280 PER PAPER COFFEE CUP.

Totally transparent!

[Krayt]

Spending is tied to revenues + a deliberate, chronic amount borrowed each year tied to the GDP. It is thus severed from spending analysis, one need only whip up strings of words as to why people are happy to get paid by it. Golly, that wasn't tough.

So, yes, piss away trillions. Each dollar of which has a nice little description tag of self-importance.

[Sarcastr0]

a deliberate, chronic amount borrowed each year tied to the GDP

What? That's not how borrowing or spending is figured.

But waking about the debt isn't the same as saying the government is pissing away everything it's spending. You need to examine at least somewhat how the money is being spent.

[shawn_dude]

Well, Trump gave deep tax cuts to the wealthy at the expense of the "lesser" classes of Americans.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-2017-trump-tax-law-was-skewed-to-the-rich-expensive-and-failed-to-deliver

"Of the $8.4 trillion President Trump added to the debt, $3.6 trillion came from COVID relief laws and executive orders, $2.5 trillion from tax cut laws, and $2.3 trillion from spending increases, with the remaining executive orders having costs and savings that largely offset each other." source

[Riva]

If nothing else, he’s acting on authority of the Chief executive, commander in chief, and head magistrate of this country. He’s not just a private citizen.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So was Jack Smith!

[Riva]

Musk is not an illegally appointed constitutional offcier exercising power and authority equivalent to a US Attorney. You're becoming more unimpressive with each comment. You need a time out.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah he's probably illegally exercising two offices rather than one.

[David Nieporent]

Neither was Smith.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Is your position that

1. Musk isn’t exercising exercising power that is reserved to an officer of the United States? (He’s certainly wielding far more executive power than any U.S. Attorney!)

or

2. Musk was validly appointed as an officer of the United States? (If so, when and how?)

(Obviously I know that your real answer is 3. Trump likes Musk, at least for the moment, so everything he does is good, while Trump didn’t like Smith so everything he did was bad.)

[Riva]

Musk has the power to indict and prosecute? Who knew?
But, if you're really worried about that, you should understand that Musk is not excercising the power of a US attorney nor is he a constitiutional officer.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Musk has the power to indict and prosecute?

Do… do you think those are the only powers that are required to be wielded by an officer?

If so… oof, Riva. Distinctly oof.

[Riva]

Did I claim that? You actually asserted that he's wielding more power than a US Attorney. I simply pointed out that he is not exercising such power and that he is not acting as constitutional officer. He is advising the president and the president approves all recommendations. Presidential staff/assistants do not have to be congressionally approved, just so you know. I never realized it but... oof, you really are an idiot, aren't you?

[Noscitur a sociis]

He is advising the president and the president approves all recommendations.

That is most assuredly not what Elon Musk has been saying about what he’s doing. Do you think he’s lying?

[Riva]

It’s what the president says that matters actually. You should have paid better attention in school.

[Bwaaah]

Problem with the President's people being in control of the Treasury? Sounds like another day of sour grapes. (They taste just like they did on election day.)

[Sarcastr0]

If Musk is the President's people, he should treated as a federal employee, eh?

[Bwaaah]

[Bwaaah]

Sarc Message: "The President's appointees should act like, and be treated like, career Federal employees."

Musk is a political appointee, like the Secretary of the Treasury. The employees are ultimately under the direction of the appointees. And the appointees come and go at the will of the Executive, as elected by voters and within the limits of law.

See how I slipped in within the limits of law? While you meekly act, through your selective silence, as if only Republican Presidents trample the edges of those limits of law, most voters have an unvarnished view of Presidential shenanigans (regardless of which Presidents they may like). (Heck...Presidents start and stop real wars, killing real people in far away lands, without many voters saying "boo.")

Your kings have no clothes, Sarc. And you were silent as they came for others.

Recite this to yourself, Sarc: "Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

If there's something serious you want to say, understand how unserious it is likely to be considered. And, yes, that's a very serious problem.

[Sarcastr0]

Musk is a political appointee, like the Secretary of the Treasury

Might want to check that, chief. He's a "special government employee." Not like the Secretary of the Treasury.

Recite this to yourself, Sarc: "Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
Haha, why not hypercharge baseless charges of hypocricy with some Nazi shit?

Fuck off.

[David Nieporent]

Musk is a political appointee, like the Secretary of the Treasury.

The Secretary of the Treasury is a senate-confirmed position.

The employees are ultimately under the direction of the appointees. And the appointees come and go at the will of the Executive,

Might want to re-read that constitution.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I have a question for all those Democrats who live in Geniusburg like David:

What's more likely the cause of recent egg prices rising:
a.) President Trump taking office 10 days ago?
b.) President Biden and a bunch of Sarcastr0's murdering 80M chickens a few months ago?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I am of two minds about the 10M chickens -- you want to contain the Bird Flu, but leaving dead chickens around merely spreads it.

[shawn_dude]

Is this your professional medical opinion? (But I do get the "icks" about 10M dead, rotting chickens. Not sure they'd smell any worse than 10M living, battery farm chickens, though.

Note that Canada isn't having this problem. They have plenty of cheap eggs in their stores. Why? Better farming practices and regulations.

[Mr. Bumble]

"In Win for Trump [and the American public], Shell Quits N.J. Offshore Wind Farm"
https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/wind-energy-offshore/2025/01/31/id/1197318/

[SRG2]

Why are wind farms bad? Because Trump doesn't like them? Or is there a good reason?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The noise they make screws up the endangered whales, causes them to run ashore, etc. Whale mortality is way up, as is mortality of endangered birds that get sliced & dived by the blades.

Whales are so big that they die if the water doesn't support their weight.

[SRG2]

Got evidence for these whale deaths?

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/frequent-questions-offshore-wind-and-whales

Is U.S. offshore wind development linked to any whale deaths?

We work with our partners to analyze and understand the causes of death when we are able, following the science and data. At this point, there is no scientific evidence that noise resulting from offshore wind site characterization surveys could potentially cause whale deaths. There are no known links between large whale deaths and ongoing offshore wind activities.

IT's simple. Trump doesn't like wind farms so you don't. BTW the idea that Trump would give a shit about whale deaths is laughably stupid. No wonder you evidently think it.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, NJ has had many whales wash ashore. I don't think we quite understand the connection between sea-based wind farms, and whale beachings. But something is very odd about it. You know, POTUS Trump talked about that during his JRE interview during the campaign. The bit about being a whale psychologist.

[SRG2]

I don't think we quite understand the connection between sea-based wind farms, and whale beachings.

i.e., we have no evidence.

The bit about being a whale psychologist.

Lol.

You really are an amusingly totalitarian individual.

[SRG2]

https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cobi.14302

Our analysis highlights the role of vessel strikes, exacerbated by recent changes in humpback whale distribution and vessel traffic. Humpback whales have expanded into new foraging grounds in recent years. Mortalities due to vessel strikes have increased significantly in these newly occupied regions, which show high vessel traffic that also increased markedly during the UME. Surface feeding and feeding in shallow waters may have been contributing factors. We found no evidence that offshore wind development contributed to strandings or mortalities.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We also didn't look for it....

[Reallynotbob]

However, we very much do know that Navy exercises drive whales to beach themselves, likely because of active sonar use. That's been public knowledge for years.

[shawn_dude]

Domestic cats kill more birds per year than windmills. If we're thinking about the birds, there are things we can do to reduce them that doesn't put low-cost power generation at risk.

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/do-wind-turbines-kill-birds

Republicans being worried about birds--or any wildlife that isn't part of a hunting experience--sets off bad-faith red flags.

[Commenter_XY]

Don't you want to save those pain in the ass poor, innocent seagulls?! 🙂

[ThePublius]

Wind farms are bad because they consumer vast expanses of real estate, offshore ones do immense harm to the marine population; and, as an alternative to nuclear or fossil fuel power generation they just don't work, as any know energy storage technology is woefully inadequate. Not to mention the short lifetime and disposal issues of worn out components like blades.

[SRG2]

Got evidence for your assertions?

[Mr. Bumble]

Start here:
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-9-21-why-there-will-never-be-a-zero-emissions-electricity-system-powered-mainly-by-wind-and-sun

[SRG2]

Not relevant to the point, dummy, because o-one is claiming that wind and sun together will provide all energy. But I;'d rather have those than coal power, as any rational person would.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Not relevant to the point, dummy, because o-one is claiming that wind and sun together will provide all energy"
But they are. That's what net zero aims for and will never reach.

Tell China you about your concern for coal fired power plants retard.

[Martinned2]

You mean the country with record renewable energy rollout last year?

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-solar-wind-power-installed-capacity-soars-2024-2025-01-21/

Aka the country that is "winning the race for green supremacy"? https://www.ft.com/content/d3650b44-0313-44c9-a7aa-495549b158b5

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin

[Martinned2]

Communist Chinese propaganda like [checks notes] Reuters and the Financial Times?

You will note that Mr. Bumble made a claim that in no way contradicts the claim I made. China is building lots of coal plants and it is also building lots of renewables capacity. It's just generally increasing its electricity generation capacity massively. But it's also focusing on green energy technology as an export opportunity, and has been for years, which is why they're now the world's leading exporter of EVs.

[RedheadedPharoh]

How long did it take for these fools to start touting Chinese propaganda?

Now do the link where they are also responsible for 90%+ of the new coal plants.

Unreal. You're a Chinese puppet on an US site fighting for China's interests. You're breaking the law and harming our sacred democracy.

[tylertusta]

Martinned2 has more in common with the PRC ideologically than with the Americans, so why would you be surprised he parrots their propaganda?

[Sarcastr0]

Net zero is about a lot more than wind and sun.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like what?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Degrowth, lowering the quality of living (except for the elites, of course) and toppling capitalism.

[Sarcastr0]

-Reducing demand
-Hydrothermal
-Watermills
-Carbon sequestration to offset demand
-And sometimes even...nuclear!

[Mr. Bumble]

You aren't even trying to be serious.
You can't reduce demand in the face of increased electrification demand for EVs and banning fossil fuels for heating (space and water) and cooking. Many places can't meet current demand and the grid won't handle it.
Hydrothermal? We aren't Iceland. Want to tap the Yellowstone super volcano? There aren't many places in the US with hydrothermal activity.
Watermills???
Carbon sequestration does NOT provide power.
Nuclear makes sense because it is a baseload power source providing power constantly but is regularly opposed by environmental weenies.

[Sarcastr0]

1. I'm skeptical of increased demand for EVs. Government is requiring they be built, but demand is mighty soft.

2. EVs shift the power production from gasoline to power plants. they don't change the amount required. But they do allow a more diverse set of generation options.

3. I wasn't only thinking about the US - plenty of countris thinking of net zero. But even in the US, it's a source you left out.

4. Watermills. https://www.technologyreview.com/2003/05/01/234276/tapping-the-tides/

5. Decide if you're talking about net zero or goin pure alternative energy. Looked like you were talking about net zero to me. Because the other is a strawman.

6. You have no objection to nuclear. You shouldn't have left off nuclear as part of the mix, then.

[Martinned2]

Why wouldn't wind and solar cover all of humanity's energy needs? On current technology that would be difficult, but those technologies get cheaper and more effecient every year, as does battery technology. (And one reason for that innovation is global competition and investment in R&D.)

[ThePublius]

No, it's not feasible.

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2022/11/Menton-Energy-Storage-Conundrum.pdf

"My report concluded that the amount of storage needed was so large, and the costs so completely unaffordable, that energy storage was totally infeasible as a way to make wind and solar work as the main power sources for an electricity grid. Calculations set forth in that Report concluded that the amount of energy storage needed to enable a predominantly wind/solar grid to get through a year without hitting a blackout was in the range of 500 to 1000 hours of average electricity usage."

[Brett Bellmore]

There are basic problems with them.

Wind is only available on a random basis, it can go away for weeks at a time, while modern economies need power to be reliable. This means that wind requires an absolutely insane amount of storage, months, to guarantee that relying on it won't cause blackouts.

Secondly, wind is a relatively inefficient byproduct of solar energy hitting the Earth. The amount of wind power available is tiny compared to the solar input, and at a level of build out high enough to sustain civilization without fossil fuels, it would severely impact climate systems. (Advocates usually calculate available wind power without looking at the fact that wind farms slow the wind down.

I'll grant that there are places where it actually makes economic sense, but it's a niche application.

The picture for solar is much more positive, as the Sun at least rises every day, so in theory you only need a bit less than 20 hours of storage to compensate for night time. Unfortunately, on cloudy days and in winter solar power output really craters, so you need that storage plus about 7x overbuild to achieve conventional power levels of reliability. And the EROEI sucks, too.

And it really doesn't look that economical once you do that, which is why advocates of renewable energy tacitly factor in frequent brownouts into their energy plans.

Still a niche application, but a much larger niche.

Both wind and solar have been free riding on conventional power providing backup, making them look much more economical than they really are. And they STILL need subsidies anyway!

Now, if we start building out solar power satellites, a lot of my objections go out the window. THAT would be reliable and not have long daily outages.

Contrast this with nuclear, the power source 'renewable' advocates most hate:

1. High EROEI.
2. Extremely high reliability.
3. Extremely safe. (Yes, that chart includes all the accidents.)
4. Environmental impact is relatively tiny, because you get a lot of power out of a small area, and fuel extraction from seawater has now been proven economically feasible, so nuclear isn't dependent on mining anymore. And look at the Chernobyl exclusion zone: Nature doesn't care about radiation levels humans freak out over.
5. The fuel will be available until well past the time the Sun moves off the main sequence and roasts the Earth, which is pretty darned 'renewable', exactly as much as any other power source.

I could defend SPS or nuclear, and we really need to stop using coal ASAP, but your typical 'renewable' energy source is really just a niche product that's trying to be artificially forced into widespread adoption.

...

I think I should add that EROEI for wind and solar is usually calculated without considering the degree of overbuild and storage necessary to transform them into reliable sources, and so a lot of the sources seriously exaggerate how good they are on that metric.

[Sarcastr0]

No mix of sources. No technological advancement. No nuclear. No offsets.

Come on.

[ThePublius]

It's self evident. Tell me how or why anything I said is not so?

[SRG2]

"Self-evident" = "I have no evidence for,"

You've not shown significant adverse marine impact, and as for real estate, as with solar it depends where you're locating the wind farms, how constrained you are with the land itself - because a wind farm doesn't prevent other uses of the land itself, for agriculture for example., etc. etc.

You lot are so desperate to show that Trump is right.

[ThePublius]

That's bullshit. Self evident mans that it's so obvious that one needn't pile evidence on it to make the point. Can wind vanes be easily recycled? No. Is there adequate energy storage to make wind and solar viable? In our lifetime? No. And is there increased marine mammal mortality since this has all begun? Yes. 2034 saw DOUBLE the marine mammal strandings of previous years, coincident with the increase in wind tower construction here, in New Bedford.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Repeating yourself is not evidence, you dumb lying fuck.

[SRG2]

You don't seem to understand your own definition, you moe-ron.

[shawn_dude]

The recycle argument isn't self-evident given the issues with recycling the components of the alternative solutions the Trump administration is in favor of. A good chunk of US nuclear waste are pipes and other materials made radioactive by exposure. The fuel waste cannot be easily recycled, either. The oil industry has a terrible reputation regarding abandoned oil fields and fracking destroys fresh water resources and permanently ruins well water which has a direct impact on real estate.

You claim there's no "adequate energy storage to make wind and solar viable" while energy companies are installing energy storage by the gigawatts due to the levelized cost of energy calculation showing it's cheaper than running expensive, natural gas peaker plants.

Meanwhile, oil spills wreak havoc on marine organisms around the world and oil tankers strike whales all the time. And all of this for an energy source that is far more expensive than wind or solar even with it's deep, deep subsidies.

[Riva]

They are by definition intermittent wind based power completely inadequate to provide sufficient base load generation. And they haven’t. Anywhere in the world at any time. And they have a short lifespan and are highly toxic non-recyclable garbage when their useful lifespan is over (useful in a very meager, general sense). And, do you have eyes? Have you ever seen these offshore monstrosities?

[SRG2]

No-one is claiming that wind will provide all necessary energy.

Meanwhile, a page that hasn't yet been taken down by the Sicherheitsdienst: https://windexchange.energy.gov/news/7160

[David Nieporent]

This is such bad faith garbage. Not only does MAGA not care about recycling, but they actively oppose it. The only complaint less sincere would be if they claimed that wind energy was bad because it was harmful to trans people.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And will all blow down in the next hurricane...

[SRG2]

Nope. Some do, sure, but there are known mitigation techniques. I know that actually reading up on something is anathema to you as it might interfere with the ignorance of which you are so evidently proud, but...

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1111769109

[shawn_dude]

Yeah, let's hold renewable energy sources to a higher standard than traditional "dirty" energy sources because if we just look at LCOE, fossil fuels and nuclear energy go from first choice to niche choice.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNY25HoOtIA

"President Trump says what Americans are thinking, but may lack the courage to say."

[SRG2]

I am reminded of the MP Minehead by-election sketch when Mr Hilter is giving a speech to an audience of one, a slightly baffled hayseed type, and one of Hilter's sidekicks sidles up tto him and says, "he's right, you know"

Are you really so stupid that you think the WH spokesperson is good evidence for the proposition you advance? Hint. The answer is "yes".

[ThePublius]

"The FBI Reddit is openly discussing how to avoid being caught leaking."

https://x.com/JoshWalkos/status/1886240532394819864

These people should be fired, and prosecuted.

[SRG2]

Patriots defending the US from a totalitarian takeover.

[ThePublius]

Please elaborate, I don't understand that comment.

[Riva]

Neither does he.

[Martinned2]

Of course you don't.

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

(Emphasis added.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331

[tylertusta]

Yes. If you declare your domestic political opponents as enemies of the US Constitution and you can justify all manner of abuses.

...or you can accept that one party won an election and this is the new direction of the nation.

[Martinned2]

Not if the new direction of the nation is authoritarian you can't.

If you need some inspiration, this is what the Germans wrote into their constitution after their last authoritarian takeover:

All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order if no other remedy is available.

[tylertusta]

If and when we stop having elections in the United States, I'll be sure to take a cue from the German Constitution.

Your claim that the US government is now going to "abolish this constitutional order" is just histrionics on your part.

[Martinned2]

Let's hope so.

[shawn_dude]

"one party...is the new direction of the nation."

Single party systems are not democratic.

[Riva]

So what are you saying? That they’re engaging in an insurrection against the sitting president?

[tylertusta]

Sure seems insurrection-y!

Let's find some speech of a prominent Democratic politician saying "fight" and charge them as the leader of the conspiracy!

[tylertusta]

Conspiracy to leak information makes this a whole 'nother ballgame, legally speaking.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Assuming, as appears to be the case, that they’re talking about OPM/DOGE personnel actions that they reasonably believe are illegal, disclosing them is not only not illegal, but specifically protected.

[tylertusta]

Only if done according to whistleblower laws: only certain materials can be disclosed, only to certain persons, and only in certain ways.

Running to the press is almost always against the law, and working with others to conceal your actions would be a conspiracy to break the law.

[David Nieporent]

Running to the press is almost always against the law, and working with others to conceal your actions would be a conspiracy to break the law.

There is a small class of information that is legally protected: classified info, of course; grand jury information; and also some inherently private personal information gathered by the govt about individuals, like tax returns or medical info. (Musk, as a random loon, should not have access to any of this information.) The release of other information to the press is almost never against the law.

[shawn_dude]

Gotta love that MAGAts are holding FBI employees to strict interpretations of the law while celebrating a bunch of young tech-bros rampaging through sensitive and classified data without any sort of security clearance.

And by "gotta love" I mean: we're fucked.

[David Nieporent]

These people should be fired, and prosecuted.

So much for that transparency that you people were touting earlier in this thread!

[apedad]

Four Members of Online Neo-Nazi Group that Exploited Minors Charged with Producing Child Sexual Abuse Material

According to the indictment, from at least 2019 to 2022, Colin John Thomas Walker, 23, of Bridgeton, New Jersey, and Clint Jordan Lopaka Nahooikaika Borge, 41, of Pahoa, Hawaii,
were arrested this morning pursuant to a grand jury indictment that charges them with one count of engaging in a child exploitation enterprise. They are expected to make their initial appearances in court later today in New Jersey and Hawaii.

The indictment also charges two other defendants who are already in custody: Rohan Sandeep Rane, 28, of Antibes, France, and Kaleb Christopher Merritt, 24, of Spring, Texas.

Rane, Walker, Merritt, and Borge were members of CVLT (pronounced “cult”), an online group that espoused neo-Nazism, nihilism, and pedophilia as its core principles. Members of the international enterprise engaged in online child sexual exploitation offenses and trafficked CSAM. Rane, Walker, and Merritt acted as leaders and administrators in the CVLT enterprise, hosting and running CVLT online servers and controlling membership for the group.

Victims were encouraged to engage in increasingly dehumanizing acts, including cutting and eating their own hair, drinking their urine, punching themselves, calling themselves racial slurs, and using razor blades to carve CVLT members’ names into their skin. CVLT members’ coercion escalated to pressuring victims to kill themselves on a video livestream.

Rane previously was charged with several child exploitation and related offenses in France and has been in French custody since 2022. Merritt is currently in Virginia state custody, serving a 50-year sentence for child sex abuse crimes committed in 2020 and 2021.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/four-members-online-neo-nazi-group-exploited-minors-charged-producing-child-sexual-abuse

Bad Nazis (or is that redundant?).

An indictment is merely an allegation, and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Lopaka Nahooikaika Borge ... Rohan Sandeep Rane

Those are not Aryan names...

[apedad]

Apparently, CVLT (pronounced “cult”) is more DEI-friendly than your average NAZI group.

Or maybe they're just bad at being bad NAZIs.

[Commenter_XY]

I hope those people get the death penalty.

[M L]

On cue, riots and mass protests are cropping up around the country, protesting ICE/deportations, waving a foreign flag and shutting down highways etc.

If Trump isn't even deporting at higher rates than Obama and Biden yet, then what's all the fuss about? Where were all these people the last 4 years? Is it basically like political shock troops programmed to attack when ordered?

[Martinned2]

If Trump isn't even deporting at higher rates than Obama and Biden yet, then what's all the fuss about?

The likelihood that he will? That doesn't seem like a difficult question.

[M L]

Seems like there is a lot of doubt as to the feasibility of doing that.

But let's hope so, given that illegal immigration has been out of control for decades due to open borders ideologues - and that was before Biden supercharged it to unprecedented levels, thereby delivering the "unrelenting stream of immigration, nonstop, nonstop" he has often praised.

Do you think it's legitimate to demand that you be allowed to immigrate illegally? And to organize mass riots and protests, waving a foreign flag and shutting down highways in making that demand?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Wouldn't they actually be demanding that people be allowed to immigrate legally?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Time to break out the snowplows...

Or at least the "shock & awe" tactics used against the Jan 6th frat partiers.

[shawn_dude]

Obama and Biden emphasized violent criminals and people who recently crossed. The majority of their deportations were the latter by volume.

Trump promised indiscriminate deportations with family separations "without apology." He even went on to say he'd even go after legal immigrants as well. And now they're setting up Guantanamo to hold their detention camps.

How is this difference not obvious to you?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I believe they're also revoking the legal status of some legal immigrants, because we mustn't omit any of the brown people poisoning the blood of our country!

[shawn_dude]

Musk violated his visa and worked illegally before eventually naturalizing. Would be nice for them to start there.

[M L]

So what's the deal with USAID?

Musk attacked the agency by calling it a “criminal organization” on Sunday as Trump decried it as “run by radical lunatics” and said he was considering its future.

Nayib Bukele, the president of El Salvador, offered a foreign perspective.

He said on social media “Most governments don’t want USAID funds flowing into their countries because they understand where much of that money actually ends up.

“While marketed as support for development, democracy, and human rights, the majority of these funds are funneled into opposition groups, NGOs with political agendas, and destabilizing movements.

“At best, maybe 10% of the money reaches real projects that help people in need (there are such cases), but the rest is used to fuel dissent, finance protests, and undermine administrations that refuse to align with the globalist agenda.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/02/03/usaid-staffers-told-to-stay-home-after-musk-said-trump-agreed-to-shutter-it/

[Sarcastr0]

Bretibarting again, I see.

And as usual they deliver cherry-picked content.

What a low estimate of their readership they have. And you seem to equal it!

[RedheadedPharoh]

Good ol' Sarcastr0 spending our tax dollars wisely by attacking the source and making the usual lame, govie ad-homs.

Good work, you're really earning your top 5% compensation!

As they always say, people who can't contribute an value to a conversation, or the economy, usually don't.

[M L]

Care to explain? Are you a USAID employee or something?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Well, as @ScottAdamsSays "If you're panic'ing over USAID having some sunlight, you're probably benefiting from it".

Except in this case, he's just a govie bootlicker and can't stand any reform, sunlight, or transparency. His golden goose is finally getting gored.

[Sarcastr0]

There are many, many discussions of what USAID, if you want to know 'it's deal.'

If you're concerned the money is getting to..."opposition groups, NGOs with political agendas, and destabilizing" or whatever, they have an open budget.
https://www.usaspending.gov/search

Lions share this past FY was to The Global Fund to Fight AIDS and Malaria and Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization.

Sinister stuff!

You are committed to a lazy publication that aligns with your priors. When you pretend that's the truth of it no further work needed, you show how little you care about facts.

[RedheadedPharoh]

That's as transparent as Congressional stock filings.

lmao get real.

[Stephen Lathrop]

M L — Permit me to explain. No reliable provenance has been provided for the information
you quoted.

Responsible media typically respond to would-be, no-provenance contributions by setting them aside without publication. Many people do not understand that happens, because how would an ordinary news consumer see it in action? It's all about what you don't see, not about what you do see.

MAGA's of course respond to that policy as if it's a problem, instead of a feature. That's a problem with the MAGA movement, not with the reputable news media. MAGAs insist that it's better to expose tens of millions of news consumers to no-provenance allegations, and thus encourage a public commerce in politically motivated lies.

That is not a wise way to structure the public life of any nation.

[Kazinski]

Did Breitbart get the quote wrong from Bukele?

You can claim cherry picking about anecdotes, but comments from a foreign head of state offering his perspective isn't cherry picking.

[David Nieporent]

“While marketed as support for development, democracy, and human rights, the majority of these funds are funneled into opposition groups, NGOs with political agendas, and destabilizing movements.

You've got to love someone who says "It's marketed as support for democracy and human rights, but it's actually given to people with political agendas."
​
​
In any case, assuming his complaint were 100% accurate, it would be understandable why foreign governments might be unhappy — but why should it bother Americans if funding is going to dissent and opposition groups in foreign countries? Surely we should care about whether USAID is advancing U.S. interests, not whether it's helping prop up some foreign leader.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

America First!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Trying to determine or even guess what the founders would think about any given modern situation is usually super foolish given the vast differences between our current moment and theirs.

That being said, I think you could make a very good case that founders with views as different as Madison, Jefferson, and Hamilton would be highly critical of the way Elon Musk (an extremely wealthy foreigner) just inserted himself into the government.

“Ambition made to counteract ambition” became an unelected and unconfirmed foreign rich guy just shutting down government functions while Congress and the courts just go along with it. It’s pretty much the opposite of Madison’s vision.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is an American citizen still considered a foreigner?

[tylertusta]

You can't say that!

tHAt's RACisT!

[LawTalkingGuy]

The founders put a complete bar on naturalized citizens being president or vice president and put lengthy citizenship requirements for eligibility to the House and Senate. So it’s safe to say they would be at the very least highly skeptical of someone like Musk purporting to exercise so much executive (and frankly legislative) power!!

[ThePublius]

Excellent squirm you've got going on there. He's a U.S. citizen! Of course, though, your kind would give more slack to an illegal alien.

And he didn't "insert himself" - unless you can explain how he did so. As far as I know, Trump recruited him.

Suck it.

[tylertusta]

Their support for immigration and specific immigrants is directly proportional to the perceived political benefits for them.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah, Elon Musk was just sitting there one day and suddenly got a phone call from Trump, he wasn't actively inserting himself into politics or the Trump campaign or anything.

"He's a U.S. citizen!"

And the Founders thought that wasn't enough for some positions. Although it is funny to see you guys defend citizenship when last week you were claiming that people who lived here their entire lives can't be citizens because they aren't loyal to America or whatever.

[ThePublius]

If they've lived here all their lives but came here illegally, or where conceived of parents here illegally, then, no, they shouldn't be citizens. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a pathway to citizenship, just not default citizenship.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So Elon Musk can get to do what he wants because he's naturalized but people born here and live here their whole lives are at risk for deportation because they don't get citizenship. I wonder what the difference is.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is that you Il Douche? Your comments have a familiar, vacuous ring to them.

[Estragon]

“Your comments have a familiar, vacuous ring”

This is funny coming from you

[Sarcastr0]

So much of what you do is complain about commenters.

[David Nieporent]

Hey, complaining about them would be an upgrade. Almost all he ever posts is insults about commenters.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It’s like a death row pardon two minutes too late.

[Estragon]

It’s a free ride when all you need is a knife

[Mr. Bumble]

How about that (H/T Mel Allen) all the trolls got together for a circle jerk.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know that I've seen Noscitur called a troll before.

[Frank Drackman]

A Circle Jerk? and I wasn't invited (No Homo) It's like meeting the man of my dreams (no Homo) and then his beautiful wife

[Noscitur a sociis]

How about that (H/T Mel Allen) all the trolls got together for a circle jerk.

Thank you for proving my point.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As opposed to Henry Kissinger -- also foreign born...

[Martinned2]

He still seems to have beef with the current South African government. Not pleased about that whole business of ending apartheid, I guess.

https://gazette.com/news/us-world/south-africa-defends-itself-against-trump-and-musk-attacks-on-land-policy/article_1adc1e33-4888-5226-8074-86e8e95e5d9a.html

[ThePublius]

The current South African government, that supports Hama and other terrorists over Israel, buy the way, is crap. And, it has nothing to do with apartheid, and ugly smear on your part.

[shawn_dude]

This is just BS propaganda. The South African government supports Palestinian people. But it's a standard tactic here to equate "Palestinian civilian" with "Hamas terrorist" in order to then make claims of anti-Semitism to dodge the facts that make the Israeli government look very bad.

Reparations for the depravity of white-rule apartheid is what Musk is attacking here. He's in favor of white South Africans not losing the structures and benefits of apartheid.

[Frank Drackman]

Its more about slaughtering what few whites ("stupidly", HT Barry O) stayed there.

[Mr. Bumble]

...after EXPROPRIATING their land.

[tylertusta]

I don't think there would be much of a case for that argument since Elon Musk is a US Citizen and has been for decades.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The natural born citizen clause and the commentary surrounding it suggests otherwise.

[tylertusta]

You say this as if Washington and the rest of the Founders didn't know about foreigners coming to the United States to help the country.

I'm sure they were just shocked- shocked I say!- to learn that the Marquis De LaFayette was actually a French aristocrat! Or that General Casimir Pulaski of the Continental Army was actually a Polish nobleman!

[LawTalkingGuy]

They knew that foreigners aided the revolutionary war effort. And we’re grateful. But even so they were highly skeptical of foreign entanglements generally and specifically of the exercising executive power at the highest level! They didn’t let Lafayette run the treasury!

[tylertusta]

What about allowing a foreigner to run the War Department?

[LawTalkingGuy]

McHenry isn't a very good example considering he would have been eligible for the presidency due to the specific carve out for those who were U.S. citizens at the adoption of the Constitution, which would include anyone here prior to Independence. McHenry came here from Ireland in 1771.

[tylertusta]

You're contriving to shoehorn a modern argument against your initial claim of what the Founding Fathers knew and what they would have thought.

They accepted help from foreigners to help run their government at some of the highest levels.

Elon Musk has been a US citizen longer than James McHenry was. Had Elon been around back then as a wealthy foreign-born but pro-American merchant and trader, I'm confident that George Washington would have recognized his talent and put him on his cabinet.

Musk isn't exercising the powers of the President. He's providing advice to the President, and the President happens to agree with that advice.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The founders didn't want people like Elon in the presidency. They also thought Congress should control spending. They also thought people should be Senate confirmed to exercise significant political power. The Jeffersonian wing would have hated that he made his money from speculative investment. The Hamiltonian wing would have hated his disruption of public spending. They would not like that dude at all.

[Bob from Ohio]

"McHenry isn't a very good example "

"They didn’t let Lafayette run the treasury!"

How about Albert Gallatin?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Fair enough. But like McHenry he came at 18 and prior to ratification!

[ThePublius]

So, you're suggesting that Musk is less of a citizen than other U.S. citizens, since he's naturalized? That's only obviously because of your cynical political bias, not based on anything rational or even factual. He's done more for the U.S. than most persons born here.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The founders thought he couldn't be President. That's the point. They would have been highly skeptical of him exercising this much power.

[ThePublius]

Yea, in your mind. Not only can you read minds, you can read the minds of long dead statesmen.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"you can read the minds of long dead statesmen."

Well we have this field called history where we can look at the things they wrote and said and the social and political context to get a sense of what they thought about things.

But its cool that you've abandoned originalism. If we can't even get into the minds of dead statesmen with voluminous writings, then it would be impossible to get into the mind of the public at large about the meaning of the Constitution!

[Bored Lawyer]

The Founders only disqualified a naturalized citizen from serving as president or vice-president. There is no disqualification from serving as a cabinet member, which existed from the very beginning. In fact, Alexander Hamilton was Washington's Secty of the Treasury, and was born outside the U.S. (Although he would have qualified to run for president, as he was already a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.)

Naturalized citizens have served in positions more powerful than what Musk is doing. Henry Kissinger comes to mind, but I am sure there are others. They exercise more power than Musk is doing.

So, no, the framers would not have been "highly skeptical" of a naturalized citizen exercising power, when he reports to the President, has to answer to him, and can be removed by him.

[Bob from Ohio]

"inserted himself into the government"

The duly elected President invited him.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Are we doing the “duly elected” president thing again? Where that phrase magically lets the (Republican) president do whatever? God it really is W. Bush 2.0. Only this time Iraq/WoT is ruining domestic governance.

But yeah I still don’t think Madison would be cool with a guy without senate confirmation and no oversight making spending decisions!

[ThePublius]

O.K., for a little whataboutism - what about all of those unelected Dem functionaries and staffers pulling Biden's strings for the last four years?

At least Trump is consciously taking Musk's advice. Not so sure Biden knew at all what was going on.

[LawTalkingGuy]

That would only be relevant if every time someone criticized Biden I ignored the criticism and said "he's the duly elected President." Which I don't think I did, because that's a stupid response to criticism.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I think they would be concerned even if you took the word "foreign" out especially as more and more details come out.

https://substack.com/inbox/post/156354706

The framers also were concerned about a corrupt person taking control of the presidency, including putting in place emolument limits to help address bribery threats.

I think we need to apply our current understanding so am somewhat limited in my concern for that trio's opinions, with or without them singing them, but yes, I don't think they would like the current situation. "Hey James, there are FOUR women on the Supreme Court. WTF, dude?"

[Martinned2]

A republic, if you can keep it...

[Bob from Ohio]

emolument!

[David Nieporent]

Reading through this sub-thread, I think you've gotten off on a side track; that Musk is naturalized is a distraction. What's relevant is that he's a rando guy exercising powers that he doesn't even have without any oversight, for personal aggrandizement.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That is incorrect: the Whistleblower Protection Act covers disclosures to anyone, and it covers any disclosure that isn’t specifically exempted. It’s hard to know exactly what the proposed disclosur

[RedheadedPharoh]

Of course now they're discovering links between USAID and the Great Trump Persecution of the past 2 years.

Of course the Deep State/CIA was funding all these ops against President Trump, the People's Champion.

Reform is coming, you shit-eating govies. Reform is coming.

[David Nieporent]

What the fuck are you talking about? (I know, that's just prompting you to post something that is being covered heavily on — and only on — some Nazi social media site and then to express faux surprise that nobody else is familiar with whatever imaginary story they're lying about.)

[John F. Carr]

A California man agreed to plead guilty to unsafe operation of an unmanned aircraft, specifically the drone that crashed into a firefighting plane over Los Angeles last month. This is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison. The guidelines call for 0-6 months. The government will argue for a longer sentence because he caused "significant disruption of a governmental function".

I don't know if there was an applicable felony charge the government agreed to drop. Everything else is a felony so why not putting a hole in an airplane?

The case is handled by the "National Security Division" and "Terrorism and Export Crimes Section" of the Justice Department (or of the office of the US Attorney for the Central District of California).

https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/culver-city-man-agrees-plead-guilty-recklessly-crashing-drone-super-scooper
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69599828/united-states-v-akemann/

[tylertusta]

I'm impressed that the DOJ didn't hit him with a 1512(c)(2) charge.

Must have taken a lot of restraint.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A strong Trump critic recently took the position that a president has the right to pick their team and as a senator the person (within limits -- see Hegseth) would vote to confirm them even if they were against their appointment as a whole.

I am quoting by memory not exactly.

The sentiment as a whole makes sense though it has various degrees. A member of the opposite party is likely to have a lower ceiling when the person is unfit.

Some will not vote for nearly anyone though so far (other than Rubio) that hasn't been completely true. Only Hegseth and Zeldin have had total or nearly total Democratic opposition thus far in the final vote. In Trump 1.0, Trump's nominees received many votes with only Gillibrand opposing nearly all of them at the start.

I think the rule also assumes some basic level of normalcy. The start of Trump 1.0 had that. I don't know if we are at this point now. Okay, I'll be blunt. I don't think we are there. We are past it.

If you think, for instance, it is patently horrible to pardon the 1/6 people without any limits (except to "only" commute a small subset), there are political moves a member of the Senate can make. For instance, not voting for Pam Bondi, who might meet the "better than Matt Gaetz" baseline, but has lots of problems, other than being a known Trump crony.

Anyway, I was wondering about the fraction of the public who voted and found a helpful chart:

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/voter-turnout-in-presidential-elections

[Jason Cavanaugh]

No, that sentiment is not rational and does not uphold their Oath of Office.

The Advice and Consent that the Senate is supposed to exercise is their own consent and independent evaluation of the appointees.

Not, "I consent because the President wants me to consent."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The person didn't merely want to give a rubber stamp to Trump.

The senators would still judge each nominee. There are limits -- someone blatantly unqualified would not be confirmed.

But, yes, as a whole, the president gets a large thumb on the scales. The test is not "who I want" or "I have some issues."

If the president nominates some ambassador or so forth, there is a low bar. There traditionally was some behind-the-scenes stuff to remove the blatantly bad people and oil the gears by picking some people the senators recommend. There are lots of nominees. Only a few usually get that much attention and pushback.

My concern is that when the person doing the nominating does not meet minimal standards. This traditional thumb-on-the-scales rule is not valid.

[David Nieporent]

A strong Trump critic recently took the position that a president has the right to pick their team and as a senator the person (within limits -- see Hegseth) would vote to confirm them even if they were against their appointment as a whole.

Not sure if you're referring to me, but I resemble that remark. Basically, I divide nominees into:

1) Someone I'd appoint if I were the president.
2) Someone that any president of that particular party would be willing to nominate.
3) Someone who only an ideologue from that particular party would be likely to nominate.
4) Someone that only a corrupt or insane person would nominate.

As a libertarian, I'm not sure any in my lifetime would fall into bucket #1, but I' obviously vote for that person if I were a senator. I would also vote for everyone in #2 if I were a senator. #3 is a case-by-case basis thing; it depends on how important the office is and how I feel about the specific nominee. An example that comes to mind now is Jeff Sessions as Trump's 1st AG. Far more conservative than is suited for my tastes, so I'd have to think long and hard about it. (He turned out, conservative as he was, to have integrity, which is why Trump grew to hate him.) And #4, which is almost entirely limited to Trump nominees, are hard nos.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

No, I believe he is speaking about John Cornyn, the supplicant.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5119247-john-cornyn-tulsi-gabbard-dni/

“Having won the election decisively, I believe President Trump has earned the right to appoint his own Cabinet, absent extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, it is my intention to consent to the appointment of Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence,” Cornyn said.

The veteran lawmaker didn’t seem overly impressed by Gabbard’s performance at her confirmation hearing Thursday, when she repeatedly refused to denounce former National Security Agency contractor-turned-Russian citizen Edward Snowden a “traitor.”

Asked to grade Gabbard’s showing before the Intelligence Committee, Cornyn said: “Umm, I thought she did OK.”

Cornyn told reporters Monday that he had questions for Gabbard, even though he had already said he was inclined to vote for Trump’s nominees “absent extraordinary circumstances.”

[David Nieporent]

No, I believe he is speaking about John Cornyn, the supplicant.

No; he said "a strong Trump critic." While Cornyn is in the doghouse with MAGA for being an ordinary Republican instead of a loon, he is not, and never has been, a "strong Trump critic."

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Good catch, my mistake.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

So Trump gets no special burden above and beyond the normal rules.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sorry, the normal rules are "election interference".

[ReaderY]

Trump’s threats to Canada, Denmark, and to a lesser extent Mexico, represent a sea change in foreign policy. Trump envisions a world where empires assert spheres of influence and assert their will on the smaller countries around them, with nominally independent countries being in reality closely controlled protectorates. Trump’s ideal alliance system is a kind of Warsaw Pact, where the nominally independent members do America’s bidding and serve Anerica’s interests, and when they don’t, America intervenes and crushes them and installs new governments that will.

One can easily see a “new” system which is just a return to the old imperial system, in which spheres of influence get carved out. One can imagine a scenario where Russia gets Ukraine and perhaps others of the former Soviet territories, China gets Tawain and perhaps other concessions, perhaps India gets something, and the United States get Canada, Greenland and the Canal Zone, with the great nations mutually guaranteeing their respective new conquests against resistance from the lesser, subserviant nations.

[tylertusta]

I don't think you have it quite right. It's a sea change, but not the way that you think: this is the end of the Washington Consensus.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Nature abhors a vacuum.

[Reallynotbob]

Hey DEI haters and racists -- I challenged the blog a few days ago to predict the skin color of those involved in the Regan National flight crash. We have updated information now:

Helo pilots: 3 x white people
CRJ pilot: 1 x NYC native, Puerto Rican descent
ATC controller: Unknown (At least, I haven't seen it reported).

Best current evidence is that the helo was flying too high and out of corridor. So much for the "DEI caused this crash" garbage.

[ThePublius]

Who was piloting the chopper? Do you know? Has that been reported? So, how do you know?

[Mr. Bumble]

If it hasn't been reported the question is why?

[Bob from Ohio]

Woman pilot. Finally released over the weekend after the family deleted all her social media. Former Biden 'social aide".

[LawTalkingGuy]

Oh lord are you going to be one of those "women can't be pilots" people too? Christ you really are an asshole in every conceivable way.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No.

But she wouldn't have been a pilot THERE had she been male.

[Bob from Ohio]

Oh, I don't care if she was a woman I was just describing her for ThePublius.

"Finally released over the weekend after the family deleted all her social media. Former Biden 'social aide"" raises my spidey-sense about her specifically. Just because women in general can be pilots doesn't mean a particular one is any good.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bad joke of the day:
Women can make fine pilots unless the fly inverted. Then they have crack up.

[Stella Link the dog]

I first heard that joke, as a "confucius say," when I was about 10, but because I didn't know much anatomy at the time I didn't realize how stupid it was for many years.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's probably much older than that and I did call it a bad joke.

[Stella Link the dog]

If it weren't for bad jokes, you wouldn't have any jokes at all. Then, where would we be?

[Mr. Bumble]

Tell us again how it feels to be able to lick your own ass; because you can.

[David Nieporent]

The name of the third member of the helicopter crew was announced, and she was both a woman and a pilot, but I have seen nothing that says she was the one piloting the helicopter at the time of the crash.

[Absaroka]

At least some of the sources say it was a check ride, which would mean she was doing most of the flying, I think. If the IP does the flying it's not much of a check ride.

That's just a likelihood argument, of course. If the IP says 'my aircraft', then he's flying it. Maybe the pilot getting checked said 'I've got vertigo, you take it'.

Maybe all the engine lights just went on and whoever was flying instinctively went for altitude. Maybe a control linkage broke and it climbed on it's own. Maybe the altimeter malfed and told them they were at 50 ft instead of the actual 200 and they climbed.

The facts will all come out and we can - and depending on those facts maybe should - point fingers then. until then it's pretty silly.

(not directed at you, DMN)

[Stella Link the dog]

"If the IP does the flying it's not much of a check ride."

Surely, the supervising pilot has the responsibility to monitor flight progress/procedures for safety and to take whatever corrective action is required. As was famously suggested in a different context, the flight instructor is not a potted plant.

If it is true that the helicopter was more than 100' too high and 1/2 mile out of it's corridor, do you have any idea how that could happen? Shouldn't ATC intervene, to whatever extent it can, in such a situation?

[Absaroka]

"Surely, the supervising pilot has the responsibility to monitor flight progress/procedures for safety and to take whatever corrective action is required."

Absolutely, although from a practical POV I think the climb rate can exceed 1000 FPM (it depends on weight, temp, ...). Climbing 100 ft at 1000 FPM would only take 6 seconds.

"If it is true that the helicopter was more than 100' too high and 1/2 mile out of it's corridor, do you have any idea how that could happen? Shouldn't ATC intervene, to whatever extent it can, in such a situation?"

Sure, everyone should intervene if they see it coming. But it is very crowded airspace. If you're driving down the road and get distracted for a moment and drift across the centerline, your passenger should yell and even grab the wheel, but there are still accidents.

My sense is that the powers that be will dig and dig until they find out what happened, and if there is any reasonable corrective action to prevent a recurrence they will take it. They have a pretty good track record - commercial air travel is incredibly safe.

I don't think I'm qualified to do much second guessing at this point.

[Stephen Lathrop]

At the altitudes both aircraft were operating, the vertical margins were insanely small. A realistic assessment would have to get into questions about where on the aircraft the altitude reference points were located. On the very bottom of one, and higher up on the other? Any difference would have to be subtracted from the already tiny margin of safety.

How tall was the helicopter? Nominally about 17 feet, but only if it was in horizontal trim. Tilt the nose down and up goes the tail rotor. The main rotor swings a considerable arc. If the helicopter banks hard, that has potential to subtract more margin.

Probably the point of altitude reference on the jet was above the bottom of the landing gear, which were certainly extended fully downward that close to the runway. A bit more margin subtracted.

How disruptive were wind gusts that night? Uneven wind speeds make airplanes on final approach wobble upward and downward. Could the jet have flown through a downdraft? That is a famous near-ground peril on final approach. The jet first hits a gust of headwind deflected from the ground, which slows its airspeed and subtracts lift. It then crosses the downdraft itself. It then exits with a tail-wind from the deflected downdraft again subtracting from its air speed and lift. All three phases tend to deliver sinkage.

Nominal altitudes piloting an aircraft are sort of like nominal water depths on an ocean chart. A ship pitching in big waves can run aground in water many feet deeper than the ship's actual draft.

That kind of real-world variability is at least part of why the FAA normally requires vertical separations several times larger than those which seem to have been standard practice in DC.

The number one cause of that accident had nothing to do with pilot errors. The insane policy to practice as routine such tiny vertical separations was the main cause of that deadly accident.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Don't forget the pilot that was the lesbian ex-Biden staffer.

Pay special note to the "lesbian ex-Biden staffer" part, because that's where the DEI comes in.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You people are genuine freaks. Like absolute garbage humans.

[Frank Drackman]

Calling people "Garbage" how's that working for you?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Fine. It's true.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I'm a garbage human for refuting his claim there was no DEI involved in the crash?

Your religion is stupid.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You're a garbage human because you're super gleeful about a tragic accident because you get to be conspiratorial about it while denigrating women, sexual minorities, and Biden. You live for this pathetic shit.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look, %$#%, Levitt explicitly stated that Trump knew of the DEI involved.

QED....

[Noscitur a sociis]

When did she say that?

Still waiting on that Texas law cite, by the way!

[RedheadedPharoh]

And you got all that by my observation that it actually was a DEI hire contrary to OP's claims? A tragically unqualified lesbian who was most recently a social aide to Biden?

I generally do get super gleeful when bad people with bad beliefs suffer bad consequences of their beliefs. Not because I'm a sadist, but because it gives me hope that maybe that would be their "Harajuku moment" and they abandoned their shitty belief system.

But in this case I'm just refuting lies told by lying liars.

[not guilty]

Redhead, how do you claim to know the woman's sexual orientation?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Because it's been reported.

Holy crap, widen your bubble. Rachel Maddow and the cows on the view shouldn't be your only source of current events.

Wow. No wonder you thought Jack Smith had a great case.

[not guilty]

Reported when and by whom? The source of information may matter a great deal in this context.

And FWIW I watch very little television apart from football telecasts. I don't follow Rachel Maddow (I don't subscribe to cable tv) or The View.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Dude, you're pretty much asking me to consume all the news, chew it up into nice bite sized pieces and feed it to you bit by bit, like I'm your Momma Bird, and you're my baby bird.

Baby Bird, it's time you flexed your wings and flew on your own.

[not guilty]

No, I just don't trust information merely because you have said it. If you told me "good morning," I would likely look out the window to see.

There has been a good bit of bad information circulating about the demographics of that helicopter crew, so knowing what source information comes from is of heightened importance here.

Or maybe you've just got bupkis and are ashamed to admit it.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Ok, let me get State Department or some Soros funded NGO to tell you your opinion...

Hold tight and keep checking this post!

[not guilty]

That sounds suspiciously like an admission that you don't have anything reliable, Redhead.

Why am I unsurprised?

I once had a general sessions judge rule that a cop's testimony was non-hearsay because he read what he had testified to on the internet. This reminds me of that level of stupidity.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Tweet tweet, Baby Bird.

[David Nieporent]

Because it's been reported.

It was not reported. (Hint: Tweets from @hitlerfan1488 don't count as reporting.)

[RedheadedPharoh]

Yes it has. Although the DEI-agon tried to slow-walk the release while they scrubbed her socials, they forgot her google drive photos.

[David Nieporent]

No, it hasn't. There's a picture of her standing next to a woman, which I have been reliably informed is not a practice exclusive to lesbians.

[David Nieporent]

Just because women won't date you doesn't make them lesbians.

[Reallynotbob]

You might want to give a listen to the ATC tapes. She's not the one who requested visual separation and then confirmed visual on the CRJ. That was one of the white men.

[Reallynotbob]

Huh. No response.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Facts and primary sources? Why would any of them care about those?

[Satchmo_Lives]

French gynecologist suspended for not treating woman-identifying biological male.

Ok ma'am. Put your feet in the stirrups. Umm, those things dangling between your legs will kind of get in the way of a pap smear or cervical exam. I can draw blood for a pregnancy test. I am fairly sure of the result. Oh, I know. We can do a breast cancer scan. Men, errr, men who think they are women can get breast cancer."

"How dare a gynecologist not treat me like every other woman."

Those far-right extremists sure hate science.

[M L]

How are we supposed to take anyone seriously if they subscribe to this stuff?

They want so badly to be taken seriously. Just look at the leftists in this thread attempting to set us rubes straight. But how can anyone take them seriously?

Going forward, I may need to ask a few simple screening questions of any doctor seeing me or my family.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Kenjati Bonecaller Jackson subscribes to this stuff and she's a justice on SCOTUS.

[Longtobefree]

The doctor should have accepted the patient, then reported him for medical benefits fraud.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Men, errr, men who think they are women can get breast cancer.""

Men, period, can get breast cancer. The rate's not as high as for women, but about 500 men die every year in the US of it.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Where the doctor corrects himself it is not meant to suggest men can't get breast cancer. He corrects himself thinking the patient wouldn't like to be called a man.

The joke, obviously, failed.

[Frank Drackman]

Men who don't think they're women can get breast cancer also, not surprising, as lots of Men have tits.

[Brett Bellmore]

All men who haven't had surgery to remove them have them, it's just they're really small most of the time.

[Dr. Ed 2]

2% of breast cancer is in XY people.

[David Nieporent]

Oh, I know. We can do a breast cancer scan. Men, errr, men who think they are women can get breast cancer."

Um, men who think they're men can get breast cancer.

[Satchmo_Lives]

It was meant to be a joke--it failed. Live and learn.

Obviously the doctor (me) knew men can get breast cancer. Which is why he suggested a breast scan. He corrected himself for misgendering the patient by calling him a man.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and Mexican tariffs have an Emily Littela moment.
Imposition of US tariffs on Mexico and Mexico's tariffs on US are suspended for one month as Mexico promises to send 10,000 troops to the border to control the flow of drugs and migrants into the US.
Meanwhile in Panama it is being reported that after meeting with SoS Rubio, Panama will withdraw from China's Belt and Road program, allow free passage of US warships and work to deport migrants passing through Panama directly.

https://x.com/TrumpDailyPosts/status/1886440603996840266

[Commenter_XY]

Second.Fastest.Trade.War.Ever

[Mr. Bumble]

Gee, you'd almost think Trump knows what he's doing.

[Josh R]

Not so fast. Didn't Trump say we need tariffs until the trade imbalance is rectified?

[Commenter_XY]

MX is trying to address the problems POTUS Trump spoke very clearly about (fentanyl) with 10K new troops on the border. So give MX a month grace period and see if they're serious. That is what it looks like.

You might need to update your deport numbers

[Josh R]

Fentanyl is a pretext (is fentanyl a bog problem not being addressed at the Canadian border).

I posted last week deportation arrests were over 1000 with a goal of 1500 per day. That would be about 550K in a year, which I think (can't find verifying data) would not exhaust those convicted of crimes plus those with deportation orders. What is not known is the public's reaction if Trump goes beyond that group to workers with families.

[Commenter_XY]

I would call 550K annually a big fail, Josh R. Not enough.

[Sarcastr0]

Haha.

Someone got cold feet.

And it wasn't Mexico.

[Reallynotbob]

Mexico apparently got Trump to promise to reduce firearm exports to Mexico.

Self-own.

[Sarcastr0]

Not that Trump gives much weight to his promises, but that could come back and bite him for sure.

[darkknight9]

Losing Net Neutrality is bad isn't it?

[ThePublius]

Winning.

Trump threatens tariffs of 25% if Mexico and Canada don't do something significant about the border, fentanyl traffic in particular. Two days later, and one day before the tariffs take effect, Mexico says 'O.K., we'll send 10,000 troops to the border.' Tariffs suspended.

Trudeau is too stupid and arrogant to follow suit, and would rather allow his country to suffer.

[Bored Lawyer]

From Trump Tweet:

I just spoke with President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico. It was a very friendly conversation wherein she agreed to immediately supply 10,000 Mexican Soldiers on the Border separating Mexico and the United States. These soldiers will be specifically designated to stop the flow of fentanyl, and illegal migrants into our Country. We further agreed to immediately pause the anticipated tariffs for a one month period during which we will have negotiations headed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent, and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, and high-level Representatives of Mexico. I look forward to participating in those negotiations, with President Sheinbaum, as we attempt to achieve a “deal” between our two Countries.

https://x.com/TrumpDailyPosts/status/1886440603996840266

[Josh R]

Would 10,000 Dudley Doo-Rights do the same for Canada?

[Longtobefree]

Check again around midnight - - - - - - - -

[Swede425]

B-b-b-b-b-but tariffs don't work!
This was inevitable.
Same for Canada, and they know it, despite all the shrieking mollies on this thread.
Ladies, I'm STILL not tired of the winning!

[Noscitur a sociis]

If you view tariffs as a targeted tool where we pay to coerce another country to do something we want that’s more valuable, then they’re a foreign policy technique like any other. I question whether this “concession” by Mexico (to the extent it represents anything real at all) has any actual value, but if it does, that’s great!

What people mean when they say tariffs don’t work is that they don’t actually improve things economically for the country imposing them (which, you may but probably won’t recall, was Trump’s primary theme yesterday).

[Swede425]

Oh, I don't know.
I mean, having Mexico understand their responsibility in stopping illegal immigration and drug smuggling by posting 10,000 Mexican soldiers on the border sure seems like an actual, valuable concession.
And the temporary halt to threatened tariffs seems like a pretty good idea. No action on Mexico's concession in 30 days? Tariffs.
Basic carrot / stick stuff.
It's not hard, unless you want it to be.

[Brett Bellmore]

"If you view tariffs as a targeted tool where we pay to coerce another country to do something we want that’s more valuable, then they’re a foreign policy technique like any other."

Where you use them to coerce another country into doing something, the cost of the tariff is, ideally, zero, because they capitulate and so you never end up actually levying it. As happened here with Mexico.

"What people mean when they say tariffs don’t work is that they don’t actually improve things economically for the country imposing them"

What tariffs are really intended to do is increase a nation's economic self-sufficiency, by encouraging people to buy and manufacture locally, instead of being dependent on foreign sources. This should not be expected to have short term economic benefits, it's more in the nature of insurance against future events that might cut off your access to those foreign markets.

If you're dependent on trade with an adversary, or other countries the adversary could block your trade with, that's a militarily dangerous exposure, and tariffs can reduce it over time. What happens if we're totally dependent on Taiwan for high end chips, and China decides to invade them? Suddenly, no high end chips!

Similarly with trade disruptions of the sort we experienced from Covid, or the Houthis messing with traffic, or if we suffer a currency crisis of the sort Democrats typically insist is categorically impossible.

In all these events, the more self sufficient you are, the less of a hit you take.

Tariffs, ideally, are economic insurance, and nobody expects insurance to be a profit center. But that doesn't make buying it irrational.

Let me add that the US is almost uniquely situated in that we are large enough to capture all economies of scale, and have a complete set of natural resources, so that, as a practical matter, we don't actually have to be engaged in international trade to have a healthy economy. Self sufficiency is a realistic goal for the US in a way it is not for almost all other countries.

But, comparative advantage, we shouldn't expect it to be the most profitable thing to do. Just the safest...

[Sarcastr0]

What tariffs are really intended to do is increase a nation's economic self-sufficiency

Mercantilism was shown to be nonsense for 200 years ago.

You would neuter our growth so we could feel secure. This defensive crouch you think makes us secure ends with us surpassed by everyone else.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, Sarcastr0, I have a modern economic education, and I'm perfectly aware that Mercantilism was not the way to go to maximize prosperity. I understand things like comparative advantage quite well.

As I said, self-sufficiency isn't a way to maximize wealth, it's a way to reduce risk. To the extent we're reducing our exposure to supply chain disruptions caused by China or other adversaries, it is properly treated as a military expenditure, NOT an attempt to increase wealth. Generally, it is a form of insurance, not investment.

Insurance, of course, is a dead loss right up until the event you're insuring against happens. We could certainly be wealthier if we didn't spend anything on national defense, right up until we were suddenly much poorer.

Modern economics treats nations as rational actors on the economic stage, and for friendly nations that's a reasonable approximation. But, it is a terrible assumption when it comes to trade with countries like China.

If there was ever a case for trade with China liberalizing China, that case has been comprehensively refuted by events. Continued reliance on trade with China does nothing to liberate the Chinese, it just makes us dependent on a government that is hostile to our interests, while supplying them with more wealth to be hostile with.

Imagine WWII if we had outsourced steel production to Germany in the 1930's. That's what we're looking at if we don't reshore a lot of industry that's migrated to China!

Dependence on Taiwan is not nearly so problematic... in the alternate universe where it isn't right next to China and subject to invasion at any time.

[Sarcastr0]

You sure don't act like you have a modern economics education. Your sense of the cost of mercantalism is...you have no sense, though I'm glad you at least name checked it.

You know what they say about those willing to give up freedom for a little security? Because that's literally your argument.

I remember the first time I defended markets to you. I was amused. It's a pretty common thing these days.

If you're going to focus on China as a threat, disengaging from the world and giving them the run of things is actually not how we make ourselves safe from them!

Imagine WWII if we hadn't gotten involved, so we'd keep our boys safe.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You know what they say about those willing to give up freedom for a little security? Because that's literally your argument."

You could say that about paying taxes to have a military, and be just as accurate.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure. But we're not talking about funding the military.

Your assumed benefit from being able to make and mine everything in-house is
1) impossible. See: rare earths.
2) swamped by the blow we would take to innovation, influence, and economic efficiency.

[David Nieporent]

If there was ever a case for trade with China liberalizing China, that case has been comprehensively refuted by events. Continued reliance on trade with China does nothing to liberate the Chinese, it just makes us dependent on a government that is hostile to our interests, while supplying them with more wealth to be hostile with.

It also makes them more dependent on us! That's a good thing!

[ducksalad]

So the stuff about trade deficits and offsetting income taxes was all bullshit.

[Reallynotbob]

No, he meant it. But now it was "just a bluff all along."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

(I sure hope no other countries figure out that Trump bluffs these things...)

[Sarcastr0]

Declaring victory, ignoring everything previously said, and slinking off.

This is a return of the status quo, and everyone knows it. No substantive change to anything occurred.

Calling that winning really shows who the real hardcore tools are.

[Swede425]

You are going to be an absolute basket case during the next 4 years.
You're pretty well along now, but man, is there a long way to go.
America demonstrably wins, and you don't like it.
What a surprise.

[Reallynotbob]

"Wins" on what time scale?

The short term Can/Mex strategy may be appeasement (of Trump) but the longer term strategy by our competitors and neighbors will be to insulate themselves from us. That's bad for prices, power projection... and our general sense of hegemony.

Meanwhile, China is building bridges literally. They're so effective at their soft power projection right now that Trump had to pick Panama up by the shirt collar and wave a fist in its face to get it to pull out of the China road/belt project. He's fighting the wrong battle.

[Satchmo_Lives]

... longer term strategy by our competitors and neighbors will be to insulate themselves from us.

IN what universe do you live where you think Mexico and Canada will insulate themselves from the US? Are they going to start selling all those products to Costa Rica, Cuba, or Greenland currently shipped to the US?

[ducksalad]

Now the Mexican side of the story is coming out. Sheinbaum claims Trump made concessions on guns going into Mexico.

Can some of the MAGA geniuses here explain how Trump could make a dent in the flow without infringing on the Second or Fourth Amendments?

(Not that I'm worried...he won't fulfill his side of the bargain, and Sheinbaum won't fulfill hers.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exit inspections?

[ducksalad]

That's great. Warrantless searches of Americans to enforce Mexican laws.

We give each other patdowns because our POTUS went into negotiations and lost. Meanwhile Mexico only bothers to inspect a fraction of American cars crossing into Mexico, most get waved through without even rolling down the windows.

They're laughing at us.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, you have no understanding of how borders work?

[Reallynotbob]

I think ducksalad has an idea of how diplomacy works:

Round 2
Trump: You didn't stop the fentanyl.
Mex: You didn't stop the guns.
Trump: I'll tariff you anyway.
Mex: Hey, China. We have a problem with the bully nation on our border. Want to be friends?
Pooh: Love it! Tsing Tao Micheladas next Saturday? I'm buying.
Trump: Don't do it.
Mex: Why not? I'm thinking 20% surcharge on US tourists, plus 30% export fee on automobile parts and vehicles going back to US.
Trump: because I'll invade.
Mex: You won't. You can't control the territory. Also, here's *actually* an open border. Enjoy the cartels in Arizona and Texas. The Federales have better things to do, like help our new Chinese friends.

Okay, maybe a little outrageous. But the point is we can't control a border nation that can't trust us to do what we say.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd have to see the nature of the concession. It may just be something meaningless, so that Mexico can go on pretending that the cartels are armed out of American gun stores, rather than Mexican army armories.

I wouldn't entirely rule out a 2nd amendment violation, though, as Trump isn't personally pro-gun, he's just playing to a pro-gun base. He WILL do anti-gun things where he has reason to think he can get away with it, like the bump stock ban.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Holy cow!! I never knew the ban on guns in the 1930a sold to Germany, or the oil sold to Japan, was a constitutional issue. Were we selling arms to the USSR in the 50s-80s?

I take SCOTUS has rules bans on doing business with certain foreign actors is also unconstitutional.

Oh, it is already illegal to make straw purchases of guns. Enforcement, rather that participation (see Fast and Furious), would help.

[David Nieporent]

So, exactly as I predicted, Trump would get nothing and declare victory, knowng that his idiot supporters would eat it up.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

They will eventually figure out who's being played, surely?

[David Nieporent]

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Good point.

[Brett Bellmore]

Politics, however, is a practical demonstration that you can typically fool enough of the people, enough of the time.

[not guilty]

Brian Driscoll, the Acting Director of the FBI, has pushed back on a Justice Department order that he assist in the firing of agents involved in January 6 riot cases. Driscoll said he had been told to turn over the names of every FBI employee involved in investigating Jan. 6 rioters, a request that he refused. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/senior-fbi-official-forcefully-resisted-trump-administration-firings-rcna190301

Good for him. The Trump administration seems determined to disregard federal civil service protections, and it is encouraging to see this pushback.

[Swede425]

And he'll be gone. As he should be.
Patel will do it. As he should.

[RedheadedPharoh]

There are no federal civil service protections to conspire to against the rights of citizens.

You'd think as a lawyer you'd know that.

[LawTalkingGuy]

A lawyer should know a standard you just made up that is so nebulous it would render civil service protections meaningless?

I suppose President AOC can just fire everyone in ICE because they conspired against birthright citizenship and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

[RedheadedPharoh]

If civil servants violated citizens rights intentionally, are they breaking no laws? Or are they immune because of civil service protections?

Think about what you're saying.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If people break laws intentionally that can be relevant to for cause firing. But there is an entire structure to civil service protections that prevent exactly what you're saying: just firing a bunch of people based on a pretext that they're "breaking the law." Because of the President can just announce that and fire a lot of people, regardless of whether its true or not, then there are no civil service protections and we just have a spoils system again.

[Dan Schiavetta]

LTG,

Red. is just shooting off his mouth. I wouldn't engage with him.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Driscoll is refusing to produce a report.

Y'all are inferring that everyone is going to be fired and using that as a pretext to ignore a lawful request from their superiors.

If they do get fired illegally then they have recourse.

But there are no civil service protections that empower the civil servants to imagine a parade of horribles and use them to justify insubordination.

[David Nieporent]

Y'all are inferring that everyone is going to be fired and using that as a pretext to ignore a lawful request from their superiors.

If nobody is going to be fired, what does Trump need the list of names for? Was he thinking of giving them commendations instead?

[RedheadedPharoh]

An investigation into the human rights abuses suffered by the J6 political prisoners.

D'uh.

[not guilty]

Politico reports that thousands of FBI agents and employees are being asked by Justice Department leadership to fill out a 12-question survey detailing their roles in investigations stemming from the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/02/fbi-agents-officials-jan-6-cases-011048 The article states:

The questionnaire, which is due by 3 p.m. Monday, asks agents and FBI officials to detail their rank, whether they participated in Jan. 6 investigations and in what capacity. It includes drop-down menus that inquire whether they handled arrests, led operations, testified in trials or were assigned as case agents to the roughly 1,600 defendants who were charged, according to a person who read portions of the message to POLITICO.

The questionnaire also asks whether the officials participated in surveillance, discovery efforts, grand jury proceedings, witness interviews or subpoena review. It also asks if they followed up on leads sent from other field offices and performed other administrative tasks related to the cases.

[RedheadedPharoh]

So a standard investigation.

Got it.

[not guilty]

"If civil servants violated citizens rights intentionally, are they breaking no laws? Or are they immune because of civil service protections?"

The word "if" is doing some heavy lifting there. As Cassandra said to Wayne Campbell, if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV9U23YXgiY&t=13s

[RedheadedPharoh]

I wonder how many "if"s you're personally responsible for over the past two years re: the Great Trump Persecution.

lol, just think of all those shitty, dressed up poseur legal analysts that you kept staking your reputation on by saying out rock-solid and legally sound they were.

lol, I can't believe you don't have enough shame to keep off this board.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I suppose President AOC can just fire everyone in ICE because they conspired against birthright citizenship and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments."

No, because she would be president.

[not guilty]

"There are no federal civil service protections to conspire to against the rights of citizens."

The line prosecutors who have been fired and the FBI agents who are in danger of being fired are citizens who have the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of property (continued employment) without due process of law and the statutory right to the protection of civil service laws. Conspiring to fire them without affording due process is itself a federal felony under 18 U.S.C. § 241.

[RedheadedPharoh]

" the FBI agents who are in danger of being fired"

They're only in danger if they unlawfully deprived others of their rights, ng.

They are not protected from investigations.

[apedad]

Curious.....who's going to run those investigations?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Some good guys for a change.

[David Nieporent]

Holy shit, Trump is resigning?

[Brett Bellmore]

Good for him refusing an entirely lawful order from the elected President?

Screw that, fire him, and see if there are additional sanctions they can apply. The elected President needs to remind the unelected parts of the executive branch who is actually in charge.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>CEO of Canada’s 2nd-biggest company defends Trump’s tariff demands, slams Trudeau for not stopping trade war

"These are things that every Canadian wants its government to do, too. These are not crazy demands, even if they came from an unpopular source. These tariffs are going to be devastating to so many people’s lives and small businesses,"

https://nypost.com/2025/02/02/us-news/shopify-ceo-defends-trump-tariff-demands-slams-trudeau/

Weird. I wonder what he knows that all the morons, dipshits, and other assorted Trump-haters on this board don't?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fentanyl is a problem in Canada as well:
https://health-infobase.canada.ca/substance-related-harms/opioids-stimulants/

You'd think they would like to work with the US in keeping it out of BOTH countries....

[RedheadedPharoh]

Mexico just arrested El Ricky, a top leader of Cartel del Noreste, right after Trump pressured them to crack down on cartels.

10 days is all it took for President "Git 'er Done" Trump to, you know, git 'er done.

[SimonP]

I suppose they'll have to do more of that on their end, since we won't have a functioning FBI or DEA for a while.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I didn't realize the FBI or the DEA had jurisdiction in Mexico.

Interesting. Thanks for informing me of this. I'm not sure I'm on board with it, but if you say so I'll take your word for it... for now.

[SimonP]

Do you think you make me look stupid, by pretending that you're an idiot?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Frankly, I don't think you need any help at all.

[SimonP]

Yet you keep trying?

[RedheadedPharoh]

You have my motive all wrong. I'm not trying to make you look stupid. You have that on lock.

I am trying to make you feel stupid.

[SimonP]

The only way you make me feel stupid, Reddy, is by tricking me into responding to you.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I never respond to grey boxes. Just saying...

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I hear the groundhog looked at the calendar and decided winter will end on March 20th this year.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Dude, this is big, as big as Kash.

Darren Beattie, of revolver.news fame, was jus appointed a top position at State.

Like Kash, that dude knows where the bodies are buried. Get ready to get your ass reamed you traitorous govies.

[ducksalad]

Do you think Rubio got the orders to hire Beattie through Trump, or did Bannon or Musk just order him directly?

But anyway, Beattie doesn't have any insider knowledge about January 6, and he's been appointed to a softie State Department "communications" position that isn't going to be investigating anyone. This is just rewarding Beattie for running a MAGA website that's read by people like yourself.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>Do you think Rubio got the orders to hire Beattie through Trump, or did Bannon or Musk just order him directly?

I don't really care. His work on Crossfire Hurricane should've won him the Pulitzer.

But those only go to Deep State shills nowadays.

[David Nieporent]

Beattie, for those who may have forgotten, was fired from the first Trump administration for being a Nazi.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And now is realistically considered the lesser of two evils.

[LawTalkingGuy]

That's what German conservatives said in 1932-33. Look how that turned out.

[LawTalkingGuy]

This will be a good test of whether Marco Rubio can be shamed by his former Senate colleagues. They presumably will have some questions about why he hired a guy who as recently as October said that "competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work" and on January 6th was sending out tweets telling various black politicians, including republicans like Tim Scott, that they need to "bend the knee."

[ducksalad]

"Can be shamed"?

Very likely the whole point of forcing Rubio to hire Beattie was to shame him. A test to see if he has fully submitted.

[David Nieporent]

Yes. Totalitarian regimes like those sorts of tests. I think it was Vaclav Havel that wrote about the fact that the government would make people tell all sorts of obvious lies, not because they wanted people to believe the statements — nobody expected them to — but precisely because the lies were so flimsy that it was morally degrading to say those things, and doing so proved one would go along with anything.

Being a true believer, where's the value in that? If you support the govt because you agree with it, then you could develop new ideas and your loyalty would fade. But if you support it because you've been beaten into submission, well, that can be relied on.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Have you zero self awareness?

From gay animals, to transgender lions, to secret historical trannies, to Medieval gay marriages, to autism rates have always been this high we just didn't notice, to global warming, to global cooling, to climate change isn't weather to climate change is weather, to Russia collusion, to COVID came from eating bats, to masks work, to two weeks to stop the spread, to Hunters laptop is Russian Disinfo, to Trump peed on cookers, to Biden is sharp as a tack, to Kamala is a great speaker, to Obama is a citizen, kids have always identified as LGBT at rates over 30%, to BLM protests dont spread COVId but singing in church does, you pathological defend whatever narrative the State wants you tom

[LawTalkingGuy]

Do we know he was a forced hire? Or is Rubio’s brain cooked to Ron Johnson or Mike Lee levels?

[ducksalad]

Let's be fair here.

First, he is only a white nationalist, not a Nazi. Some of our friends here may be personally sensitive to the distinction.

Second, he wasn't fired for being a white nationalist. He was fired for getting caught in public being a white nationalist.

[SRG2]

"Your papers, please"

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/trump-immigration-raids-citizens-profiling-accusations-native-american-rcna189203

American citizens, including citizens of Native tribal nations, have been pulled into the vast immigration operations ordered by President Donald Trump

Feature, not a bug. Amerika das Schöne.

[RedheadedPharoh]

One thing for the patriots on this board to reflect upon:

It's come out, and pretty much confirmed, that not only did COVID originate in Wuhan, it was funded, illegally, by US taxpayers.

Not a single lib, especially none on this board, are calling for anyone to be held accountable.

The entire world got disrupted by government illegality and corruption, millions of people lost their lives and these shitty fucking subhuman libs still don't want their religious priests of the State to be held accountable.

LTG had the nerve to call me a "garbage human" because I believe in a meritocracy which saves lives in critical professions (like pilots). But look at what his vile ilk support and enable. Libs have been and always will be the sickest, vilest, most evil demons in history.

[SRG2]

because I believe in a meritocracy. "of decent law abiding white folk"

[Dr. Ed 2]

Be careful what you ask for lest you get it...

[SRG2]

You didn't get the reference, I see

[SimonP]

Do you experience any kind of cognitive dissonance when you lie so transparently?

Like - I appreciate that you don't give a shit, for purposes of these internet fights. You just want to troll and frustrate people here. I get that.

What I mean is what happens in the real world. Surely there must be some part of you that recognizes that there is no amount of shitposting that will make reality change to match your narrative. But you inevitably must live in the real world. When you walk away from your keyboard and have to make real decisions that affect your real, flabby, pasty, middle-aged and unattractive husk of a body, do you flip some mental switch to "real life mode," that allows you not to be confused into believing that down is up?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Which of these claims do you deny:
1.) The CIA says a lab leak is the most likely origin of COVID.
2.) The FBI says a lab leak was the most likely origin of COVID.
3.) Ecohealth alliance was funding, illegal, gain of function research at Wuhan.
4.) Ecohealth alliance was given $53M by USAID.

[Moderation4ever]

Both the CIA and FBI say a lab leak was the most likely origin but with low confidence in that conclusion. This is bureaucratic language to cover their asses. Nothing more.

[M L]

So most likely COVID was created in the Wuhan lab through gain of function research illegally funded by Fauci.

But not a sure thing. Just most likely, so NBD.

Am I understanding you correctly?

[David Nieporent]

Am I understanding you correctly?

As always, no.

[SimonP]

The CIA and FBI conclusions are actually just that, taking the totality of the available evidence, the "lab leak" theory is more likely than the "zoonotic disease spillover" theory. But the reason that conclusion is "low confidence" is that they don't have a complete picture, including information that required Chinese cooperation, and there is significant scientific evidence to the contrary.

As for the "gain of function" research - no, not illegal. It's been alleged that Ecohealth failed to adequately report "gain of function" research to the NIH. They take the position that the research they were doing didn't require that reporting (because what they were studying didn't pose a risk of human crossover). They also note that the virus they were studying was only distantly related to COVID, so that research could not have been responsible for any "lab leak" origin.

It's also worth noticing that, as far as I can determine, the CIA and FBI reports don't seem to link any "gain of function" research - Ecohealth's or otherwise - to the "lab leak" that's supposed to have originated COVID. So the attribution of blame to Ecohealth, besides being scientifically illiterate, appears to be just a big hand-wave.

[Commenter_XY]

Dr. Robert Redfield (virologist), CDC Director, stated from the outset it was most likely a lab leak. Few in the media were listening to him very much on origin.

I don't think we can stop 'gain of function' research. To play defense, we need to know how to play offense. We already have ultra lethal pathogens from germ warfare research.

[SimonP]

If you're trying to prove to me that you're not a very careful or critical person, when it comes to evaluating disputed claims like this, you've done a fantastic job.

I'm going to assume you've intentionally omitted mention of the nuttier things that Redfield has said, to give your assertion here the patina of authority. But when you respond to me, you should be mindful of the fact that I will google what you assert and evaluate your factual assertions independently.

So, which is it - are you an idiot, or a liar?

[RedheadedPharoh]

So we shouldn't believe what the CIA and the FBI say about the origins of COVID?

How do we discern when we should believe what the CIA and FBI say, and when we shouldn't believe them?

[David Nieporent]

That has not in fact come out, let alone been confirmed, any more than it was confirmed that the helicopter pilot was transgender.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I called you a garbage human because of your barely disguised glee that you could blame a crash on a "tragically unqualified lesbian" despite not knowing anything about her or her training or aircraft safety.

And then you confirmed it by admitting that, "I generally do get super gleeful when bad people with bad beliefs suffer bad consequences of their beliefs." We are talking about someone who died in a plane crash.

So yeah my assessment of you is correct. And outside of right-wing comment sections, most people would agree because normal well-adjusted non-garbage people don't talk like this: "Libs have been and always will be the sickest, vilest, most evil demons in history."

[RedheadedPharoh]

Well adjusted non-garbage people who know history talk like that. Because, by the numbers, it's a fact, Jack.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Wait, didn't Trump tell us during the campaign that we had been better off four years ago? In his first term, Trump reduced gas prices by $1/gallon at the cost of only one million American lives. And now we are supposed to believe that this was a BAD thing?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Study shows damages to military caused by DEI...

https://dc.claremont.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Provocations-7-Thibeau-08292024-Web-Version-with-Cover.pdf

[RedheadedPharoh]

omg omg omg you're such a garbage human omg omg Diversity is Our Strenght, waaah waaahhha boo hoo someone change my diapee.

Sincerely,
LawTalkingGuy

[LawTalkingGuy]

Don't forget the "genuine freak part!" Doing a scatological mock baby impression in an unrelated thread is freak behavior.

[RedheadedPharoh]

It's not unrelated. It's related by the "DEI" aspect.

Read a book every once in a while dude.

[Moderation4ever]

Of course, this all goes back to the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment in the Civil War and Tuskegee Airmen. Everyone knows that blacks don't make good soldiers or pilots. As President Trump pointed out its "common sense".

[JoeFromtheBronx]

When I'm assigning roles, I don't see him in the Thomas Paine position.

[David Nieporent]

Study shows damages to military caused by DEI...

https://dc.claremont.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Provocations-7-Thibeau-08292024-Web-Version-with-Cover.pdf

That is not a study. It is an essay. I know you're a janitor, but you pretend to be an academic. You should learn the difference.

Moreover, it does not show any damage to the military, caused by DEI or anything else.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Again, janitors are in the union and WAY better paid than I.

[M L]

Should military pilots and air traffic controllers and such be hired based solely on aptitude tests and objectively measured skills, or should there be DEI programs involved?

[ThePublius]

To ask the question is to answer it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And we shall see what comes out about the helo pilot.

[Absaroka]

You're catching on!

[Frank Drackman]

"comes out"?? I see what you did there.

[M L]

Is it, though?

Surely some of the liberals here will defend their positions on this? Or do they not care to do that anymore.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Involved" in what way?

I don't mind outreach programs, which would fall under the umbrella of "DEI".

Do you?

[JimM47]

I would be interested to hear Orin's take on State v. Gaul, A24-0555 , __ N.W.3d __ (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2025), available at slip op. (holding that defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in emails sent to public school student's address, which school monitored for inappropriate content using automated service).

Seems a plausible result. But it could be interesting to hear an assessment of the way they got there, and the cases they distinguished along the way.

[Dr. Ed 2]

IMHO, "a disclaimer indicating that the email account and its contents are managed by the Owatonna School District and subject to the district’s policies" isn't sufficient -- there needs to be clear notice that the district may read emails.

[Kazinski]

Marco Rubio has now been appointed temporary head of USAID.

Rubio has been busy in Panama and Mexico being the good cop to Trump's bad cop routine, but I think USAID is only going to get the bad cop routine.

[Kazinski]

And now Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been named acting head of the CFPB.

[Bob from Ohio]

CFPB should be in Treasury anyway.

[Mr. Bumble]

...if it should exist at all.

[Bob from Ohio]

True.

[ducksalad]

The Trump administration aggressively publicized the arrests of more than 8,000 immigrants by federal agents since Inauguration Day, with the promise that those detained would be part of a historic mass deportation. But NBC News has learned that some have already been released back into the United States on a monitoring program, according to five sources familiar with the operations.
...
In a statement to NBC News, an ICE spokesperson acknowledged federal court cases limit ICE from detaining people indefinitely if their countries refuse to take them back, which can lead ICE to release them.
...
Those released are being kept on a monitoring program known as Alternatives to Detention, the five sources familiar with the releases said, which has for more than a decade been used to keep track of where migrants are as they make their way through the immigration system.
....
As he did in his first administration, Trump vowed when he took office last month to end so-called catch-and-release policies under which migrants apprehended at the southern border are released back into the United States while their immigration cases are pending.

[SimonP]

We will need more than one Guantanamo...

[Mr. Bumble]

It's a start.

[Bob from Ohio]

Greenland would work nicely.

[SimonP]

Cool cool. Do you want to joke about what we'll have to do with hundreds of thousands of deportees we can't send back to their home countries, after the costs of detaining them indefinitely prove to be considerable? Or are you going to save that until Trump actually starts proposing it?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Hey, if we don't want to pay for their incarceration in Caribbean (or, er, Arctic) resort camps, we could force them to work in menial jobs for substandard pay that no white American would be caught dead doing!

That'll teach 'em!

[Brett Bellmore]

El Salvador offers to house violent US criminals and deportees of any nationality in unprecedented deal

Comparative advantage: El Salvador's prisons are much cheaper to operate than ours.

[ThePublius]

Should Chuck Schumer be prosecuted for threatening Supreme Court justices?

"I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price," Schumer said."

I say prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law.

[SRG2]

Not a legal threat, no crime. Of course, you lot don't care about such legal niceties. Some of you would be quite content with imprisonment without trial for some of Trump's enemies.

[ThePublius]

How is it that you determine it's not a "legal threat?" What's the basis for that?

[LawTalkingGuy]

We have a true threat test that this falls well outside of.

[Stella Link the dog]

See Brandenburg v. Ohio, or see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is another case where Brandenburg applies.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/trumps-disqualification-case-could-set-dangerous-first-amendment-precedent

[Sarcastr0]

If disqualification were a criminal proceeding, sure.

[not guilty]

Uh, the First Amendment sets a high threshold for when an alleged threat may be criminally prosecuted. See, Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969), and its progeny. True threats are "serious expressions" conveying that a speaker means to "commit an act of unlawful violence." Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66, ___, 143 S.Ct. 2106, 2114 (2023), quoting Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003).

And as always, the burden of showing that mere verbiage is unprotected is on the proponent of the prosecution.

But I suspect you know that and are simply trolling.

[Michael Ejercito]

"fight like hell"

[Jason Cavanaugh]

With a person, I'd tell them that they should learn something about the First Amendment, since that statement is not anywhere near an unlawful one.

With a lying sack of shit like you, I will not offer an impossible task by implying that you could learn anything, and instead suggest that you just go fuck yourself. You're going to be paying the price too.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If this is your standard for prosecuting a true threat, the majority of the Republican Party would be in prison right now.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Well then, let's change the standard immediately.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Among the other issues (not meeting the elements of a crime), the statute of limitations will expire in a month.

[SykesFive]

The President can unilaterally set tariffs only for particular purposes.

[SRG2]

At what point would it have been moral to assassinate Hitler?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do you honestly think that would have helped?

1: He'd become a maytar.
2: He wouldn't have stopped the research on the wonderweapons -- which would have been available in the spring of 1944 for D-Day.
3: he wouldn't have interfered with his generals -- who would have won.

This would have been good?

[SRG2]

Do you honestly think that would have helped?

Yes - no Hitler, no Holocaust.

You're talking about late in the war. Suppose he'd been assassinated around Kristallnacht?

[not guilty]

Being a native southerner, I know that a tomato is often called a mater. But what on earth is a "maytar"?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Dare I ask who is Hitler in your metaphor?

[SRG2]

Not a metaphor. An historical edge case

[BrotherMovesOn]

The maytar.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Ask JD Vance that question?

[LawTalkingGuy]

So Elon is trying to get rid of IRS DirectFile? And stupids on Twitter are claiming it was made specifically to allow illegal immigrants to file tax returns? Or Elizabeth Warren to look at tax returns?!

What a bunch of idiots. The Government makes a good program that cuts dependence on an expensive rent-seeker (TurboTax or HR Block). Then a dumb rich guy wants to get rid of it when no one asked and a bunch of morons cheer that move by coming up with dumb conspiracy theories.

Just the dumbest fucking people.

[Mr. Bumble]

So, who does your taxes?
I believe that More Curious commented about it last week and said the experience was awful.
The rise of Turbo Tax, H&R Block and others came about because the tax code is so bloated and complicated.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I use TurboTax or HR block guided self-file but get very annoyed by spending money for it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Which is an argument for a simpler tax code.
FWIW I found my father's 1943 tax return (the year he was drafted).
A single page (both sides).
Income #750. Tax due $1.00.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Everyone wants a simple tax code until they have to come up with one that works. And it’s actually not that complex for most people if you have a sizable standard deduction. The TCJA actually was good for doing that and for closing the interest and SALT deductions.

[Commenter_XY]

Keep spending the money for TT. I use it too.

[MoreCurious]

Nope, not me. I've always used a C.P.A.

[ThePublius]

IRS Directfile is shit. It isn't available to half the states in the U.S. And it isn't available if you had other types of income in 2024. For example:
- Unreported cash income, such as tips or alimony;
- Income that’s reported on other tax forms, such as gig work.
And it isn't available if your wages are more than $200,000 ($168,600 if you had more than one employer). And other restrictions as well.

So, f' them, end it.

https://directfile.irs.gov/state

[Sarcastr0]

So you're mad that it doesn't serve everyone.
Yet.

So you want to take it away from those it does help.

What is wrong with you?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Hopefully he works for or is invested in TurboTax!

[RedheadedPharoh]

Because it primarily helps illegals who also get their "refundable" child tax credits.

Who turn around and remit that shit back to their home countries in Mexico.

[LawTalkingGuy]

This is really stupid and you are really stupid. You think illegal immigrants can’t use TurboTax?

[ThePublius]

Directfile doesn't support IRA distributions. How smart is that? How fair is that?

For reference, before I retired I managed an international team of software engineers. I must say that the IRS's inability to build an online tool to handle most people's tax situations in YEARS is simply abysmal.

When are IRA distributions going to be supported?

"Direct File does not yet support Form 1099-R.

Starting March 2025, you will be able to use Direct File if the code in box 7 of your Form 1099-R is:

2
7
G
H
2B or B2
7B or B7
BG or GB
4G or G4
4H or H4
You won’t be able to use Direct File for any of your Forms 1099-R if:

The Taxable amount not determined box is checked
The IRA/SEP/SIMPLE box is checked
There’s anything in boxes 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, or 13"

Huh? WTF?

I want to be done filing my return well before March, and who knows if they will even stick to that schedule, as non-specific as it is?

[ThePublius]

"So you're mad that it doesn't serve everyone.
Yet."

Yes! When I was working and making lots of money none of these government provided tax return services were available to me due to income thresholds. Not that I'm retired and my income is all SSA and IRA distributions, and investment income - still not available to me. I will probably die before I get a free income tax return facility. It sucks.

How is that fair, or right and just?

[Sarcastr0]

When you were younger they didn’t have good thing so now you resent good thing and want to kill it.

Wow you are more of a spiteful angry bitter dude than I thought.

Envy is a helluva sin.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah it’s a pilot program that rent-seeking tax prep services fought really hard against for decades to keep the middle class paying for preparers and software. It needs to be built up over time. Unless you’re employed by or invested in a tax prep company the only reason to oppose it as a pilot program that gets better over time is being a moron. So for your sake I would hope that you have at least one share of Intuit.

[Mr. Bumble]

Again, you're overlooking the problem; a too complicated tax code.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Sure. But so long as it’s complicated, it should be easy to file. And FWIW making an “uncomplicated tax code” that allocates tax burdens well and stays uncomplicated for a long time is really hard to do.

[Mr. Bumble]

Fighting a world war against two enemies was really hard to do. Putting men on the moon was really hard to do.
Fixing the tax code not so hard to do, just requires the desire to do it.

[Ridgeway]

Williamson's First Law:

"Everything is simple if you don't know an f'in thing about it."

[David Nieporent]

Which is kind of a corollary of Chesterton's Fence.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is "not so hard" in comparison to sending men to the moon the equal of simple?

[ThePublius]

Rent seeking tax preparers? How about the lawyers? Ha, ha.

The answer to both tax prep and law is to simplify it all. We could all use fewer tax preparers and lawyers. Better yet, just end the personal income tax.

[Ridgeway]

"Better yet, just end the personal income tax."

I, for one, have long said we should use all the super valuable unicorn farts we have been hoarding to fund the government, rather than those cumbersome taxes.

[Moderation4ever]

The 2024 Tax year is the first year that Wisconsinites, like myself, can use IRS Direct File. I found the program to be woefully inadequate and suspect that anyone who could use IRS Direct File would just as likely be able to use the commercial Free File program. IRS Direct File is simply taking too long to roll out to the public for it to be really useful. The 1099-R forms are not yet ready and there is no 1099-DIV form. So, unless your income is all wages the IRS Direct is not for you.

[LawTalkingGuy]

There’s no reason it can’t be made good (or good enough) though. It’s only been around for a few years as a pilot.

[Commenter_XY]

It was good enough for government work. 😉

[ThePublius]

Oh, only a few years? Ha, ha! How long do you think this should take? We built the Hoover Dam in a few years.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you. I mis-identified you as More Curious above, but remembered your comment.

[ThePublius]

BTW, I use an accountant. It's $550. He provides a Dropbox folder for my stuff, and it just gets done.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and it's a deduction, right?

[ThePublius]

Yes, it's deductible.

[Ridgeway]

No, for the vast majority of taxpayers it is not. It is only deductible if (and to the extent) you are running your own business.

If you want to talk about tax policy, you really should know something about taxes, other than that you don't like paying them.

[Ska]

Not if it's your 1040 and it's your personal tax preparation. That would have been a 2% miscellaneous deduction subject to AGI limits, and those are gone now (since 2018 TCJA). If you're self-employed and it's for business taxes, that would still be deductible.

[David Nieporent]

And stupids on Twitter are claiming it was made specifically to allow illegal immigrants to file tax returns?

[...] a bunch of morons cheer that move by coming up with dumb conspiracy theories.

Just the dumbest fucking people.

What makes that conspiracy theory particularly … challenged is that if it were true it would be a good thing! It doesn't hurt us if they file tax returns.

[RedheadedPharoh]

So they've actually found what amounts to a smoking gun.

Documentary proof of $40M being sent by USAID & Fauci's NIAID being sent directly to COVID "patient zero" to research "Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence".

And those assholes at NIH and USAID and the rest of the Executive Branch knew this the whole time.

People need to be held accountable for the 10s of millions of lives lost. And that accountability should flow all the way down to their modern day enablers, bootlickers, and excuse makers.

[SRG2]

I think it was already well documented that the US sent money for that research: https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/9819304

Did you know that Democrats sent money to finance WMD? True! They even made a documentary about it called "Oppenheimer", but it was suppressed and you can't find it any more. The outrage!

[RedheadedPharoh]

Oh I see, so now gain of function research in a Chinese biolab funded by US taxpayers is a Noble Good.

You people are unreal. Yes, SRG2, COVID-19 is like the Manhattan Project.

[SRG2]

Wherein you miss the point.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, research is a good. MAGA, who revel in their own ignorance, may disagree.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Great comment, because being critical of bioweapons research, illegal, at that, that leaked out and turned the world upside down is EXACTLY the same as being critical of ALL research...

That's like a super genius take. Where do you live "Geniusburg" or something?

[David Nieporent]

"Bioweapons research" is, of course, something you just made up, even if the rest of your facts weren't also made up.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Hey Mayor of Geniusburg, can you be critical of one specific research program but not all?

Is that possible for you geniuses or only us doofuses?

[David Nieporent]

And those assholes at NIH and USAID and the rest of the Executive Branch knew this the whole time.

We found a smoking gun of something that hasn't been in dispute for five years and doesn't have anything to do with the conspiracy theory!

[RedheadedPharoh]

It's been known that the US gave COVID patient zero $40M to research Bat Coronavirus?

[William_Zanzinger]

Is there a section of the Constitution that authorizes the president to create a “Sovereign Wealth Fund”?

[Moderation4ever]

Is the President planning to borrow more money to finance the fund?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trudeau Surrenders...

Trudeau has announced that Canada will beef up border security and hold off tariffs for 30 days.

This is what I thought would happen...

[DeAnnP]

I thought it was already agreed to when Trudeau went to FLA. According to this, December 2024.

Announcing details of the plan, Canada's minister of finance and intergovernmental affairs said the federal government would devote C$1.3bn ($900m; £700m) to the plan.

The measures "will secure our border against the flow of illegal drugs and irregular migration while ensuring the free flow of people and goods that are at the core of North America's prosperity", Minister Dominic LeBlanc said on Tuesday.

The five pillars of the plan cover the disruption of the fentanyl trade, new tools for law enforcement, enhanced coordination with US law enforcement, increased information sharing and limiting traffic at the border.

They include a proposed aerial surveillance task force, including helicopters, drones and mobile surveillance towers between ports of entry.

The government is also giving the Canada Border Service Agency funds to train new dog teams to find illegal drugs, and new detection tools for high-risk ports of entry. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czx5p41696po

[ThePublius]

Trudeau surrenders.

"Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, after speaking twice by telephone with Mr. Trump, said the tariffs would be postponed by 30 days as the two countries negotiate a border deal. That announcement came hours after Mexico negotiated a similar delay, and agreed to send thousands of troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to curb drug smuggling and illegal immigration."

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/02/03/us/trump-tariffs

I can't stand all of this winning! Ha, ha.

[Mr. Bumble]

Little Fidel has met his match.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You are an ignorant dipshit and an enemy of this country.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/03/business/tariffs-trump-imports-us/index.html

MAGA should be sent to Guantanamo, not immigrants.

[Sarcastr0]

Incredible changes wrought from all the drama!

Oh wait I’m being told fuck all was gained.

[SimonP]

I wonder if you rubes have any idea how stupid you look.

We can see the "deals." We can now see why Trump didn't specify that Canada or Mexico take any specific action, as a condition for dropping the tariffs; he essentially left it up to them to name some superficial concession they can easily offer in order to have a performative walkback of the tariffs. Canada brushed up an offer they'd made months ago. Mexico offered to put troops back on the border. Trump triggered panic in the markets and a stock sell-off, in order to extract... what? A binky?

All this episode really proves is that there is a core set of true-believers who will find victory in everything he does, and will celebrate even the flimsiest of victories as a vindication of Trump's manly power. You're his useful idiots. Congratulations.

[ThePublius]

"Chuck Schumer, Dems Attack Musk over DOGE Reviewing Treasury Payment System"

If you're taking flak it means you're over the target.

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2025/02/03/watch-chuck-schumer-dems-attack-musk-over-doge-reviewing-treasury-payment-system/

The most delicious part is this, from Fauxahontas:

"No one elected Elon Musk.

As Donald Trump allows Musk to access people’s personal information and shut down government funding, Republicans in Washington will also own the consequences.

We must do everything in our power to push back and protect people from harm."

Yea, and no one elected all of the folks pulling Joe Biden's strings, and crafting his teleprompter scripts. I call that elder abuse, and fraud.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If you're taking flak it means you're over the target.

Wow, Sarcastr0 must really have you guys dead to rights then.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2525947/chinese-ucla-student-liu-lijun-has-student-visa-revoked-after-organizing-pro-palestine-rallies

Liu Lijun, a Chinese graduate student at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), has reportedly had her student visa revoked after organizing pro-Palestine rallies on campus.

Liu was arrested in May 2024 during protests related to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, which began on October 7, 2023.

[RedheadedPharoh]

In less than 24 hours, how many fools were made on this board by President Trump and his awesome Patriot Tariffs?

[DeAnnP]

I see nothing new happening at all. Colombia was already taking planes under Biden, Mexico had already been limiting flow to their Northern Border, and Canada already said in December they were going to do exactly what Trump announced as a win today. So all Trump accomplished was showing his ass. Yay?

[ThePublius]

Nothing at all? Mexico sending 10,000 troops to the border is nothing?

[David Nieporent]

Correct. It's for show.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Illegally and/or stupidly threatening people and nations in return for a bowl of pottage is not really a "win" though it might be a bad idea even to give a pottage to the person especially if it just encourages him and his supporters to do more bad things.

But, a major reason people support Trump is for the feels, so as long as it feels like a win, it's good.* Especially if it hurts people you don't like. Also, this isn't a big surprise, even if you didn't go to his rallies. We had a good idea of how Trump was going to act.

==

* They also support various things, many of them bad, that concretely will lead to results. Still, feels are a major concern, and you can see it in the tone of the responses.

[SimonP]

The test will come when the tariff two-step becomes wearyingly predictable. Trump demands something, threatens tariffs, counterparty cobbles together something superficial and quick, Trump walks the threat back, claims a win. It's not going to drive media cycles if it becomes routine, and the dividends it grabs will decrease in significance.

[Voize of Reazon]

Trump accepted the same offer from Canada that he turned down in December. Six weeks of roiling the markets and nothing to show for it.

[ThePublius]

Trump wasn't the president in December. How does what you say make sense? (FWIW, he's been president for exactly 2 weeks.)

[Voize of Reazon]

Publius, if you feel strongly that Trump shouldn't have talked about his plans as President until he was sworn in you should tell him so. I'm sure that won't get your name on the list Pam Bondi is collecting.

[F.D. Wolf]

Canadian PM Justin Trudeau tweets:

I just had a good call with President Trump. Canada is implementing our $1.3 billion border plan — reinforcing the border with new choppers, technology and personnel, enhanced coordination with our American partners, and increased resources to stop the flow of fentanyl. Nearly 10,000 frontline personnel are and will be working on protecting the border.

In addition, Canada is making new commitments to appoint a Fentanyl Czar, we will list cartels as terrorists, ensure 24/7 eyes on the border, launch a Canada- U.S. Joint Strike Force to combat organized crime, fentanyl and money laundering. I have also signed a new intelligence directive on organized crime and fentanyl and we will be backing it with $200 million.

Proposed tariffs will be paused for at least 30 days while we work together.

History's shortest trade war is over. Trump the dummy stumbles into another victory despite all the panicked hysteria from the usual collection of leftist galaxy brains the last 24 hours.

[Commenter_XY]

Third.Fastest.Trade.War.Ever!

Colombia....just a few hours
Mexico....one 1/2 day
Canada...one 3/4 day

[ducksalad]

Yeah, it's easy to win a war by Trump capitulating immediately in return for Canada and Mexico laughingly "agreeing" to spend money they were mostly going to spend anyway. (Note Trudeau's words: the 10,000 were already on the border.)

Relabeling $200M out of their budget a "new directive" is just a naming game. He didn't say $200M new money was going to anything.

Trudeau and Sheinbaum graciously allowed Trump to tell his gullible supporters he'd won something, when in actuality they conceded nothing of significance.

Humiliating total surrender and everyone drinking something other than Kool-Aid understands that.

[ThePublius]

You're ridiculous. Talk about self-deception, and rationalization.

[RedheadedPharoh]

When Greenland and Panama become US states, what do you think they'll be saying?

"No boats ever go to Panama anyways, they always sail, around. What a doofus Trump is!"

lmao

[Josh R]

When Greenland and Panama become US states, what do you think they'll be saying?

Four more Democratic Senators?

[ducksalad]

Probably more than four. There'd be 4.4 million Panamanians becoming US citizens and having an absolute right to live anywhere they want to in the 52 states. Probably be enough to swing states like AZ and NV.

[David Nieporent]

Arizona and Nevada already have 4 Democratic senators; how many more do you think they'd be entitled to?

[not guilty]

Arizona and Nevada traditionally are battlegrounds for Senate seats. An influx of Latinos could shift them from purple to blue.

[David Nieporent]

I would be leery of any electoral theory that relied upon the idea that Hispanics were loyal Democrats.

[Josh R]

Right now:

Purple states: D 10, R 4
Blue states D 37 R 1
Red states: D 0 R 48

[ducksalad]

OK, I'm not Dr. Ed so I'll back down when proven wrong. You win.

[ducksalad]

Maybe there's a way your side can still save it. Republican sheriffs can stop reporting fentanyl busts and then your favorite website (Revolver News) can claim Trump saved lives.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Hey just like how Biden lowered crime.

Nice.

[ducksalad]

This is how you convince people Trump is better than Biden?

Every day you come here and admit Trump does all the stuff Biden did, and because Biden did it.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Except yours, AFAIK, was made up.

Mine actually happened. So Trump didn't do the stuff Biden did. And it wasn't Biden. It was unaccountable Deep State Democrats interfering with our Sacred Democracy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Listing cartels as terrorists and such is significant.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can you elaborate? What exactly is the effect of doing so under Canadian law?

Still waiting on that Texas cite, by the way.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And you REALLY will never post here again?

[David Nieporent]

I'm not his lawyer, but note that I am pretty sure that the terms of his offer require that your citation be correct.

[Noscitur a sociis]

He almost got me!

[Dr. Ed 2]

28.002.1 -- and (not surprisingly) it's been amended, although Texas is an incorporation state,so it's also a moot issue.

Here is what the section says now:
Sec. 28.002. REQUIRED CURRICULUM. (a) Each school district that offers kindergarten through grade 12 shall offer, as a required curriculum:
(1) a foundation curriculum that includes:
(A) English language arts;
(B) mathematics;
(C) science; and
(D) social studies, consisting of Texas, United States, and world history, government, economics, with emphasis on the free enterprise system and its benefits, and geography;

[Noscitur a sociis]

Okay, Dr. Ed, help me out here.

What part of that do you think “requires that all K-12 reading literature be about Texas”?

Is it the part that expressly requires the curriculum to include material that isn’t about Texas?

[Absaroka]

NaS, that's the current text, according to Ed. The wording was earlier, when he wrote his thesis. If he remembers about when that was, we will be able to look at the revisions to see the wording as of then.

[David Nieporent]

What part of that do you think “requires that all K-12 reading literature be about Texas”?

Is it the part that expressly requires the curriculum to include material that isn’t about Texas?

Heh. Glad I got that caveat in about the citation being required to be correct before you were exiled!

Note that earlier Dr. Ed tried to pre-weasel his way around by saying that the statute had been changed in 2021. For the record, it wasn't. That same language has been there going back at least to 2005. (That's as far back as I checked.)

[David Nieporent]

In addition to the inscrutability of posting a citation that directly refutes his claim, I do not know what he means by "Texas is an incorporation state."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Law is not the only field with its own lingo.

There are two ways to provide school textbooks for a state's K-12 schools. One is for the state to decide what the texts will be, to buy them all, and then ship them to the individual schools. That's called "incorporation" (I should know why but don't), and it's also called "Adoption" which makes a little more sense.

Texas is such a state -- remember the Texas Schoolbook Depository that Oswald fired from? Yep, the publishers shipped the books there and the workers took them out of the boxes and put them into other boxes and shipped them to all the local schools. That's why there were all those boxes around in there.

The other option is to let the local school districts pick their own books, and 30 states do that -- but the issue is that as several big states do it on a statewide basis (e.g. Texas, Florida, California) so that publishers attempt to appease them at the extent of the 30 smaller states that don't.

The distinction is that if you a picking the books that will be used, you don't need to specify what they contain because you will buy ones that do. But Maine has 312 local school districts, each of which picks its own books -- and that's where you need to have laws in a way you don't in an incorporation/adoption state.

For more, see: https://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/01/09/23/10923.pdf

[Absaroka]

3 days ago the claim was "Texas law also requires that all K-12 reading literature be about Texas", which would have excluded Shakespeare, Moby Dick, Mark Twain, etc, but wouldn't affect an algebra text.

Now you are talking about textbooks instead of literature. But "Texas law also requires that all K-12 *textbooks* be about Texas" seems odd. Did they have an algebra textbook that was 'about Texas'? What would that mean? All the story problems had to be "If a train leaves San Antonio..."?

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, you clearly know nothing about school admin.

Assigned literature, be it individual books or an anthology, are considered texts.

[Absaroka]

So, before the law was amended to the current form, a Texas school couldn't use:

-an algebra book that wasn't about Texas, whatever that means
-The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
-Horton Hears a Who
-Hamlet
-The Red Badge of Courage
-The Grapes of Wrath

Do I have that right?

[Sarcastr0]

I figure a secondary market for Texified textbooks.

-The Adventures of Albert Langston Thomas Sawyer
-Horton, TX Hears a Who
-Tamlet (Something's rotten in the state of Austin)

etc. etc.

[Absaroka]

"secondary market for Texified textbooks"

Heh :-). Capitalism FTW!

[Absaroka]

Hey, that's awesome, Ed!

Here is a page with the law, and amendments going back to 2005. Search for e.g. "Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 784 (S.B. 42), Sec. 1, eff. June 17, 2005". In 2005, it had the current wording. Do you happen to remember a time frame when it specified all reading had to be about Texas? That would have been about the time you wrote your theses, I suppose, if remember when that was.

What a fascinating bit of history!

[David Nieporent]

Texas is so chauvinistic that I could imagine them having had such a law at one time… except that doing so would have ruled out the Bible as school reading, and that seems implausible.

[Dr. Ed 2]

David, you raise a good point -- I also wrote to the head of each state's education department asking them about laws their state had, and it's entirely possible that I got quoted a law that did not exist. That actually happened with Maine, I went through the session laws all the way back to statehood and couldn't find a citation for it -- and a very embarrassed Secretary of State admitted that they couldn't find it either.

The best I could do was find a 1920 law that mandated the teaching of American history and somehow that became the teaching of Maine history, and my guess is that it being the 100th anniversary of statehood was part of this. But EVERYONE in the Maine K-12 field believed the law existed, and it never had.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, the law library was in the process of discontinuing out-of-state lawbooks, and while I referenced that in my research methods and used that date as my "as of" date, I didn't verify that they hadn't discontinued some states earlier.

For some reason this didn't make it into my dissertation -- I may have been unable to find it in the on-line version, or I may have found it in the state regs (which I didn't use), I don't remember.

If there was genuine curiosity, I'd look further, but not in the face of ad hominem attacks. Bleep you.

[Absaroka]

"For some reason this didn't make it into my dissertation"

So when you said "It's in my dissertation" a couple of days ago, that was an error?

Bummer, I was really looking forward to such a quaint bit of Americana - a state that forbid teaching about Paul Revere or Valley Forge, George Washington crossing the Delaware, Lewis and Clark, Mark Twain, etc, etc.

As an aside, can you elaborate on why you feel being asked for your source for a fact is an ad hominem?

[Dr. Ed 2]

If you've ever written a book, you will understand about the winnowing process of editing stuff out. I honestly thought it was in there. Now as to the ad hominems, did you notice the "pathological and reflexive liar" part?

[Absaroka]

"Now as to the ad hominems, did you notice the "pathological and reflexive liar" part?"

Did you notice I didn't say that before you said 'bleep you'?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Oh, I’m genuinely curious all right.

I’m also curious why you have no qualms about blurting out things like ”Bomb Ottawa....” but can’t bring yourself to type the word “fuck”.

[Dr. Ed 2]

EV politely asked me not to use that word.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I find that very difficult to believe.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes: unlike you, I’m not a pathological and reflexive liar. So if you do actually show a real Texas law that says what you said it says, I’ll keep up my end of the bargain.

[Josh R]

Both teams ought to wait and see what happens.

Trump wants tariffs to put leverage on Canada, Mexico and China (and next, the EU) to end our trade deficits with them.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

And the damage to the US and global economy continues despite your idiotic cheering.

You're a good little German though.

[M L]

Gotta love leftists pretending to care about damaging the economy.

[Sarcastr0]

Disagreeing with you is not the same as not caring about the economy.

[Estragon]

Isn’t this what they agreed to with the Biden Administration back in December?

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2024/12/government-of-canada-announces-its-plan-to-strengthen-border-security-and-our-immigration-system.html

[Estragon]

It is instructive, however, to see what pressure points Trump is responsive to… Mr Market wasn’t so happy this morning

[Dr. Ed 2]

I noticed the "enhanced cooperation with Americans", etc.
That's significant.

[RedheadedPharoh]

USAID down.
Dept. of Ed is next up.

Good riddance.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It IS possible to be run over by a train and live -- someone did:
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/02/03/boston-firefighters-rescue-man-who-was-trapped-under-orange-line-train/?p1=hp_featurestack

Orange line is subway with 3rd rail, but still heavy rail.

[ducksalad]

Latest stupid EO from Trump: Sovereign Wealth Fund.

There is no president in my lifetime (63 yrs old) that I would trust to take money out of the treasury and invest at discretion in the stock market. And out of that group of untrustworthies, 46 and 47 are the worst by a good margin.

As usual, Trump boasts verbally that he already has the power to do this, but the order text talks about complying with the law and seeking legislation.

[David Nieporent]

In rational terms, I don't know what he thinks a sovereign wealth fund is or what it's good for. (As far as I can tell, his notion is that it's a way around having to get money appropriated by Congress for his pet ideas.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do states perhaps have them?

I can see some serious problems using public money to purchase and run private (for profit) businesses.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Yes, Texas and NM and Alaska have them thanks to oil and natural gas wealth. Several other states and cities have endowments like Lilly and Duke. Green Bay, Wisconsin could have a huge endowment if they sold the Packers to a private company…instead they are leaving $6 billion unrealized. Obviously college endowments help many cities with Pittsburgh getting the most help.

[Mr. Bumble]

There are several more in this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_wealth_fund#Largest_sovereign_wealth_funds

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm with you, I don't see the point.

[Commenter_XY]

It is not a bad idea. Needs extra care in set up.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like Mr. Bumble said, you generally fund them from surplus revenue, and the US government doesn't HAVE surplus revenue, it has a massive deficit. So, where is the money coming from?

Currently the best available investment the US government has, is reducing the deficit. But the political will does not exist in Congress to do that.

Pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and then we might talk about some mechanism for gradually buying down the debt.

Really, the only sense I can see to it is if Trump anticipates a debt crisis soon, and wants to accumulate a slush fund the government can use to make absolutely critical expenditures beyond revenue once nobody will lend the federal government money on any sane terms.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, like those mentioned above, they are usually funded by surplus sources of income; something the federal government doesn't have.

[Martinned2]

There's no inherent reason why that would be better. If the Federal government wants to borrow $1trn and invest that in shares in Musk companies, it can do that.

[Brett Bellmore]

But the government shouldn't want to borrow an extra $1T when they're already running a $1.8T deficit. Not to mention that as soon as the feds are invested in the private sector, all possibility of impartial economic policies goes out the window.

[Martinned2]

That's nonsense. If you borrow $1trn to buy $1trn worth of assets that are traded on a liquid market, your net position hasn't changed.

But yes, I'm not necessarily a fan of sovereign wealth funds exactly for your second reason. It doesn't work in poorly governed countries like the US, only in well-governed countries like Norway. But that's true regardless of where you get that $1trn from.

[not guilty]

Alliance for Retired Americans, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, and Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, have sued Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the Department of the Treasury, and the Bureau of the Fiscal Service in federal district court for declaratory and injunctive relief to halt the Defendants’ unlawful ongoing, systematic, and continuous disclosure of personal and financial information contained in the Defendants’ records to Elon Musk and other members of the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), or to any other person. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277055/gov.uscourts.dcd.277055.1.0.pdf

A question for the MAGA cult members who comment here. Does it make your skin crawl to think that Musk and other unknown persons would have unfettered access to your sensitive personal and financial information, including income tax returns, veterans' benefits information, names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, birth places, home addresses and telephone numbers, email addresses, and bank account information?

If not, why not?

[santamonica811]

I don't understand why this hasn't been a bigger story. To me, this is a HUGE deal, and I--like you--can't understand why the usual suspects who usually fiercely defend their online privacy rights are so silent about this. I've never been the victim (to my knowledge) of online privacy violations. But from the stories I've read; once it happens to you, it is a fucking nightmare, and a long looooonnnnnggggg process to recover. And, for many people, there are lots of situations where they don't get their money back, or are never able to get back their reputation, which was destroyed via some hacked online account.

Of course liberals and independents are terrified of what Musk and his minions might do with this rather unfettered access. But if conservatives are confident that (the brilliant, but mentally ill) Musk will not misuse their own data . . . wow; that seems almost hopelessly naive.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I don't understand why this hasn't been a bigger story."

Because the DOGE employees who have been given actual access to the records are covered by privacy rules, just like the bureaucrats who'd normally have that access, so it's literally "Tuesday" in terms of privacy violations at this point.

There will be a story if the information leaks.

[Brett Bellmore]

Per NYT:

"The Musk allies who have been granted access to the payment system were made Treasury employees, passed government background checks and obtained the necessary security clearances, according to two people familiar with the situation, who requested anonymity to discuss internal arrangements. While their access was approved, the Musk representatives have yet to gain operational capabilities and no government payments have been blocked, the people said…."

[SRG2]

I don't think "passing background checks" has the weight it used to in the old days, you know, prior to Jan 21.,

[Michael Ejercito]

How so?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Maybe this?

Barria/Reuters
CNN
—
"President Donald Trump is granting temporary, six-month security clearances to incoming White House officials who have not completed the vetting process typically required before being allowed to access highly-classified information, blaming a backlog of background checks that he helped cause."

[Brett Bellmore]

They've formally gone through everything the bureaucrats with this level of access normally go through, so until they actually abuse the access, there genuinely isn't a story here.

[Sarcastr0]

They've formally gone through everything the bureaucrats with this level of access normally go through,

I'm not at all sure that's true.

What strange newfound trust in institutions you have now that Trump has replaced all internal controls.
Misplaced trust, but then so it goes for authoritarians.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What is the difference between Musk having it and unionized bureaucrats having access to it?

[Dan Schiavetta]

They’ve had it for years. And have not misused it. Unless you can enlighten us otherwise. Show your work.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" Musk will not misuse their own data ."

Musk has way too much to lose, and knows it. I'm more worried about a Lois Learner or some #$%& social worker. In fact, an #$%&ing Social Worker outfit lost my SSN in a data breach. I was not happy to learn that they had access to it in the first place.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not said about the Reagan National crash is that there is probably a thousand gallons of Kerosene (jet fuel) in the Potomac.

[Frank Drackman]

Fighter Jets dump fuel in the Ocean all the time, sometimes because they're too heavy to land with the fuel they have, sometimes during training if your wingman can't see you and you want to show him where you are. You don't even want to know what Airlines dump.

[SRG2]

You don't even want to know what Airlines dump.

Right-wing commenters on VC and Reason?

[Frank Drackman]

As a Southpaw, that "Left/Right" Bullshit gets on my last nerve, and did you know it goes all the way back to the French Revolution, where it was the people on the left side of the room who wanted to chop off all the rich peoples heads? Now it's the "Right Wing" who are for Capital Punishment (the Left Wing only favors it for the unborn) Like (Sir) Elton John famously said,
"Times are Changing, now the Poor get fat"

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Dumping fuel at 10,000 feet over the ocean is one thing, 1,000 gallons dumped at 360 feet into a river will kill all the fish, etc.

[David Nieporent]

1,000 gallons dumped at 360 feet into a river will kill all the fish, etc.

I am not an expert, but I am quite confident that Dr. Ed isn't either, and that doesn't seem like a very plausible claim to me.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Trump's stupidity, continued.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/03/climate/trump-california-water-dams-reservoirs/index.html

The US Army Corps of Engineers opened two dams on Friday in Central California and let roughly 2.2 billion gallons of water flow out of reservoirs, after President Donald Trump ordered the release with the misguided intent to send water to fire-ravaged Southern California.

Trump celebrated the move in posts to Truth Social post on Friday and Sunday, declaring, “the water is flowing in California,” and adding the water was “heading to farmers throughout the State, and to Los Angeles.”

There are two major problems, water experts said: The newly released water will not flow to Los Angeles, and it is being wasted by being released during the wet winter season.

“They were holding extra water in those reservoirs because of the risk that it would be a dry summer,” Heather Cooley, director of research for California water policy organization the Pacific Institute. “This puts agriculture at risk of insufficient water during the summer months.”

[SRG2]

This was spectacularly stupid, hence par for the course. And the ACE was too chickenshit to question the order, clearly.

[Frank Drackman]

So what else are you going to put fires out with?? (I'd tell you how we did it in the Boy Scouts)

[Commenter_XY]

UNRWA, a UN safe haven for hamas members, now defunded by the Trump Administration. That organization was a moral travesty.

[Frank Drackman]

U-nited N-ations for R-emoval of W-hites from A-frica, who could be against that?!

[Martinned2]

Yes, I agree that the Trump administration is a moral travesty. Glad to see you're coming around!

[SRG2]

Stopped clock

[Commenter_XY]

Suppose MX cartels start assassinating CBP staff.

Is that where a Letter of Marque and Reprisal comes into play?

[Martinned2]

Not unless they do it at sea

[Brett Bellmore]

No, that's where you cause Ilya to stroke out by having Congress declare a war against the cartels.

[Martinned2]

If you want to go to war with Mexico, go ahead. They have at least as many American guns as the US does.

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

[Brett Bellmore]

Bit of hyperbole there, no?

[Dr. Ed 2]

But we have Warthogs (A-10s).

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you think Prof. Somin has some kind of special allegiance to Mexican cartels?

How distorted your view has become.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I think he has a very restrictive view of what qualifies as war, and would be outraged over our going to war with an at least nominally non-state entity.

[Sarcastr0]

Where do you get that from him?

I mean, from our experience with the AUMF it would makes some libertarian sense but I don't recall anything from him what qualifies as war.

[Martinned2]

Greenland plans to ban foreign political funding over Trump-led election fears
Bill to rule out interference from abroad expected to pass this week as country prepares for polls before 6 April

[Swede425]

Hey guys!
Great news!
Canada wants to play nice now.
See? It wasn't even that hard. Less than 24 hours.
We can all be friends again!
Same as Mexico, 30 day suspension of proposed tariffs to ensure promises made are promises kept, and then we get to focus on other things.
All that arm waiving and spittle for nothing.
How disappointing for you.
Trump 2.0 is the best thing ever!

[Martinned2]

Canada wants to play nice now.

They're willing to talk about doing the same things as before in a way that makes it sound like they are making concessions, which is surprising to me, given Canadian domestic politics at the moment.

We can all be friends again!

Good luck with that. These kinds of tactics aren't forgotten very quickly.

[Swede425]

Aww.
Dutch van der Sore Loser thinks this is a nothing burger.
Justin told Donald that he's going to appoint a "Fentanyl Czar".
Which is sooo cute!
Appointing a Czar! Just like we do in the US!
Justin wants to be just like his daddy.

[Martinned2]

It's almost as if Canada thinks Trump and his fans are easily impressed by content-free gestures.

Why are you happy that Canada thinks you're an idiot?

[Swede425]

LOL!
"Content-free".
You're so invested in Orange Man Bad that you're absolutely blinkered to any kind of success demonstrated by Trump on the world stage.
That's a you problem.

[David Nieporent]

You're so gullible that you think that because Trump claims he won that he actually did. That's a you problem. We can look at what was done, and see that it's nothing.

[Swede425]

Oh my word.
If cope could be synthetically produced, I'd invest in it.
You'd make me a rich man.

[David Nieporent]

Don't worry; Donald Trump will be happy to sell you some, at $59.95 a bottle.

[Swede425]

"TRUMP!!!"
"AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!"

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's a bit like Biden crowing incessantly about the "most significant US gun control bill in nearly 30 years", which did basically nothing.

I called that out then, and I call this out now.

[SimonP]

A more critical thinker might ask themselves - if Canada, Mexico, and Colombia can cobble together these "concessions" so quickly, are they really that meaningful?

Remember "Mission Accomplished?" Trump is posing on an aircraft carrier, with a banner listing these concessions behind him. You're being played.

[Swede425]

Gosh, I don't know.
I mean, how difficult do you imagine it is to come up with a plan to accept your own citizens that are being deported back to your country, or to tighten border security to mitigate illegal entry and drug smuggling?
I feel like most people would understand that this isn't the first stab at a plan for these things by Canada, Mexico, and Colombia.
Implementing them shouldn't be overly difficult.
Or do you disagree?

[David Nieporent]

I mean, how difficult do you imagine it is to come up with a plan to accept your own citizens that are being deported back to your country,

Not very difficult at all, given that they've been doing it for many many years! There were hundreds of deportation flights to Colombia under Biden. Trump created a fake conflict by insisting on using military flights for the deportations when Colombia has been accepting non-military flights for years, and even had offered to send their own planes for these people!

or to [come up with a plan to] tighten border security to mitigate illegal entry and drug smuggling?

Also very easy, since "coming up with a plan" doesn't actually involve doing anything at all. Now, coming up with an effective plan to do that is not only not easy, but impossible, as we know from 50 years of a failed war on drugs. (Again: if it were possible to stop smuggling with "border security," then why hasn't the U.S. just done it?)

[Swede425]

Are your hands shaking right now?
Is your heart rate up?
Have a drink of water. It's going to be alright.

[David Nieporent]

Are your hands shaking right now?

No. We've laughing at you, not with you.

[Swede425]

Whoa.
You crossed the line.
What about my feelings?

[Martinned2]

Ooh, that's an amusing idea:

[Saskatchewan Premier Scott] Moe also suggested the Canadian Armed Forces absorbing the CBSA would help Canada get closer to meeting NATO's military investment benchmark of two per cent of gross domestic product.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/troops-border-poilievre-1.7449077

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

[tylertusta]

Like how the UK tried to count military pensions as part of their military expenditures?

No one was fooled by accounting tricks before, and they won't be fooled again.

[Martinned2]

Of course not, at least not now that the US has detail-oriented people like Trump and Hegseth keeping an eye on this stuff!

[David Nieporent]

No one was fooled by accounting tricks before, and they won't be fooled again.

I mean, Donald Trump is very easily fooled — as, by definition, is every person who supports him.

[tylertusta]

I'm sure you've got an enlightened, substantial thing to say about military spending policy for Canada or for the UK.

There's a nugget of intelligence in there somewhere in your head, and I'm anxious to hear from it.

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts created a $32.50 minimum wage for ride share drivers. Some drivers complain that the minimum wage acts more like a maximum. One driver said he increased his hours from 80 to 90 per week to keep the same pay. Drivers subject to federal regulation, e.g. interstate bus drivers, are limited to 60 hours per week when carrying passengers.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/02/04/metro/uber-lyft-drivers-massachusetts-pay-cut-3250-minimum-wage/

Similar psychology is at work in Massachusetts laws capping tort liability. The maximum becomes the minimum. If a law says liability is limited to $20,000 some lawyers are reluctant to plead the limit in the answer. The jury be drawn to the figure like a moth to a flame, or a drunk driver to flashing lights, and will award the maximum.

[Frank Drackman]

$32.50/hr?
First Year Surgical Residents (we used to call them "Interns") at Mass General Hospital get paid $78,540 Salary, $10,000 Stipend (
Assume 80hr work week, which actually underestimates the hours, 4 weeks vacation (4 Weeks!?!?!?!?! I only got 2, and you were supposed to complain about how all the great cases came in during your time off)
works out to
just a little over $23/hr
but hey, for 5th year residents it goes all the way up to
$27/hr
Oh yeah, your wife gets 1/2 that when she divorces you, funny that she doesn't get 1/2 of your Student Loans
Oh yeah, assume you're 22 when you finish College, that's 26 when you finish Med School, 31 when you finish residency, and most Surgical Residents do 1-3 year extra training after residency, so you're 34 or 35 when you finally get a chance to make some real Dinero

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://sleep.hms.harvard.edu/news/limiting-resident-physician-work-hours-improved-patient-safety-outcomes

[John F. Carr]

I have also heard of the opposite result. Do you want a tired doctor familiar with his patients or an awake doctor who hasn't followed the charts?

[Swede425]

Stay off Reddit and Bluesky today!
Libs are BIG MAD at Elon and his junior tech boys busting into USAID and exposing the absolute waste, fraud, and abuse of our tax dollars.
They're actually calling for these guys to be hunted down and killed.
I don't think libs are taking this very well.
I'm really starting to question if that whole "joy" thing was just made up. They don't seem like the kind of people capable of joy.

[Martinned2]

The only thing worse than a Trump presidency is Trump outsourcing running the government to incompetent, unelected authoritarians with no accountability to anybody.

[Swede425]

You're going to run out of cope.
You have 4 more years of impotent rage to expend.
Pace yourself.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know why MAGA has picked USAID to fixate on, other than the fact that it's obscure so it's easier to tell lies about it without people noticing. USAID is incredibly tiny, so even if there were "waste, fraud, and abuse" there — Musk has identified none — it woul be utterly trivial. As I noted the other day, it's about ½ of 1% of the budget. You could eliminate it entirely — if that were a good idea, which you have no clue — and save taxpayers several pennies each.

[Swede425]

"Just let us have our cash cow for liberal NGOs and Democrat "consultants". It's not like it's really all that much money!"

[David Nieporent]

The adjective is "Democratic"; are you illiterate? That would explain why you've conjured up an entire fairy tale in your head about what USAID does.

[ThePublius]

It's not illiteracy, it's what many Democrats consider a pejorative, and many using it do so, so as not to automatically associate members of the Democratic party or the party as a whole with all of the positive attributes of democracy.

[not guilty]

"It's not illiteracy, it's what many Democrats consider a pejorative, and many using it do so, so as not to automatically associate members of the Democratic party or the party as a whole with all of the positive attributes of democracy."

It is a grammatical error. I have long wondered why those who use "Democrat Party" as a slur think that doing so is persuasive. I do understand the temptation -- I used to refer pretty regularly to Rethuglicans. I stopped doing so when I realized it was detracting from the substance of what I was saying.

Is the impulse to channel Joe McCarthy and Rush Limbaugh irresistible?

[M L]

Secret Service Agent: DEI Contributed to Near-Killing of Trump

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2025/02/03/secret_service_agent_dei_contributed_to_near-killing_of_trump__152297.html

[David Nieporent]

Despite his accomplishments, Ellis, who is black, says he was unfairly denied a leadership position and believes that DEI gender “quotas played a factor.”

Heh. Ellis, of course, would be called a DEI hire by every MAGA.

It should be noted that Ellis provides exactly no support for his claim — not even an argument. Just jumping on the anti-DEI bandwagon for attention.

[Mr. Bumble]

What a fucking racist, assuming "MAGA" supporters see black and assume DEI. What they see is competence like Ben Carson and Thomas Sowell as opposed to the likes of Ibram X. Kendi.

[David Nieporent]

What a fucking racist, assuming "MAGA" supporters see black and assume DEI.

That is not an assumption, but a conclusion.

And — whether that conclusion is correct or incorrect — accusing someone else of being racist is not racism.

[Bwaaah]

They used to call it "stereotyping," and race was only one attribute that drove it.

Even assuming you're not racist, David, you clearly manifest that same bad attitude about "every MAGA."

[David Nieporent]

Judging someone based on his or her skin color is bad because that tells you nothing about the person other than a few cosmetic details. Judging someone based on his or her ideology/political associations is not bad, because a person's ideology tells you about the principles he or she has chosen to adopt.

[Bwaaah]

Fair enough...the people you call "MAGA"...which people are they? For example, I believe you have referred to me as "MAGA." What ideology/political associations do you infer of me?

[Bwaaah]

The prioritization of race/sex/gender expression/[fill in the chosen "diversity" attributes] over performance-based indicators has been no secret. Though you can rarely tell in any particular case the effect of that new and often required bias, the overall effect is to lower institutional performance with respect to institutional purpose.

Of course, you don't want to lend any credibility to the type of people who say things like this.

[Sarcastr0]

No secret so you assume it's a thing freaking everywhere.

Though you can rarely tell in any particular case
But the moment anything bad happens, tons of assholes are on the lookout for anyone not white or male.
And even then they'll just posit some gayness.

And then they can yell DEI HIRE DEI HIRE THIS IS THE LIIBBERALS!

It's unsupported, bigoted, bullshit.

[Bwaaah]

Just because a drunk driver gets into a car accident doesn't mean his drunkenness caused the accident. And that's why I never say anything bad about driving drunk.

[David Nieporent]

Are you posting drunk?

[Sarcastr0]

So in this analogy someone being not a straight white male is a drunk driver?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not in fields where there are objective PT tests for all males -- Ellis had to pass the same tests everyone else did.

The girls didn't, and that is an issue.

[not guilty]

"Secret Service Agent: DEI Contributed to Near-Killing of Trump"

The linked RCP article shows no nexus whatever between the personnel practices that Mr. Ellis kvetches about and the assassination attempt upon Donald Trump in Pennsylvania.

The article does state, "Despite his accomplishments, Ellis, who is black, says he was unfairly denied a leadership position and believes that DEI gender 'quotas played a factor.'”

Sour grapes much? Or perhaps Ellis is sucking up to new leadership in his agency in hope of advancing now.

[John F. Carr]

"Proud Boys" is now a trademark of the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church of Washington, D.C. The church won a $2.8 million default judgment against the Boys and a D.C. Superior Court judge awarded the trademark as damages. This follows another multimillion dollar default judgment from a Boston judge against similarly aligned Patriot Front. Under federal law civil rights claims can proceed against unincorporated associations that are not otherwise legal persons.

I think this trademark is a common law trademark and not a federally registered trademark. An application for a trademark for clothing bearing the words "Proud Boys" is pending review. It was filed in 2021 by an individual in Tennessee, "DBA Proud Boys." It is unclear from reporting whether he is associated with the Proud Boys who were sued. More than one group has used the name.

Proud Boys Lose Control of Their Name to a Black Church They Vandalized

[John F. Carr]

After Louisiana issued an arrest warrant for a New York provider of abortion pills, New York changed its law so prescriptions can be issued in the name of a medical practice rather than an individual doctor. New York is constitutionally required to extradite an identified defendant. New York is not constitutionally required to assist in gathering evidence to identify the proper defendant.

Louisiana could file charges against the medical practice, it being a legal person that broke the law. Getting the business into a Louisiana court will be difficult. Trump could help if he starts caring about abortion. The business violated the Comstock Act, as it would be construed by an anti-abortion Attorney General. The FBI can raid the office and in the process uncover the doctor's name.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/protecting-reproductive-freedom-governor-hochul-signs-legislation-affirming-new-yorks-status

[Dr. Ed 2]

The DEA issues numbers to only natural persons.

[John F. Carr]

The abortion pill should not require a DEA number. It is not a federally controlled substance.

I have seen a pharmacy computer demand a DEA number before authorizing staff to fill an ordinary prescription. The workers there considered the computer to be mistaken. It wasn't the usual behavior for that drug.