Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The States of Washington, Oregon and Minnesota, along with three physicians who provide gender affirming care to minors, have sued President Trump and various federal agencies and department heads in federal court in the Western District of Washington challenging the validity of Executive Order 14,187, which, according to the complaint, targets transgender and gender-diverse youth and their medical providers by trying to cut off access to necessary, often life-saving, health care. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.344459/gov.uscourts.wawd.344459.1.0_1.pdf The text of the challenged order is here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/03/2025-02194/protecting-children-from-chemical-and-surgical-mutilation

The District Court has set a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order for February 14 at 10:00 a.m.

[John F. Carr]

The order doesn't do anything. Proper procedure is to await final agency action. Policy statements like the social cost of carbon or harm caused by secondhand smoke are not final. See Flue Cured Tobacco v EPA, 313 F.3d 852 (4th Cir. 2002).

[not guilty]

That is incorrect. Section 4 of the order states:

Defunding Chemical and Surgical Mutilation. The head of each executive department or agency (agency) that provides research or education grants to medical institutions, including medical schools and hospitals, shall, consistent with applicable law and in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, immediately take appropriate steps to ensure that institutions receiving Federal research or education grants end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children.

Section 2(c) of the order states:

The phrase “chemical and surgical mutilation” means the use of puberty blockers, including GnRH agonists and other interventions, to delay the onset or progression of normally timed puberty in an individual who does not identify as his or her sex; the use of sex hormones, such as androgen blockers, estrogen, progesterone, or testosterone, to align an individual's physical appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex; and surgical procedures that attempt to transform an individual's physical appearance to align with an identity that differs from his or her sex or that attempt to alter or remove an individual's sexual organs to minimize or destroy their natural biological functions. This phrase sometimes is referred to as “gender affirming care.”

The order threatens an imminent defunding of transgender care. A loss of funds promised under federal law satisfies Article III's standing requirement. City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, 897 F.3d 1225, 1236 (9th Cir. 2018); Organized Village of Kake v. U. S. Dep't of Agriculture, 795 F.3d 956, 965 (9th Cir. 2015). The plaintiffs need not await the actual cutoff of funds to sue for prospective relief.

[Brett Bellmore]

" shall, consistent with applicable law"

I'm not seeing how the order threatens...

"A loss of funds promised under federal law"

[Martinned2]

By that logic, why ever allow a suit about anything being (facially) unconstitutional? After all, anything that's unconstitutional is null and void regardless of whether a court says so.

[Brett Bellmore]

By that logic, you'd allow a suit about something being facially unconstitutional when it wasn't facially constitutional.

Trivially: If I order you to do something only to the extent doing it is legal, I am not ordering you to act illegally.

[Martinned2]

Trivially, since Congress is legally incapable of doing something unconstitutional, all laws passed by Congress must be constitutional.

[John F. Carr]

Courts are supposed to enjoin actions, not words.

[Martinned2]

By Brett's logic, why would they ever need to, since unconstitutional actions are legal nullities anyway?

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

The federal law of Biden , or of Trump
Even the Romans had a first principle of law: No ruler can ever bind his successor

[David Nieporent]

One can't tack a perfunctory "consistent with applicable law" on an otherwise illegal order to insulate it from challenge. "Consistent with applicable law, anyone who criticizes the governor shall be imprisoned." Hey, nobody can challenge it, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

From Wikipedia:

"In U.S. constitutional law, a facial challenge is a challenge to a statute in which the plaintiff alleges that the legislation is always unconstitutional, and therefore void. It is contrasted with an as-applied challenge, which alleges that a particular application of a statute is unconstitutional. "

The order above clearly has plenty of constitutional applications, and thus can't be facially unconstitutional.

I'm not saying it can't be legally challenged, only that it would have to be challenged as applied.

[not guilty]

The quoted language applies to a constitutional challenge to a statute. See, e.g., United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987). A challenge to an executive order is ipso facto an as applied challenge.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I hope that Martinned2 takes note of that; He seems to think a facial challenge is appropriate.

[Martinned2]

No, I think you're an idiot who doesn't realise when he's being mocked. That's something else.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" necessary, often life-saving, health care"

We can talk about the right of the mentally ill to have their bodies sliced and diced at public expense, but I don't know what kind of a twisted and depraved mind would consider the surgical and chemical mutilation of healthy body parts to be "necessary" let alone "life saving" "medical care."

You are making the infamous Dr. Mengele lool like a Boy Scout and are doing Charles Manson proud. You are SICK, SICK, SICK...

What's next? Surgically removing women's lower ribs to hive them more of an hourglass figure? Why not???

And exactly where is the evidence that this perverted barbarism reduces suicides? The mere fact that trannies have a higher than baseline suicide rate after mutilation proves it doesn't.

[Michael P]

The "life saving" claim is usually based on statistics drawn from small studies primarily looking at different endpoints, or based on an extremely small data set. These studies are outdated and not robust. https://www.cureus.com/articles/201512-risk-of-suicide-and-self-harm-following-gender-affirmation-surgery/correction/247#!/ is an example of a more on-point study, and those generally find that "gender supportive" surgery and drugs are associated with increased suicide and self-harm risk.

[Joe_dallas]

Concur - Most of european countries have realized "gender affirming care" is absolute BS and causes far greater permanent harm. Its only inane leftists here in the US that want to continue with the medical fraud.

[bernard11]

The mere fact that trannies have a higher than baseline suicide rate after mutilation proves it doesn't.

Go take a statistics class.

[Joe_dallas]

Tranies have very high suicide rates both before and after transitioning because they have serious mental issues. determining if there is an increase or decrease in suicide rates due to the affirming medical care is fraught with statistical problems due to the cofounding variables in such a small subset of the population.

[DixieTune]

"Gender affirming care" is no more health care than abortion is, just like gay sex is not a familial act.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Maybe you aren't having it with the right family members.

[Frank Drackman]

Are you sure “Cut Off” is the phrase you want to use?

[ReaderY]

Why is it constitutional to prohibit cisgender care as alleged “genital mutilation,” but not transgender care?

I am very skeptical of the idea that current ideology on the subject is somehow magically part of the constitution.

As Roe itself recognized, there is no inherent constitutional right to use ones body as one pleases. And there is certainly no right to get others to pay for it.

To the extent Congress specifically provided for this, I agree a President cannot unilaterally embargo congressional appropriations he disagrees with but must take care to faithfully execute the law, agree with it or not. But it’s entirely a statutory issue. There is no more any constitutional obligation for government to fund this than there was for government to fund abortion at the height of the Roe v. Wade era in the 1970s.

Frankly, arguments that were rejected in the course of deciding Maher v. Roe - if they can’t have an abortion, they may commit suicide, so abortion care is life-saving care - strike me as very similar to the arguments being made here.

[not guilty]

The Fifth Amendment Equal Protection, Separation of Powers and Tenth Amendment issues presented by the executive order challenged here are substantial.

Medical treatments and procedures provided to transgender minors are targeted in a manner that such treatments and procedures provided to cisgender minors are not. In the Ninth Circuit, heightened scrutiny applies to laws that discriminate based on transgender status. Doe v. Horne, 115 F.4th 1083, 1102 (9th Cir. 2024); Hecox v. Little, 104 F.4th 1061, 1079 (9th Cir. 2024) Karnoski v. Trump, 926 F.3d 1180, 1200-01 (9th Cir. 2019). Thus, if the order discriminates based on transgender status, either purposefully or on its face, heightened scrutiny applies.

Heightened scrutiny is a "demanding" standard, with the burden resting entirely on the government to demonstrate an "exceedingly persuasive" justification for its differential treatment. VMI, 518 U.S. at 533, 116 S.Ct. 2264. To survive heightened scrutiny, the government must demonstrate "that the challenged classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives." Hecox, at 1081, citing United States v. Virginia (VMI), 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996).

None of the funds received by the Plaintiff States’ medical institutions have a congressionally authorized condition requiring them to refrain from the provision of genderaffirming care. Neither Congress nor the Constitution has authorized President Trump to defund federal aid to providers of transgender care in the manner that the executive order purports to exercise. See, City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, 897 F.3d 1225, 1233–34 (9th Cir. 2018). The President's authority to act "must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself." Id., at 1233, quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952).

Incident to its spending power, Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds, and has repeatedly employed the power "to further broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative directives." South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203. 206 (1987). "It is for Congress to decide which expenditures will promote the general welfare[.]" Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 90 (1976) (per curiam). The President lacks such power to impose conditions at his whim on monies allocated by Congress.

The instant Executive Order, which conditions the receipt of federal funds by the Plaintiff States’ medical institutions on denying patient gender-affirming care, is an unconstitutional usurpation of the spending power of Congress, an unconstitutional effort to amend Congressional appropriations by attaching conditions not contemplated by Congress, and a violation of the separation of powers.

The Tenth Amendment provides that “[t]he Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” U.S. Const. amend. X. The President has no enumerated power to regulate the practice of medicine or to criminalize medical practices. Nor has he been authorized by Congress to do so.

The setting by a State of qualifications for the practice of medicine, and their modification from time to time, is an incident of the State's power to protect the health and safety of its citizens. The Ninth Circuit has opined:

There is a long (if heretofore unrecognized) tradition of regulation governing the practice of those who provide health care within state borders. See Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 9 S.Ct. 231, 232, 32 L.Ed. 623 (1889) (upholding medical licensing requirements, including a prohibition on "swear[ing] falsely to any question which may be propounded to him on his examination") (citation omitted); see also Hawker v. People of New York, 170 U.S. 189, 191, 18 S.Ct. 573, 42 L.Ed. 1002 (1898) (allowing state, as part of its police power, to deem who possesses a "sufficient good character" to practice medicine).

These authorities, among others, indicate that the plaintiff states' challenge to the instant executive order has substantial merit.

[Joe_dallas]

NG - gender affirming care is not "health care"

[RedheadedPharoh]

Where in the constitution is the right to have your surgery paid for by the federal government?

[Kazinski]

Democrats should certainly push back against Trump's transgender executive orders, hard.
They should fight them tooth and nail.

Harry Enten, CNN's pollster:

"Trump's action to ban transgender women from women’s sports is probably the most popular thing he's ever done.

Most Americans overall (79%), Dems (67%), indies (64%), & GOP (94%) agree with Trump.

Moreover, the share who want the ban is up 17 pts (62% to 79%) since 2021."

https://x.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1887528849333780961?t=CdgBLFEchS0ckya-WLbtGg&s=19

It doesn't say what the polling is on a ban on "gender afirming" surgery and puberty blocking hormones, but its probably similar numbers.

[Martinned2]

EJIL: Talk has a nice white liberal guilt-post about "Empire by Purchase", talking mostly about Dutch colonial history.

https://www.ejiltalk.org/empire-by-purchase-from-manhattan-to-greenland-1625-2025/

[Krayt]

Oh no! Can't just invade and push.

Oh no! Can't do treaties as these "savages" don't really understand it.

Oh no! Can't buy the land because look at the silliness of the Manhattan purchase, a supposed voluntary trade.

He then leverages soft racism that, apparently, indigenous peoples, whatever that means in this context, don't have his permission to decide whether a million and a half dollars is is good enough or not for themselves.

This entire purchase idea is silly, but why not use a silly defense against it?

As a side note, he uses the phrase "predatory capitalism" to describe it as low and transactional. It's ironic the same folk slam their fists down and declare the little guy's interest is in viewing the money they want to throw at them as dispositive of their best interests, so elect them.

Throwing money at the little folk for me, good, but not for thee, bad.

Such a stark admission of power dynamics is rare.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt — If you think the purchase idea a silly one, what is the point of the rest of your comment? Seems like nothing more than ideological insistence without context.

[Krayt]

It was a policy comment. I could think it a great idea, but it would not change things.

[Kazinski]

Sounds plausible, after all it was the Dutch that reputedly purchased Manhattan for 24$ worth of beads.

[Martinned2]

I think that's good dealmaking, but apparently not all my compatriots think so...

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The way I heard it, the "Indians" thought it was some kind of ceremony recognizing the Dutch as guests, not a promise to evacuate the premises and give the land to the Dutch, but maybe I'm wrong, since the Dutch ended up with the land.

[Brett Bellmore]

The way I'd heard it, the Indians who'd sold the island didn't actually have an exclusive right to it, so it wasn't really their's to sell in the first place.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, if the other Indians let the selling Indians parade around in big feathery headdresses such that it appeared that they had the authority to make the deal, then that's on them.

[ReaderY]

I think the offer to purchase Greenland was made in the nature of an offer Denmark can’t refuse. Trump’s refusal to take “no” for an answer and upping the ante by menacing references to unspecified economic and even military problems for Denmark if it doesn’t agree takes this completely out of the realm of consensual agreements and makes it much more in the nature of a Mafia shakedown, an offer of the sort Don Corleone made in The Godfather.

The ethics of consensual agreements strike me as totally irrelevant. If you respond to a “no” by threatening force or bad consequences generally, you are making an offer the other party can’t refuse. It ain’t consensual.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it IS technically an offer Denmark can't refuse, since under Danish law, it's entirely up to Greenland. As there are only about 50K Greenlanders, we could make them an awfully sweet deal for the island.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

We already have a military base there now. I wonder what more we need out of that landmass, in terms of national security.

[Brett Bellmore]

Denying a lot of resources to China, mostly.

[John F. Carr]

The DoD is evicting liberal news outlets from their space in the Pentagon, replacing them with conservative media.

CNN, The Washington Post, the Hill and War Zone will be asked to leave their spaces, with Newsmax, the Washington Examiner, the Daily Caller and the Free Press moving in, according to a memo from John Ullyot, acting assistant to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-reporters-ejected-press-room-trump-administration-359d22d77ee22cb0f256170f8f67178c

I remember when a judge ordered Jim Acosta's press pass restored. Revocation for hostile coverage was a First Amendment violation. The case was settled – he got his press pass back – and the TRO expired.

[Martinned2]

I assume that, by the time Elon Musk is done with them, the Pentagon will stop talking to the press altogether. Wasteful, etc., all that transparency.

[John F. Carr]

The Pentagon will deposit its statements in your Neuralink. Implants required for all holders of press passes.

[Martinned2]

I still can't believe that the government gives all that news away for free, so that the TV and newspaper people can use it to make money. At a minimum, the government should charge the journos if they want to attend a press conference. /s

[Dr. Ed 2]

That, essentially, is what SCOTUS does -- the media has to pay someone to stand in line all night to get a seat. Do they still have the "running of the interns" with the slip opinions, or did Covid end that?

There's no special First Amendment just for the legacy media.

[Martinned2]

Exactly. But all that standing in line is communism. So they should auction off the places.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court is switching to an online reservation system.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/12/in-2019-i-proposed-that-scotus-should-use-a-lottery-to-distribute-tickets-in-2024-scotus-proposes-pilot-lottery-program/

[Commenter_XY]

John F Carr....Short story. The shoe is on the other foot now.

Looking forward the Free Press coverage.

[SimonP]

It's really pathetic how much you want to suck Hegseth's dick.

[Reallynotbob]

Remember when conservatives had a problem with the Government "picking winners and losers"?

MAGA is not Conservative.

[Kazinski]

Thats there office space in the Pentagon, which is now going to be rotated yearly among news outlets,

They still have their credentials and can attend press briefings.

[David Nieporent]

This is the second round of this, a week or two ago, they ousted news outlets NBC News, NYT, NPR and Politico in favor of mostly jokes OANN, NYP, Breitpart, and Huffpost. Heck, even if OANN were a news outlet at all, it has about 4 viewers, so it's ludicrous to give them news space. (Why not my local PTA newsletter?)

[Life of Brian]

Where "news space" means a free government-supplied office in the Pentagon building, "ousted" means put on a rotation rather than the prior caste-based system, and "jokes" means coverage from a perspective you don't like.

Other than all that, very ominous indeed!

[David Nieporent]

"jokes" means coverage from a perspective you don't like.

No; it means they aren't newsgathering outfits at all. They don't even pretend to do journalism.

[bernard11]

Those organizations are pro-Trump propaganda mills. They are Trump's Pravda and Izvestia.

The march toward autocracy continues.

[Commenter_XY]

The Long March, bernard11?

[Bob from Ohio]

The organizations they replaced are anti-Trump propaganda mills

[David Nieporent]

There's that IKYABWAI? that MAGA loves.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The coy byplay between the press secretary and a reporter from a competing ideological news source is part of the great history and tradition of our nation especially when one of them is Jen Psaki.

[John F. Carr]

An Ohio judge ruled that a search warrant was invalid because police did not disclose that the sole source for the identification of the suspect was a photo match by Clearview. As an American tech company, Clearview disclaims accuracy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larsdaniel/2025/01/29/judge-throws-out-facial-recognition-evidence-in-murder-case/

[Krayt]

People keep saying these are just tools for police, and they should still do the footwork to manually confirm. Good. No robotic panopticons, thank you very much. It's gonna be a struggle across a hundred variations.

Many states have oulawed ticket-by-robtic camera, make the police have to get out there for their highway robber predations. No sitting on your ass collecting while robots do the work!

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

And obviously were not asked "Is the sole source?"
A lie is not the same as "I wasn't asked"

[Kenneth Almquist]

The story below discusses the contents of the affidavit used to get the search warrant. The police failed to disclose that facial recognition software was used at all.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/cleveland-police-used-ai-to-justify-a-search-warrant-it-has-derailed-a-murder-case/ar-AA1xQkp1

[John F. Carr]

According to press coverage, the Justice Department doesn't know if Trump's birthright citizenship order will become retroactive.

[Justice Department attorney Eric] Hamilton said Trump’s order is “forward looking only” and he didn’t know whether the administration has taken a position on whether it could be applied retroactively.

This was in the Boston case. Judge Sorokin has not ruled on the request for an injunction. With the order blocked by other courts there is no rush.

I see from the docket that Ed Meese is still alive. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69561497/state-of-new-jersey-v-trump/

[Stephen Lathrop]

I expect that somewhere there is a MAGAtistic advocate smart enough to help Musk/Trump understand that retroactive citizenship decisions might not go only one way.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Be careful what you ask for -- revoking Musk's citizenship would revoke his tax liability and there are nice countries (e.g. New Zealand) that sell citizenship.

[ReaderY]

New Zeeland can have him. Don’t let the door slam on your way out!

[David Nieporent]

revoking Musk's citizenship would revoke his tax liability

It would not.

[Joe_dallas]

if Musk citizenship was revoked (which is highly unlikely), he would then be a resident alien and would still be subject to US taxation on his worldwide income with the exemption some income under the various tax treaties.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not if he wasn't here.

SpaceX could easily move to Iceland, they'd love to have him.

[Joe_dallas]

As long as he is a resident in the US whether he is a citizen or a resident alien, he will be subject to US taxation on his worldwide income. If he becomes a non resident alien, then he is subject to US taxation on his US source income.

[bernard11]

Ever heard of a tax lien?

They can move their offices, or just their HQ, I suppose, though not that easily.

Physical assets are a different story, as are bank accounts and so on.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What I don't understand is why it isn't possible to get a conflicting national injunction from a friendly judge.

[not guilty]

Who would sue? Who would the defendant(s) be?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Think classic "Sue & Settle" -- a Red State AG suing Noem or Trump, seeking an order to revoke these fake citizenships.

[not guilty]

Uh, each citizen whose citizenship was sought to be revoked would be a necessary party in order to be bound by the judgment.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think you can really say that said citizens would be 'bound by the judgement'; It would be the officials doing to revoking who'd be bound, the citizens would just be parties to assure standing.

[John F. Carr]

They may not be bound by the judgment. They are affected by it. The government can unilaterally revoke passports. Revocation can be due to a new belief that the holder is not a citizen or in unusual cases on national security grounds. The passport holder has to sue to get it back. Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981), Muthana v. Pompeo 985 F.3d 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021). As I see it, Oklahoma and the Department of Justice can collusively revoke citizenship from Oklahoma resident children of aliens. If the children don't like it they can sue.

[David Nieporent]

As I see it, Oklahoma and the Department of Justice can collusively revoke citizenship from Oklahoma resident children of aliens.

Hypothetically, assume they could.¹ Even so, what would be the "nationwide injunction"?
​
​
¹They can't. (And I'm not referring to the fact that the underlying theory is legally frivolous, though of course that presents the insurmountable obstacle.) Since none of these officials play any role in granting citizenship to birthright citizens, they would not be proper defendants in any such lawsuit.

[John F. Carr]

The plaintiffs would have to draw a judge who doesn't allow pro-immigrant groups to intervene.

[David Nieporent]

Any birthright citizen who could be affected by such a ruling would be entitled to intervene as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2).

[ReaderY]

Because its illegality is so clear-cut that Trump-appointed judges have been regularly ruling against the administration.

[John F. Carr]

Biden, Reagan, and George W. Bush-appointed judges have ruled against the citizenship order. An Obama-appointed judge is considering whether to grand a fourth order.

Judge John Coughenour (Washington), Reagan: first TRO, second injunction
Judge Deborah Boardman (Maryland), Biden: first injunction
Judge Joseph N. Laplante (New Hampshire), George W. Bush: second injunction
Judge Leo T. Sorokin (Massachusetts), Obama: heard arguments Friday

I think a Trump-appointed judge did rule against a different Trump order.

[David Nieporent]

What I don't understand is

anything. Including human decency.

[Commenter_XY]

“You know, at some point, we’re gonna lose our patience.”
-- POTUS Donald J Trump 2/9/2025

Q: Does the US have legal justification to use force inside gaza?
Q: To use US military in gaza, is a use of force resolution required?

[not guilty]

No, and yes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

After 60 days -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

With nukes, it can be reduced to glowing sand in less than 60 minutes.

[Frank Drackman]

Iran wants nukes? Israel might give them a few

[Commenter_XY]

Q: Can we use US military to attempt hostage extraction (of Americans)?

[John F. Carr]

The War Powers Act gives the President 60 days of intervention without Congressional approval.

[Commenter_XY]

WPA has never been tested in court, has it?
Has a POTUS deployed troops for 61 days, and run afoul of the law?

[John F. Carr]

The courts ducked the issue when Clinton bombed former Yugoslavia. The Congressmen who sued did not have standing. Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Under later precedent the House and Senate acting together might have standing if votes of each chamber authorized legal action.

Other than that, excuses have been made. It wasn't the U.S. bombing Libya, it was NATO. The troops in Syria were on a training mission. A 2002 authorization for used of military force in Iraq authorized the assassination of Qasem Soleimani in 2020.

[Commenter_XY]

When The Donald states he is losing patience, things happen afterward.

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
A better question is "why have the IDF and ShinBet been unable to do what Mossad has done so successfully in Lebanon?"

[Commenter_XY]

There are many great unasked questions and answers, Don Nico. You've asked one. What happened to David Bornea, he was on a roll.

[zztop8970]

There were no hostages in Lebanon.

[Brett Bellmore]

How about if they use "kinetic force" instead? I don't recall that requiring congressional action.

[Dr. Ed 2]

From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli -- why was the USS Independence built?

[David Nieporent]

To fight the British?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wrong (although 14 years later she did) -- the correct answer is to fight Islamic kidnapping of US merchant ships/sailors.

[David Nieporent]

There were several ships named the USS Independence over the course of our country's history. Exactly zero of them were built to "fight Islamic kidnapping." One of them did do that — loosely speaking (it was not "Islamic" kidnapping any more than the British seizure of American sailors was "Anglican" kidnapping) — but that was not why it was built.

[Armchair]

NG,

A foreign "government" crossed an international border, and illegally seized and kidnapped citizens of the United States. There was no legal justification for seizing these citizens. These citizens had not been charges with any concrete crime against the foreign government.

Your assessment is that doesn't provide legal justification for the United States to use force, if necessary, to obtain their return?

[Martinned2]

Not unless the border in question is the US border, no.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, great, and if it were not for, oh, 200 plus years of contrary precedent, I'd agree with you on a textual basis.

[Martinned2]

You don't even know enough to know that this isn't a question of precedent. It's a question that is resolved by the international treaty that is higher in rank than all other treaties, the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
(...)
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text

[Michael P]

Great, let's ask Israel whether we should support their internal peacekeeping operations.

How much did that treaty help Tibet, Georgia or Ukraine?

[Martinned2]

It's almost as if countries with veto power in the Security Council abuse that veto to shield themselves or their allies from the consequences of their actions. Maybe we should bin the vetos?

[Don Nico]

Martin,
Please! That Law above all Laws has be violated so many times that it is not taken seriously except by pipsqueak countries.

[Martinned2]

Everybody knows that the best response to lawbreaking is to break the law some more!

[Bob from Ohio]

He meant under US domestic law, not international "law"

[Martinned2]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It's a question that is resolved by the international treaty that is higher in rank than all other treaties, the UN Charter:
...
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations...
"

Sounds resolved to me, thanks Martinned!

Nothing in here about the US border.

[Martinned2]

English is hard.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self

[TwelveInchPianist]

Especially when there's two or three words strung together:
"individual or collective self-defence"

Add that to the ambiguity about "armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations", it doesn't have to be an attack across the border, it can be an attack against emanations of the state, like embassies, ships, or even private citizens.

[Frank Drackman]

Pussy

[Krayt]

No, sorry, I cannot abide that. If they take US citizens hostage, you have every right to be violent to get their return.

It's always been an issue of practical success, not moral authority.

[Martinned2]

Might makes right, nothing bad ever came of that...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Armchair -- under the 18th Century International Laws against piracy, they don't have to be US citizens, we can act to free citizens of allies, I think anyone.

That may only be on the high seas.

[ReaderY]

I personally think Comgress has to authorize every use of military force. It can pre-authorize in a blanket fashion, and has done so. The President has had statutory authority to repulse invasions and suppress rebellions since the Founding.

So Congress could pre-authorize the President to use military force to protect Amerrican citizens abroad. But if it has not done so, the President can’t do so unless Congress authorizes its use for each and every occassion. The Constitution makes it very clear that it’s Congress’ power and Congress’ choice. Congress can take back existing pre-authorizations if it wants, despite the longevity of many of them.

[Commenter_XY]

ReaderY, suppose I agree with you. Congress, and only Congress may declare war, and authorize troops. GW Bush did that. So did his father GHW Bush.

Is a hostage rescue an allowable exigent circumstance, in your view?

[ReaderY]

I’ll double down. If Congress thinks it good policy to authorize the President to use force in exigent circumstances like a hostage rescue, it can easily do so.

I will, however say that once hostages have been taken for more than a year, the fact that a new President has a different policy on the issue than the previous President is not an exigent circumstance.

[Commenter_XY]

Fair enough. The onus is on Congress.

[Commenter_XY]

Was Pres Carter wrong to attempt the hostage rescue back in 1980?

[Bob from Ohio]

"I personally think Comgress [sic] has to authorize every use of military force. "

47 US presidents disagree.

[David Nieporent]

Most of them are dead, so they probably don't. Also, there have only been 45 presidents.

[Bob from Ohio]

45 men, 47 presidents.

[David Nieporent]

Were the other two presidents women? Dachshunds?

[Brett Bellmore]

45 men, 47 "administrations", would be a more accurate way to put it.

[Bob from Ohio]

DN is just being his usual asshole-ish self. He knows full well that Cleveland and Trump get counted twice. Its a common convention.

If I wrote 45 at first he would have come back with "no, its 47"

[Magister]

Were the other two presidents women? Dachshunds?

Well, "Putin's poodle" describes two of the 47.

Apparently FDR went to Congress six times for a declaration of war, so arguably he did not agree (I doubt anyone would have blinked at war against the last three after war was declared against the major Axis nations).

[ducksalad]

I suppose your next step is to claim "use force" obviously includes building a world class seaside resort as a penumbra or maybe an emanation.

[zztop8970]

Wrong on both counts.
There are US hostages being held in Gaza, in violation of international law, hence there is legal justification to use force there.
And under the War Powers Resolution, the President can deploy US forces on a limited basis without prior Congressional approval

[Martinned2]

There are US hostages being held in Gaza, in violation of international law, hence there is legal justification to use force there.

That doesn't follow. You can't invade a foreign country in retaliation of something illegal it - or a group of its residents - did.

[zztop8970]

You most certainly can use force to free your citizens illegally held in a foreign country. Germany's GSG-9 did it in Mogadishu, The US did it in Iran, Israel did it in Entebbe.

[Bob from Ohio]

Q: Does the US have legal justification to use force inside gaza?

Yes, kidnapping of US citizens

Q: To use US military in gaza, is a use of force resolution required?

No, the US president can order rescue or vengeance action when US citizens are taken hostage and/or murdered. Plenty of historic examples

[ReaderY]

Under the. Onstitution, legal authority to use force is provided by Congress. Congress needs no justification. It can decide not to comply with international norms and treaties if it cares to.

[Bob from Ohio]

"legal authority to use force is provided by Congress:

What words in the Constitution do this?

[Dr. Ed 2]

In what kind of a dystopian world does the Secretary of the Treasury lack the ability to do his job?

I think that the solution is to simply shut down the Treasury and announce that the Social Security checks won't go out next month unless this judge reverses himself.

And as to security clearances, revoke them and make everyone get a new one. so sorry, no EBT untill them, go riot in this judge's city.

[David Nieporent]

So, Dr. Ed's "logic" is that the Secretary of the Treasury should violate the law because… well, I don't know what he's "thinking."

[bernard11]

What are you talking about?

Who is stopping the Secretary from doing his job, as opposed to whatever illegal things he or Trump want him to do?

[Commenter_XY]

Another week, the woodchipper goes brrrrr.

Last week, USAID was sent to the woodchipper.
This week, CPFB was sent to the woodchipper.

What's the next agency that will be fed to the woodchipper?
What agency would you like to send to the woodchipper? [I nominate the IRS and I dare you to disagree!]

Here's the legal question...what's the legal argument stating this is a bureaucratic re-org in response to fiscal constraints, and not subject to APA challenge?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Does a budget deficit exist? QED....

[Kazinski]

I seriously doubt that CFPB is going in the wood chopper completely, not without legislation.

For one thing you can't legally take a mortgage application in the US unless you are registered by the CFPB in the NMLS, and also the state or work for a bank or credit union. I suppose everyone already licensed can continue business but it would have to be unwound not abolished.

And thats just one example of a CFPB regulated industry.

[Commenter_XY]

Post woodchipper, there are still chips at the end = smaller CPFB

[SRG2]

I seriously doubt that CFPB is going in the wood chopper completely, not without legislation.

Commenter_XY and the other cultists don't believe in legislation, except Enabling Legislation, when it comes to Trump.

[Commenter_XY]

Congress is free to legislate, SRG2. Nobody is stopping them.

[Martinned2]

Yes, and until it does existing legislation remains in force.

[Michael P]

The existing legislation supports what CFPB is doing.

[Martinned2]

"Shredding" the entire department? I very much doubt that.

[Michael P]

You are the only one who has said "shredding".

So far, CFPB's acting director has asked for a discretionary application of $0, planning instead to use the existing $700M+ balance to fund operations. I don't think that is comparable to what happened with USAID, so I would not say CFPB has been either "shredded" or sent to the woodchipper. Maybe the $0 request is just the first step, but it's the only thing I have seen so far.

[Michael P]

OK, I see that Bissent has also issued a broad stop-work order to ensure the agency's actions are aligned with government objectives.

That still seems entirely in line with the legislation that created CFPB, even without the Supreme Court's modification in Seila Law v. CFPB. The law gives the CFPB director almost dictator-like control and discretion over the agency.

[Martinned2]

I apologise, I misremembered Commenter's woodchipper.

[David Nieporent]

You are the only one who has said "shredding".

I mean, I guess technically "shredding" and being woodchipped are not the same thing, but… they're the same thing. So in fact Martinned isn't the only one who said it. C_XY did.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The King is ignoring whatever laws he doesn't like right now, and you dumb fucks are cheering him on.

Why should Congress bother to pass more laws he'll just deliberately violate?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Cavanaugh — Your concluding question overlooks this King's vulnerability to a weakness shared with all previous ones. No money means no power.

A more accurate assessment of the present malady is that it lies in the present incapacity of the House to resist the King. Fix that, and this King can either be forced into line, or got rid of.

It is not easy to imagine any other plan which will serve, save a contest of violence. The advantages of the former over the latter ought to be obvious.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Stephen, the #1 rule of killing the king is that you gotta kill him.

The Left tried -- and failed. And now has to deal with the consequences of that...

[David Nieporent]

Trump isn't a king, you retard.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its a metaphor, you idiot

[ducksalad]

Your concluding question overlooks this King's vulnerability to a weakness shared with all previous ones. No money means no power.

Stephen, who collects the money? Congress? No, the Department of the Treasury. Who pays out the money? Congress? No, the Department of the Treasury.

Do you not understand why Musk's kids went straight to the Department of Treasury as their first target?

[Stephen Lathrop]

ducksalad, I'm content with the notion that Congress turns off the funding tap for the collectors at the Treasury, and then the courts hold them in criminal contempt if they keep taking the money.

I think to get the actually treasonous conspiracy to full lift-off, it would take treasonous complicity by the Supreme Court. Not saying that won't happen, of course.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, did you mean to say that Congress broadly agrees with POTUS Trump and his efforts to reduce the size and scope of government?

The Congress can pass a law restraining POTUS Trump anytime they want.

[David Nieporent]

Oh, did you mean to say that Congress broadly agrees with POTUS Trump and his efforts to reduce the size and scope of government?

No, they obviously disagree, which is why Trump isn't going to them to get authority to do any of this.

[Commenter_XY]

David, if Congress obviously disagrees, where is the legislation declaring that disagreement?

[David Nieporent]

Passed years ago.

If Trump's ignoring that, what's the point of passing another law that says the same thing?

[Commenter_XY]

Perhaps you'd like to name that legislation.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's not going to them because he wants to do it today, not (Optimistically!) next year.

[bernard11]

Suddenly your great reverence for the Constitution has disappeared, now that Trump is in office and violating it ways you like.

[Brett Bellmore]

My great reverence for the Constitution and hopefully under $10 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

What the hell does MY reverence for the Constitution have to do with Trump's motivations? Were you under the impression that we were the same person?

[Commenter_XY]

Don't worry Brett, he'll get to the bargaining stage, eventually.

[Don Nico]

SRG,
As long as "Shrinking" is as good as eradication, the next authorization bill is good enough.

[SimonP]

It's really crazy to me that Kaz is the one talking sense here.

But yes, taking agencies "to the woodchipper" leaves unresolved the question of "what do we do with all of these laws and regulations that are still on the books?" You need (gasp) bureaucrats to administer and rewrite them, and that takes time if you want any changes to hold up in court.

Fascists like CXY are going to find it a lot less entertaining when his tax refund is getting held up because the IRS staff has been furloughed and Elon is fucking around with the nation's checkbook.

[Commenter_XY]

I keep any tax refund very low, why do I want to give the feds an interest-free loan? Maybe you do that, SimonP.

Your anguished wails of protest are amusing. Like Sarcastr0.

We could simply repeal and replace those laws, since no bureaucrat available to administer it.

[SimonP]

In fact, I consistently pay tens of thousands to the federal government every year, CXY, on top of my withholding. It is partly offset by the NYS-mandated interest-free loan I'm repaid every year, but it's been a hit for many years. I happen to belong to that echelon of wage earners that no one likes - Democrats view me as wealthy enough to pay ever-more taxes, while I'm not wealthy enough (or in the right ways) for Republicans to care about my tax burden.

I earn that income working in a regulated industry, meaning that my complaints aren't "anguished wails of protest," but rather reflect the difficulty that regulated industries have when the agencies aren't being administered properly. Because the rules apply to them whether there are people to enforce them or not. When the bureaucrats are not doing their job, it impacts my clients negatively: exemption requests languish, regulatory reviews are open for years at a time, requests for regulatory interpretations or letters go unanswered. There is one particular regulation in mind - recently revised by Biden - that puts a one-year clock on a compliance failure. Once the failure occurs, you have one year to work with the regulator in order to transition to a new method of compliance. If you can't resolve the issue within that year, you lose the business it relates to entirely.

Yes, repeal and replace is the way it should be done. Negotiate in Congress, go through ordinary rulemaking. That is how you are supposed to cut down on the size of government. The reason Trump is not doing that is that it is hard, and it takes time. So what he's going for instead are quick, superficial "wins" that are easy to pull off. But the consequence of that strategy is that his "reforms" will not endure, and can easily be reversed by a Democratic or competent Republican future president.

I don't know if you're too stupid to grasp this yourself, or if (given your fascist leanings) you anticipate this just being how government works from now on. But the Biden administration was a convenient demonstration that Trump's approach to government is performative and fleeting. If you really cared about any of the things you claim to care about, you'd want him to do things the right way.

[Commenter_XY]

What's the right way, SimonP? The Biden way? AYFKM?

Looks like you have a wonderful opportunity to jack up your billable hours to clients, dealing with the challenges. 🙂

[SimonP]

What's the right way, SimonP?

The legal way.

Looks like you have a wonderful opportunity to jack up your billable hours to clients, dealing with the challenges.

As I have mentioned to you fixed-income twats repeatedly, I am not the one who stands to suffer most from Trump's economy.

[Commenter_XY]

Then I wish you all success in navigating those shortened regulatory timelines, SimonP. Don't get cute with billing, esp in NYC. We've seen businessmen on NYC hauled into court for miscoding expenses. Did you know that was a felony? 🙂

[Ska]

The only individual clients who manage their tax payments worse than doctors are attorneys. But credit where it's due, they're typically underpaying all year and then catching up at extension. Of course they try to blame the tax preparer for the penalties and interest associated with that strategy, even thought it's usually one of us that shows them how to annualize their income to better mitigate those penalties.

[hobie]

I like the killing of funding to both USAID and the USDA: two of the biggest customers for American farmers. So if they dismantle the Dept. of Ag it will be a trifecta.

[windycityattorney]

In the midwest; some of MAGA's biggest supporters are legislators in midwest states. They cheered USAID's dismantling but now the phone is ringing. Apparently farmers sell lots of grains/soybeans to USAID who distributes it as food aid across the globe. Who knew they actually did perform some charity? Welp now USAID can't actually buy the product with everybody furloughed and nobody to receive it or distribute it.

I guess they didn't think this through. Farmers are tough though. They will put themselves up by their bootstraps just like Trump's last term when Chinese retaliatory tariffs hit farmers hard (oh wait, they just got bailed out by the govt). Well bailouts are kinda like bootstraps. How about we change the subject?

[SimonP]

Easy solution - just take the cash you were spending on agricultural products to send to other countries, and shovel it directly to the farmers for nothing in exchange.

[Life of Brian]

Even setting aside the fact that this seems to be a pretty clear-cut "firemen first" exercise that requires turning a blind eye to an explicit waiver for food aid, it's pretty fascinating to hear how a solitary two-bit purchaser could single-handedly dry up the commodities market.

I suspect that after the opportunistic histrionics die down, even if the USAID folks continue to refuse to follow through on their purchase contracts Big Farma will have no issue at all finding willing/able buyers for this relative drop in the bucket.

[SimonP]

It's hard to administer "food aid" when the entire agency is being shut down and its staff reduced to a skeleton crew, while the precise rules of what qualifies for the "waiver" are unclear (and the risk of violating the presidential EO being likely severe). The difficulties people are having getting even this "food aid" that Rubio supposedly waived are well-reported. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to hear it.

[Life of Brian]

It's hard to administer "food aid" when the entire agency is being shut down and its staff reduced to a skeleton crew, while the precise rules of what qualifies for the "waiver" are unclear (and the risk of violating the presidential EO being likely severe).

Well, ya know, there are two paths one could take in a situation like this: 1) actually engage and get specific answers to specific concerns so as to allay them and have a path forward to actually administer this Massively Critical Aid; or 2) throw up their hands and cry that they can't do anything anymore in the hopes that'll pressure the administration into backing off of the entire bloatfest. It's crystal clear which path they've chosen.

The difficulties people are having getting even this "food aid" that Rubio supposedly waived are well-reported.

There's not a shred of doubt in my mind that their self-reported results of their malicious compliance are "well-reported" -- that indeed is the goal of this sort of exercise. So what?

[SimonP]

I see you've taken up the habit of ascribing the results of Trump's gobsmacking incompetence to "malicious compliance," just as how every death caused by an abortion ban is chalked up to "malpractice." Never mind that it makes no sense to describe people waiting for checks to clear as engaged in it.

You should be careful, or you'll become a conspiracist like Goober.

[Life of Brian]

Well, if that's all you've got, it looks like we at least agree that 1) there are things USAID staff could do to clarify the terms of the waiver to the extent those are unclear, and 2) they're not doing that.

Secondarily, I'm puzzled why you say they're "waiting for checks to clear" when the discussion you dropped in on was about the claim that they themselves were prohibited from cutting the checks to buy the commodities.

[bernard11]

I disagree.

You're a fool.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What are the odds that SCOTUS will say no more national injunctions?

[Commenter_XY]

close to zero

[John F. Carr]

I agree. The Supreme Court should make it clear that an injunction is a last resort, not a first resort. The Supreme Court shows no sign it will do so.

[Krayt]

From what I've learned on this very site, the three key check boxes for a national injunction are:

1. Definite and immediate harm
2. Good likelihood of eventual success
3. Said problem continuing for others, and in other districts, is thus majorly wrong. Rephrase as necessary.

No need for last resort for anything, any more than cattle cars for protesters.

All three check for unilaterally changing the definition of citzenship birthright. Retroactive? It shouldn't be birthed at all!

[not guilty]

"A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

"Crafting a preliminary injunction is an exercise of discretion and judgment, often dependent as much on the equities of a given case as the substance of the legal issues it presents." Trump v. Int'l Refugee Assistance Project, 582 U.S. 571, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2087 (2017) (per curiam). Explaining why a nationwide injunction is appropriate as to the executive order purporting to deny birthright citizenship, District Judge Deborah Boardman opined:

Only a nationwide injunction will provide complete relief to the plaintiffs. ASAP has “over 680,000 members . . . who reside in all 50 U.S. states and several U.S. territories.” ECF 1, ¶ 31. ASAP expects that “[h]undreds or even thousands of ASAP members will give birth to children inthe United States over the coming weeks and months.” Id. ¶ 38. Because ASAP’s members reside in every state and hundreds of them expect to give birth soon, a nationwide injunction is the only way “to provide complete relief” to them. Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 765 (1994) (quoting Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979)).

Further, “a nationwide injunction may be appropriate when the government relies on a ‘categorical policy.’” See HIAS, [Inc. v. Trump, 985 F.3d 309, 326 (4th Cir. 2021).] The Executive Order is a categorical policy. A nationwide injunction against the categorical policy in the Executive Order is appropriate. It also is necessary because the policy concerns citizenship—a national concern that demands a uniform policy. See Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 394–95 (2012) (noting that the federal government has “constitutional power to ‘establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization’” (emphasis added) (quoting U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 4)). A nationwide injunction is appropriate and necessary.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The Ds are frantic for want of anything that looks like a practical political counter-initiative against Musk/Trump led fascism. I offer a suggestion.

One principal political weapon drives the fascist assault on American constitutionalism. It is dark money in gigantic quantities, pledged to underwrite primary challenges against any reps or senators who step out of line. Everyone understands that the Republican House and Senate are not unified by principle, but instead paralyzed by fear. To find a means to suppress that fear will go far to redress the current emergency.

The Ds need only a tiny bit of political success to turn the House their way. The house controls a money spigot powerful enough to defund MAGA fascism both generally, and in detail.

Capacity to turn that spigot off has always been bruited as the last-resort defense available to American constitutionalism. It is time to recognize the moment of last resort has arrived.

The Ds have capacity to organize dark money of their own. They can focus it all on the limited contingent of house members still politically vulnerable. Let every one of those know they can oppose fascism and oligarchy, confident that they will get more money to manage a primary challenge than will be raised against them. Prove it to them, by flooding their districts now with pro-institutionalist, pro-constitutionalism advertising, and grass roots advocacy. In at least some of those districts, that can visibly change the political climate.

Then launch a political movement to put a public face of patriotism before the voters in those districts, and nationwide. Get Liz Cheney, or some other notable politician with indisputable right-wing principles, to lead that movement. Create a forthright and open patriotic alliance among erstwhile principled Republicans, and Democrats sensible enough to forego for the sake of the nation their habitual political vices.

To over-match the political peril this nation now confronts, it will take unified patriotic politics, across the partisan spectrum, and in disregard of consideration for future advantage. Any impulse short of that will likely prove too weak, and thus too dangerous.

It is up to the Ds to recognize that, and get busy on it now.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, it is a splendid idea. Show them the way.

[Brett Bellmore]

This seems confused in detail.

"The Ds are frantic for want of anything that looks like a practical political counter-initiative against Musk/Trump led fascism."

"Fascism" is usually associated with aggressive government, not government scaling back its activities and spending.

"Everyone understands that the Republican House and Senate are not unified by principle, but instead paralyzed by fear."

Fear that they will actually face primary challengers, and that the voters, given a choice, will reject them. For politicians, fear of the electorate is the beginning of wisdom. 😉

"The house controls a money spigot powerful enough to defund MAGA fascism both generally, and in detail."

Do tell. I think you're confused here about who has been getting the "dark" money. Why do you suppose the left is freaking out? They've long been used to federal funds being laundered in their direction, year in and year out.

"Get Liz Cheney, or some other notable politician with indisputable right-wing principles, to lead that movement."

Riiiight. Get a figure widely hated on the right, and primarily known today for implacable hostility towards a President popular on the right, to win over the right...

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — A critique undermined by fatuous reliance on every point. To refute them all requires only an address of the last one. The aim is not to, "win over the right." The aim is to strip the right of enough power at its margin to make it incapable to govern—in a situation where that marginal support is not attributable to wisdom, loyalty, or even purely ideological agreement, but only to fear.

You have known all along—the knowledge is all over your commentary—that there is no national majority in support of the MAGA movement. Your frenzied support for every possible enhancement of minority rule gives your game away.

The nation confronts a situation now where a considerable minority has gone wildly wrong, and is attempting to overturn American constitutionalism, to get its way by force. Seems at times like you understand that, and number yourself among that group voluntarily. Seems at other times like you are well intentioned, befuddled, and self-deceived. In all those characteristics you example many, but lack the considered malevolence of too many.

Good luck to you, of course, but the MAGA movement has to be stopped.

[Brett Bellmore]

"To refute them all requires only an address of the last one."

Well, that's one way to concede all the rest, without admitting you're doing that.

Picking Cheney as your poster girl is a serious mistake, especially if you're trying to move people on the margin. Favorability of Liz Cheney as of 2022

She's barely more popular among independents than Republicans, only Democrats sort of liked her back in 2022, when she was still useful to them. Her endorsement of Harris didn't move the needle at all, and now even Democrats have no reason to like her.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore —I get that you hate Cheney. Her commitment to sacrifice self-interest in favor of institutionalism is what recommends her to me. Maybe the right kind of person to work across party lines in this instance. You can probably figure out I have little else in common with her politics.

Anyone else with a similar record of demonstration to principle might also serve. But to get this job done, it has to be someone demonstrably conservative. What do you think of Russell Bowers?

[Brett Bellmore]

My point is that everybody but Democrats hate Cheney, which no matter how much YOU like her, makes her a lousy pick to head up an effort to peel marginal votes away from Trump's coalition.

You'd be better off looking for somebody independents actually LIKE. Not somebody almost universally disliked.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What do you think of Russel Bowers?

[Martinned2]

My point is that everybody but Democrats hate Cheney

They did after she spoke out against Trump. But then converting cultists wasn't the point of having Cheney speak out anyway.

[Frank Drackman]

I’ve got an idea! Charge “47” with a bunch of bullshit, oh wait, you did that already. Well try this, when he golfs, all his weight goes on his back leg, cut his Achilles, he can’t go forward, he’ll quit the game!

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
You want Liz "Madwoman" Chaney and Darth Vader Dad to reinvigorate the Democrats?
Please, get a double espresso and wake up this morning

[Stephen Lathrop]

No, Nico. I don't give a fig at this point for reinvigorating Democrats. That kind of ambition is what gets in the way.

The first priority now is to protect American constitutionalism. That has to be done in a demonstrably anti-partisan way, or the risk becomes too great it will not get done at all.

If you can think of some other figure who could help get the job done, fine. I mentioned Russell Bowers to Bellmore a moment ago. Any conservative with a demonstrable history to put American institutionalism ahead of party loyalty and personal ambition would be worth considering. Got any suggestions?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Since you're LARPing against fascism, maybe get Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Of course he's dead, but so is the horse you're flogging.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Cute, but unclear. Your advice is:

Forget it, fascism triumphant in U.S.?

Or,

Don't worry, no evidence shows a fascist trend in the U.S.?

[Kazinski]

There is just one problem, people want to see cuts, lots of them especially in the bureaucracy, grants, and regulations.

And Congress is elected by the people.

If money was the decisive factor then Harris would have won, she spent at least 300 million more than Trump did on the campaign.

"What a difference four years can make.

Polls are showing Donald Trump’s early moves in office are yielding the highest approval ratings of either of his terms in the White House, a stark change from when he left office in early 2021 with the lowest support in his presidential career.

Overall, 53 percent of respondents approved of the job Trump was doing, according to a CBS News / YouGov poll conducted in early February.

Trump hits highest approval mark of either term as new poll finds America loves his policies"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-approval-rating-poll-doge-b2695056.html

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — Among the various deceptions to which people fall victim, self-deception usually proves the most persuasive.

[Frank Drackman]

Like you believing Demented Joe wasn’t Demented?

[SimonP]

No, the poll doesn't show that "America loves [Trump]'s policies." There's actually a lot of ambivalence, when you look under the hood. Also some demographic breaks that Trump-world should pay some attention to.

[Kazinski]

Well I do agree that except by recent standards 53% approval is hardly robust, but it does indicate hes on the right track and has some room to run.

[SimonP]

If by "room to run," you mean, "more work to do in order to secure the support of Black and hispanic voters, as well as those waiting for him to deliver on his promises regarding prices," sure.

The main takeaway from the poll was not surprising. He's well-liked by white, undereducated men. Everyone else is either split pretty evenly or negative on him.

[hobie]

What was dark about Musk's $250M to the Trump campaign? We all know about it. Now he gets the candy store. Who needs dark money when a Musk or Bloomberg or Addleson can just fund an entire campaign and not bat an eye?

[Commenter_XY]

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1888314848477376744

Is Elon Musk wrong?

- Require that all outgoing government payments have a payment categorization code, which is necessary in order to pass financial audits. This is frequently left blank, making audits almost impossible.

- All payments must also include a rationale for the payment in the comment field, which is currently left blank. Importantly, we are not yet applying ANY judgment to this rationale, but simply requiring that SOME attempt be made to explain the payment more than NOTHING!

- The DO-NOT-PAY list of entities known to be fraudulent or people who are dead or are probable fronts for terrorist organizations or do not match Congressional appropriations must actually be implemented and not ignored. Also, it can currently take up to a year to get on this list, which is far too long. This list should be updated at least weekly, if not daily.

I know working at BigCorp, this is a requirement, no questions asked, meaning a payment code, payment rationale, do not pay list. Our CFO won't let anything slide, LOL.

This what threatens our Constitution? Fill in an existing payment code and a reason? This is what that lunatic judge is upset about?

[Brett Bellmore]

The judge is supposedly upset about the fact that, in theory, some people who work for Musk would be in a position, just like about 100K bureaucrats, to reveal private information on individual taxpayers.

It might have made sense to enjoin doing THAT.

What's going on is that the left has long been the beneficiary of massive money laundering of tax dollars, and that flow of money is in the process of being cut off.

Like the CPUSA when the USSR stopped funding them, they're worried that they'll implode if they have to legitimately raise their own funds.

[Commenter_XY]

I am curious about the 'ex parte' aspect of the judicial process. The DOJ wasn't present to make an argument? How is that possible?

Haven't the existing bureaucrats and contractors (i.e. Littlejohn) already leaked sensitive private information for their purposes? That 'bureaucrats know best' argument is farcical.

[tylertusta]

They were present, but were at a disadvantage since they had little time to respond to the motion.

The judge let himself get stampeded into granting the TRO by being backed into a corner. We'll see if the judge uses this time to cool down.

[tylertusta]

I was mistaken- there were lots of judges and motions flying around!- but the one from Rhode Island was actually ex parte and was granted at 1AM on a Saturday.

[not guilty]

The issuance of a temporary restraining order ex parte is circumscribed by Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

(1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if:

(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and

(B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.

(2) Contents; Expiration. Every temporary restraining order issued without notice must state the date and hour it was issued; describe the injury and state why it is irreparable; state why the order was issued without notice; and be promptly filed in the clerk's office and entered in the record. The order expires at the time after entry—not to exceed 14 days—that the court sets, unless before that time the court, for good cause, extends it for a like period or the adverse party consents to a longer extension. The reasons for an extension must be entered in the record.

(3) Expediting the Preliminary-Injunction Hearing. If the order is issued without notice, the motion for a preliminary injunction must be set for hearing at the earliest possible time, taking precedence over all other matters except hearings on older matters of the same character. At the hearing, the party who obtained the order must proceed with the motion; if the party does not, the court must dissolve the order.

IOW a TRO should issue without notice only where some kind of threatened harm will occur before the opposing party can be heard, and a hearing must thereupon be scheduled very quickly. At the hearing the movant must again show why injunctive relief is necessary, with the benefit of adversarial testing of the evidence.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Shakespeare was right...

[David Nieporent]

Once again, you retard: Shakespeare didn't say it.

[Don Nico]

Thank you, ng. I'll be happy to make your Cappuccino this morning.

[Commenter_XY]

This was an excellent explainer! Thank you!

[not guilty]

A District Judge in Rhode Island has found that the White House has defied his temporary restraining order which prohibits all categorical pauses or freezes in obligations or disbursements based on an OMB Directive or based on the President’s 2025 Executive Orders.to release billions of dollars in federal grants. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.58912/gov.uscourts.rid.58912.96.0_5.pdf The plaintiff states had not sought contempt sanctions. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.58912/gov.uscourts.rid.58912.66.0.pdf

The Trump administration seems determined to take a blowtorch to the rule of law. As the District Judge here opined:

It is a basic proposition that all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly. * * * Persons who make private determinations of the law and refuse to obey an order generally risk criminal contempt even if the order is ultimately ruled incorrect. The orderly and expeditious administration of justice by the courts requires that an order issued by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and person must be obeyed by the parties until it is reversed by orderly and proper proceedings.

Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 458–59 (1975) (citations and quotations omitted) (emphasis supplied by District Court).

That principle holds true even where an injunction itself would also unquestionably be subject to substantial constitutional question. The way to raise that question is to apply to the trial court and, if necessary, the appellate courts to have the injunction modified or dissolved. Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 317 (1967).

[Riva]

There was zero emergency justifying an ex parte order (it issued at 1am on Saturday.). And the order itself, which insulates civil servants from executive supervision BY THE PRESIDENT and his political appointees, is so outrageous that it will be dissolved, sometime later today I suspect. I would like to see some sanctions here and some accountability. This gross abuse of judicial power merits some review.

[David Nieporent]

I would like to see some sanctions here and some accountability

Me too; hopefully Musk will be 'fired' from his fake government job and Trump will be removed from office.

[Sarcastr0]

Money laundering isn’t spending money in stuff you personally don’t like.

[Michael P]

An argument isn't making one arbitrary statement. You haven't made an argument. You seldom can make one that works. Presumably the same continues to be true here.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett used a word wrong, dramatically wrong,

There is no money laundering going on.

I don’t know what your ‘that is not an argument’ is trying, but you are failing at it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is money laundering at ED...

[Michael P]

Brett used a word to encompass more than its definition in criminal law.

If you want an example of someone using a word "dramatically wrong", see below, where someone tried to define "totalitarian" to mean "ignoring [lots of] laws".

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I get he wasn't invoking the law. Words still mean things.

Not that he backed up any kind of use, he just invoked it.

Which you didn't ding him on, you're just mad I pointed it out.

And yeah, ignoring a branch of Congress' activities is totalitarian. Do you need me to go into why that's the case?

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, please do = And yeah, ignoring a branch of Congress' activities is totalitarian. Do you need me to go into why that's the case?

[David Nieporent]

Brett used a word to encompass more than its definition in criminal law.

He used a word to mean something it doesn't mean. The essence of money laundering, leaving aside the criminal definition, is concealing the source of money. (For it to be criminal, that source would have to be illegal in some way.) Nobody is concealing anything here.

If you want an example of someone using a word "dramatically wrong", see below, where someone tried to define "totalitarian" to mean "ignoring [lots of] laws".

Would you prefer authoritarian? It would be more accurate, I suppose, but wouldn't really change the point.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're getting money from Point A (The taxpayer.) to Point C-Z, the left wing group.

From the taxpayer's perspective, they're concealing the destination, from the left wing group's perspective, the source.

[David Nieporent]

From the taxpayer's perspective, they're concealing the destination,

They are not. They report every single such destination publicly.

[Kazinski]

Sure, and its a good thing Musk has the computing power to track it through the network.

But there should be a simple rule: If it starts at A and ends at Z, and we don't want Z funded, then A doesn't get funded anymore.

And as we discussed the other day, Arizona Save Our Schools is on the Z list.

[tylertusta]

Yes, just like when people talk about the rich buying elections.

[SRG2]

Just because Musk may be right on one thing doesn't make him right on everything.

[Mr. Bumble]

What's your point Capt. Obvious?

[Commenter_XY]

Agree = Musk is right here, and won't be right on everything (POTUS Trump has said as much)

Some of this stuff is basic 'no brainer' stuff I can't believe we let slide. It really makes you wonder how we even accurately estimate what we spend money on = no pmt code.

[SimonP]

So Elon is conceding that his telling his followers that he's uncovered all this waste and fraud was based on nothing at all?

You want to add codes to the systems, go for it. See how easy it is. Learn the hard way why things ended up being done a different way. Just think it through a bit:

"No payment goes through without these fields completed." Okay, so someone at Treasury kicks the request back to the relevant department. Someone sitting over at the department needs to supply the relevant information. According to what standard? Well, I guess there's going to have to be a set of code guidelines. Will different agencies have their own guidelines? Hm, maybe we need OMB to coordinate a single uniform guideline. That takes a few months to pull together. In the meantime, ah, do your best. Oh, the person who would ordinarily do it has been furloughed? Kick it up to their supervisor. Supervisor's overwhelmed. Hey, that vendor is wondering when their check's going to clear, the government's already a couple weeks past due. Another service provider isn't permitted to hold a rainy-day fund, so they have to layoff their employees if their check doesn't clear. The supervisor's having a tough time because the requests keep coming in, and their efficiency just took a hit because they have to sit on the Metro to get into the office very day. Yeah, the same transit system that the DOT is defunding. And on and on it goes.

Move fast and break things! The government might collapse in on itself while we block everything to study and fix them, but once we put it all back together, it'll be an efficient machine! Just in time for the 2028 elections!

[Reallynotbob]

It's the OCP theory of law enforcement. Trash Detroit so we can sell ED-209s.

[David Nieporent]

Is Elon Musk wrong?

Those things sound fine in the abstract. Since none of us are familiar with the actual payment process, though, we don't know why things are done the way they are and whether those make sense in this context.

I keep coming back to the 2020 election where the Kraken team breathlessly put in an affidavit from some rando johnny-come-lately observer saying, "I saw them bring in boxes of ballots to be counted and I heard them order the poll workers to count them without verifying whether those ballots were legitimate," which sounds totally crazy — if you didn't know that the verifications were done already, before the ballots were brought to the counting center.

This what threatens our Constitution? Fill in an existing payment code and a reason? This is what that lunatic judge is upset about?

No.

[SRG2]

This old article is worth resurrecting:

Fake news website created to test Donald Trump supporters' gullibility - Reveals they will believe anything

[Commenter_XY]

That pales in comparison to people like yourself telling us the cauliflower was 'sharp as a tack'. You put the entire country at risk. Who really is the gullible one?

[SRG2]

I never made any positive claikms about Biden's cognitive abilities. You lied about this before and you're lying again - and if you weasel out by saying, "I didn't mean you specifically, only people like you", well, no-one else here is like me, so that doesn't fly either.

[David Nieporent]

no-one else here is like me,

What about SRG1?

[SRG2]

LOL. I retired that one after the spoofing.

[Bob from Ohio]

Oh, a Trump voters are stupid article. How original!

[SRG2]

Not stupid. Credulous, gullible, uncritical, yes - as is so often demonstrated here. but the article does provide evidentiary backing.

[Kazinski]

Hardly unique among Trump voters.

As HL Mencken once observed:

"No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby. The mistake that is made always runs the other way. Because the plain people are able to speak and understand, and even, in many cases, to read and write, it is assumed that they have ideas in their heads, and an appetite for more. This assumption is a folly."

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Now the Founders started from what is right and then examined the law. Knowing both proceed from natural law it follows they must concur if both are rightly understood. Why does the general populace no longer follow the law? Because it is case law, no principles , no hierarchy, nothing that appeals to the intelligence of a non-lawyer.

[Martinned2]

Here's a question: What is supposed to happen to the penny? If the US government is going to stop making them, how are retailers supposed to get their hands on exact change?

I don't mind getting rid of the penny. The Dutch got rid of 1- and 2-cent coins in 1980, and again shortly after the introduction of the Euro in 2002. But both times that came with a legal rule that allowed retailers to round the amount payable to the nearest multiple of 5 cents. If customers can still insist on getting a cent back if they give the retailer $2 cash when they owe $1.99, it seems like the government should make sure there are enough pennies in circulation to do that.

[Martinned2]

Sorry, I forgot to include a link to the underlying story: https://apnews.com/article/trump-penny-treasury-mint-192e3b9ad9891d50e7014997653051ba

[Mr. Bumble]

Seriously? This is your concern this morning?

[Martinned2]

This is not the place for a sensible conversation about (other) things that are wrong in the US. So I thought I'd ask people about the penny. I figured all the retirees who dwell here might have strong opinions on this issue.

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot to add "a penny for your thoughts".

[John F. Carr]

He had to go spend a penny before he finished typing.

[Stephen Lathrop]

My strong opinion is that the last of the bronze pennies were the last of the many artistic successes in the history of American coinage thus far. From time to time, well-struck examples of those bronze pennies are still to be found in circulation. Everything else has come closer to an intentional policy to cheapen respect for American currency.

The right solution to the penny problem might be to re-denominate the dollar, to make it equal to 2O new cents, and then issue bronze new-cent pennies, nominally worth five of the old ones. That would at least get the corroded zinc out of our pockets.

[ThePublius]

Interesting, Stephen. This prompted me to do a little research on the composition of the cent, and it turns out pennies were only bronze from 1947 through 1962. There's actually a wide variety of alloys in the history of the U.S. penny, most of them having been mostly copper (including the bronze ones, of course).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_(United_States_coin)

I don't understand this statement:

"Everything else has come closer to an intentional policy to cheapen respect for American currency."

Can you please elaborate?

[Stephen Lathrop]

It was about the way bad aesthetics undermine credibility generally.

Boston put up a city hall with particularly ugly brutalist architecture, impractical use of space, and terrible interior acoustics everywhere. It has proved a continual drag on both users' morale, and Boston's prestige. As a city hall, it is sort of an aesthetic anti-equivalent to the 1908 $20.00 No Motto St. Gaudens Double Eagle.

[David Nieporent]

I find it hard to believe that anyone on the planet thinks one bit less of Boston because of the architecture of its city hall.

[Commenter_XY]

The Big Dig made me think less of Boston, but not the ugly city hall.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I believe the term you’re looking for is “libel proof”.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — My guess, that means you have never tried to do business in it. Unsurprisingly, there are many thousands who have done that. Just taking the 60-or-so I know personally, it's close to certain not one of them thinks it was anything but municipal idiocy to build that monstrosity.

It isn't just the ugliness, or even mainly the ugliness. About that tastes can differ. It's about how much functionality had to be tortured out of the structure to achieve the ugliness.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I take it you’re a fan of Trump’s executive order of civic architecture then?

[Commenter_XY]

What is supposed to happen to the penny?

The penny will be a numismatic collector's item. On display in museums a century from now. 😉

[Frank Drackman]

Theres bullions and bullions (ht C Sagan) of Pennies out there, we just need a really big “Needa Penny/Takea Penny” Jar

[Mr. Bumble]

Estimated to be 140 billion.

[defaultdotxbe]

I suspect in cases like your example, in the interests of expedience and customer satisfaction, most businesses will simply round down to $1.95 and give a nickel in change.

[Martinned2]

That sounds plausible, but it also sounds like a plausible reason why large retailers with lots of (small) cash transactions might lobby Congress for the right to round up if the amount payable ends in a 3, 4, 8, or 9.

[Mr. Bumble]

Isn't that what rounding entails?
Of course no matter the retailers price you then have to add sales tax where it is charged, which again might result in pennies being needed or rounding that number (and the state would always round up, never down).

[Martinned2]

I'd imagine that retailers would like to have the option of continuing the use of psychological pricing, without the need to work backwards from the sales tax to make the final price a multiple of five cents.

Of course, they could also do what every other country does and use price tags where the sales tax is already included, but that's a whole separate discussion.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, we prefer to avoid that, so that the tax is more in your face, instead of being hidden.

[Martinned2]

Do "we"?

[Don Nico]

"use price tags where the sales tax is already included"
Bravo! That would make very good sense and would doing the like at restaurants.

[Brett Bellmore]

Here in America we're taught specific rounding rules in elementary school; 0-4 becomes 0, and 5-9 becomes 10. Stores departing from this universal rule taught in childhood would face some serious PR problems with customers who already know how rounding works.

They'd be far better off just legitimately rounding to the nearest nickel or dime, or buy some good will by either uniformly rounding down, or rounding up and donating the difference to charity.

After all, they can adjust their prices as necessary to make it work out for them.

[Martinned2]

After all, they can adjust their prices as necessary to make it work out for them.

Only if they can somehow make all post-tax prices of products come out to a multiple of 5 cents, and even then a combination of products might still turn out differently, depending on how you apply the tax. (Add first and then add tax, or add tax, then round, then add the products together?)

[Brett Bellmore]

On average, I obviously meant, not on every individual transaction.

The store doesn't need it to work out for them on every transaction, just at the end of the day.

[Kazinski]

But that's a minor problem because 99% of items are priced ending in x.99 cents.

[ThePublius]

Yea, and gas is priced to the tenth of a cent! When are they going to cut that out?

[SRG2]

And then the legislation as passed allows rounding from 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9...

[Brett Bellmore]

How do stores currently handle cases where computing the exact tax on a price leads to a bottom line with fractional cents? By rounding, of course.

A sensible store would just advertise that they rounded all final charges down to the nearest nickel.

Honestly, getting rid of the penny would be great, they're not even copper anymore, so you can't even use them as metal when you have something small you want to cast in bronze!

[Michael P]

My local gas station has a few cashiers who round to the nearest nickel without explicit warning (only prior experience). I would rather have a clear statement that it will happen, and consistency, but the rounding itself doesn't bother me.

[Mr. Bumble]

Several scrap yards I have used round to the nearest dollar to avoid having to use any change.

[Frank Drackman]

Monster Joe's Truck and Tow? I love those guys, always helpful with getting rid of umm, "junk"

[Moderation4ever]

Canada doesn't have pennies. Shopping there was not a hassle for me or for others as long as people understand that in the long run the round up, round down evens out. Life is too short to worry about being cheated out of a penny.

[Drewski]

C

[Mr. Bumble]

While we're at it maybe 1/2 dollars, dollar coins and two dollar bills should also be eliminated.

[ThePublius]

Why not just design and produce a cost-reduced penny? One that costs 1/2¢ to make and distribute.

I wonder, where's the cost in making and distributing a penny? How much is material cost, manufacturing cost, distribution?

It also occurs to me that the cost of producing pennies may be related to the U.S. mint just not being very efficient at production, and having zero competition. Can you imagine outsourcing penny manufacture? To China or India? Ha, ha.

For reference, there's 3.15¢ worth of copper at today's spot price in a copper penny (not today's pennies). I wonder if scrap metal dealers are collecting up copper pennies? It would probably be illegal to scrap them, but these guys are not known for their 'integrity,' shall we say.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's already zinc with a facing layer of copper. They can't make it much cheaper without switching to plastic.

But key point is that pennies are no longer actually being USED, their value is so low after all this inflation. They're so low in value that people don't even bend over to pick them up off the sidewalk!

Because of that, they're no longer serving any purpose as a currency.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...their value is so low after all this inflation."
Bingo!
Inflation, is there anything it can't do?

[Moderation4ever]

Pennies were obsolete years ago. Canada stopped making them in 2012 and that was probably later than they should have stopped. In the US discuss of the penny go back years and likely to the last millennial.

[Mr. Bumble]

The idea of getting rid of pennies was mostly based on the price of copper. Up until the mid 1960's copper was less than $.50 per pound. It then began to rise and fall over the decades peaking at over a dollar in the early 70's, dropping and then peaking again in the late 70's which led to the mint discontinuing the use of copper after 1980.

[Frank Drackman]

Navy Fed used to have these machines you could dump all your change into and it went straight to your account, then when they broke down, got rid of them, didn't make any money for them

[Kazinski]

Its not just the cost of making an distribting pennies, its the cost and bother of keeping them an managing them.

I only use cards and don't carry cash so i don't have to deal with change. And when i do get some change it goes in a jar and I seldom interact with it again.

Which is a major factor in why the Mint has to constantly refresh the penny supply.

I won't miss the penny and I suspect I am not alone.

[ThePublius]

I think there would have to be a federal regulation about rounding. I can imagine businesses would do it differently, and that could lead to confusion and allow for profiteering.

Of course, electronic transactions are not affected.

[David Nieporent]

Of course, electronic transactions are not affected.

But that would mean charging different amounts for cash and credit. The bill for the milk, bread, and cheerios at the convenience store comes to $7.31. If you charge/apple pay/etc., it's $7.31; if you pay cash it's either $7.30 or $7.35.

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot the 3% "service fee" many retailers are adding.

[ThePublius]

That's illegal in Massachusetts ('though some stores still do it).

[ThePublius]

That's how it's currently done in Canada, and I think also in Australia, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

In your example, cash would be $7.30, electronic $7.31.

See the doc I linked, below.

[David Nieporent]

Which is fine, but that means POS systems need to be changed.

Gas stations have charged different prices for cash and credit for decades, and as Mr. Bumble notes some retailers charge a service fee of some sort for credit (though I think he overstates it when he says "many"), but those are fixed percentages, whereas this would vary per transaction.

[ThePublius]

"but that means POS systems need to be changed."

That's pretty easy. Even 40+ years ago electronic cash registers were programmable for such things.

[Martinned2]

Yes, that's the Dutch rule. If the amount comes to €7,31, paying cash is a cent cheaper.

[ThePublius]

Thinking about this some more, despite the fact that Canada stopped minting pennies in 2012 they are still legal tender. And, I imagine, still in use. Pennies, or coins in general, last a long time. The problem with pennies is that people throw them in jars - kind of like passive hoarding - thus taking them out of circulation. Or, they even throw them away. (I always pick up pennies, out of principal.)

I wonder what the end game looks like if we just stop minting them? Can any Canadians on here comment?

[ThePublius]

Ah, found this excellent document:
https://www.budget.canada.ca/2012/themes/theme2-eng.pdf
Eliminating the Penny from the government of Canada.

[Martinned2]

Yes, I would think that the number of pennies in circulation gradually declines as they are lost, put in jars, or taken back by the central bank because they've worn out too much. Which would gradually make it harder for retailers to make sure they have enough pennies to satisfy customers who want exact change.

[Krayt]

Other countries have dumped their pennies before. I assume there's extant math of what to do.

I hate to see pennies go, but it's been six months since I even used cash, and that was to get a steep discount at a pizza place.

It's been 50 years since you could even buy something for a penny, besides novelty loss leaders, and that was a single gumball from a gumball machine. And that even changed to 2 pennies while I was still a kid.

[Krayt]

I seem to remember a stumbling block for dollar coin acceptance, that there were not enough trays in a hundred million cash registers for dollar coins as well. This should free up a tray, fwiw in a new cashless society.

Also there are about $450 million Susan B. Anthony dollars sitting in warehouses, Ark of the Covenant style, that are still legal tender, as the government doesn't wanna subtract $450 million from the treasury the same way they so glibly added that amount decades ago. So maybe they'll be rescued back into service. Or maybe not, see above.

[ThePublius]

"I hate to see pennies go, but it's been six months since I even used cash, and that was to get a steep discount at a pizza place."

I use cash at the local pizza place, but I round up to the nearest dollar by chucking the change into the tip jar. There's also a nearby gas station whose price is much lower than anyone else nearby, but for cash. I don't use it, maybe I should, but it's a pain, as you have to go in and pay for what you think it will be, maybe go back for your change if you overpaid, maybe not get a full tank if you underpaid....so sometimes I just go to the only full service place I know and sit in the car and pay much more per gallon, especially if it's 10º F out, like today. 🙂

I don't want cash to go away. I am saddened by the impending demise of the penny.

I wonder, though, of the relationship of the cost to produce currency vs. the value of the currency vs. the intrinsic value of the currency, i.e., the metal value. Is it really significant that it costs more than a penny to mint a penny? Let's say that we went back to copper pennies, and it cost 6¢ to mint a copper penny. So what? I mean, it's just a token. What would be the economic impact of doing this? Would metal scrappers scrapping pennies for their copper value, about 3¢, be a major factor? Where do all the pennies go now? Why does the mint have to produce so many? So many questions.... 🙂

[David Nieporent]

so sometimes I just go to the only full service place I know

We like to call it "New Jersey."

[ThePublius]

Yes! Isn''t that crazy? Also, there is at least one town in MA, Milford, I think, where you can't pump your own. And many towns require that the thing that holds the handle to fill be removed, requiring you to stand there to pump.

[Stephen Lathrop]

An apology to Orin Kerr.

Years ago, before the WaPo days, I was banned briefly from this blog. Not for the only time, but that time by Orin Kerr (Orin Kerr!).

My offense had been to attempt on somewhat theoretical grounds to demonstrate that Kerr's third-party doctrine had an unfortunate fascist-leaning tendency. And I used that word, "fascist," advisedly, not as an epithet. That was too much for Kerr.

We communicated. He explained first that I had violated a principle that this blog, published world-wide, was in fact governed by rules appropriate to a dinner party. I thought that was ridiculous, but saw no advantage to press the point.

Kerr went on, however, to insist that it was all but impossible to use the term, "fascist," constructively, because no matter what the intention, it would be read as an empty epithet. I thought that over, and decided Kerr was wise.

Since then, I have followed a practice mostly to avoid using, "fascism," and instead contented myself by writing around that obstacle, to detail whatever points I thought were in play that might invoke that term, but without using it. That worked admirably. It improved my writing. I decided Kerr was very wise.

Alas, under present political circumstances, what proved wise before, has become anything but. It has become circumlocution in its least justifiable sense. I conclude today's American fascism must be recognized and named outright, at least by me. I refuse to be numbered among the host of frightened and confused observers who are everyday in public falling short, as they too-politely attempt to describe the peril which lies ahead in this nation's present political tendency.

So Professor Kerr, thank you for your wise former advice. It did me good. But I wonder, do you still insist on it now, in today's political context?

[Martinned2]

Sometimes the inevitable argument about semantics is more trouble than it's worth, but I don't think fascist is a term like "woke" and "neoliberal", which are only used disparagingly without any attempt at coherent definition.

I'm not sure that Trumpism, or other countries' present-day far right movements, necessarily tick all the boxes in a reasonable definition of fascism, but they tick many: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

[Michael P]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke

You could at least make an argument that holds s little water. (I didn't try to find a definition for "neoliberal" because I don't see it used as an epithet often enough to think it's a relevant term.)

[Martinned2]

Do those definitions sound like they have any correspondence to how you and your ilk use the word "woke"?

[Michael P]

Absolutely. Contrast with, say the EB definition of fascism that you linked to, which specifically excludes post-1945 movements and parties, or the Merriam-Webster definition of it:

a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition

Well, Trump's administration is populist, at least. I think you have to agree it doesn't tick "many" of the others.

[Martinned2]

Which elements in that MW definition do you think Trump doesn't tick?

- exalts the nation: Check
- exalts the (white) race: Check
- above the individual: Check
- centralised autocratic government: Check
- dictatorial leader: Check
- severe economic regimentation: Let's see
- severe social regimentation: Check
- forcible suppression of opposition: Not yet

Every single one is at least an aspiration. Otherwise it's mostly a matter of degree. (As in: Does Trump go far enough on each point for it to count?)

[Brett Bellmore]

"exalts the nation:" Check, but normally expected of every political party. Americans are not big into national self-hate.

"exalts the (white) race" Uncheck!

" above the individual:" Uncheck!

" centralised autocratic government:" Uncheck!

"- dictatorial leader:" Uncheck!

"- severe economic regimentation: " Uncheck!

"- severe social regimentation:" Uncheck!

"- forcible suppression of opposition: " Uncheck, and you admit it.

Look, putting a "check!" after each of these things doesn't constitute evidence they're actually happening!

[David Nieporent]

"exalts the nation:" Check, but normally expected of every political party. Americans are not big into national self-hate.

Trump is! He exalts a mythical past for the nation, while hating the actual nation. Which is very fascist.

[Michael P]

By that definition, Beijing's government of China "is very fascist", right? Or at least does "very fascist" things?

You people are using really awful definitions in attempts to smear Trump with a label that fits him very poorly.

[Martinned2]

You could definitely make a strong case that China is more fascist than Trump. I ticks pretty much all of the above-mentioned boxes more than he does. But I'm not sure that tells you very much about either the workability of the label or about Trump.

[Michael P]

What Brett said, except you can't split "exalts the nation [] above the individual". There's no verb in "above the individual", and taking "exalts the nation" alone just means that one rejects the idea that shithole countries and foreign authoritarian regimes should get to dictate domestic policy -- not that one is any degree of fascist.

"Dictatorial leader" is the closest to being arguable, but that's only because Clinton, Bush II, Obama and Biden all pushed the presidency a long way in that direction.

The closest the US has to "severe social regimentation" is social media censorship and identitarian policies like DEI. Those were backed by Democrats, and one of Trump's major policy goals is to abolish those. He's much more anti-fascist than fascist on that front.

He's also more anti-fascist than fascist on exalting the nation over the individual, centralizing the government, economic regimentation and forcible suppression of opposition.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is that Trump doesn't tick the IMPORTANT boxes, just the cosmetic ones. And only those in the view of his enemies.

"Originally, it referred to a totalitarian political movement linked with corporatism"

This is the definition I still use, because it's the most objective, and makes clear why 'fascism' is objectionable, (It's totalitarian!) and different from 'communism'. (Which is also totalitarian.) It's a totalitarian form of socialism which allows the owners of the means of production to retain that ownership, so long as they do with it whatever the government demands, on the principle that they already know how to run it.

This differs from communism in that communism insists on the government taking control of the means of production, not just ordering about the original owners. And not in much else.

You go through the dictionary definitions listed there, and Trump's MAGA fails every one, simply by virtue of not being totalitarian, and wanting to reduce the reach of government.

[Martinned2]

I wish I could have rose-tinted glasses of the strength necessary to believe that Trump isn't totalitarian. That must be some kind of industrial-strength prescription you've got there.

[Brett Bellmore]

Have you ever considered that, just maybe, you're the one wearing tinted glasses? You might want to think about that.

What's he done so far that qualifies as totalitarian?

[Sarcastr0]

What's he done so far that qualifies as totalitarian?

He's ignoring laws, Brett. Lots of laws.

Privacy laws, enabling acts, appropriation laws, program authorizations, civil service protections. Probably others.

You keep saying it's all plans to challenge the laws in court. But the evidence looks a lot more like not caring about the law and just pushing to see when he's told no.

Not to mention the open targeted revenge on people who he were just doing their jobs.
All the good totalitarians got that chilling effect going on.

[Michael P]

"Ignoring laws" is not what "totalitarian" means. At all. Unless you want to cast Obama's line about having a pen and a phone as totalitarian.

[Sarcastr0]

We have 3 branches of government.

Totalitarian governments have one.

Thus, the executive ignoring the laws passed by Congress, one of the 3 branches of government, is indeed totalitarian.

Obama's line was that he'd use EOs. He did nothing like the raft of lawlessness Trump has done.

Now come the courts. We'll see if he ignores them too.

[tylertusta]

You can have a totalitarian government that is also a democracy with separate branches of government. It's less common but it still happens.

A government is totalitarian when it dominates every facet of your life and the whole nation's economy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That makes him an anarchist, not a fascist.

[tylertusta]

He's ignoring laws, Brett. Lots of laws.

That does not make someone totalitarian.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/totalitarian

You're falling into the same mental sinkhole that martinned has: you're throwing insults around without nary a care on whether they're accurate or not.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0 and people like him are having an extended case of the vapors. They have no idea what it is like to live under a totalitarian govt.

[tylertusta]

Their hyperbole is of the same magnitude of which that they assured us was evidence of insurrection, sedition, obstruction of Congress, violation of civil rights, etc.

It's like they don't even read what they write before they type it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, 'totalitarian' has a definition, and it's not "Refusing to spend appropriated funds".

[tylertusta]

And in the case of the CFPB, the funds not spent weren't even appropriated.

[Michael P]

I was today years old when I learned that opposing the hiring of 80,000+ tax inspectors is "severe economic regimentation" and proves one is totalitarian.

[Sarcastr0]

It does have a definition, and Trump just ignoring checks on his power is absolutely within that definition.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Blatant strawman.

The kind one expects from a liar like you.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What's he done so far that qualifies as totalitarian?

Bellmore — From government departments which exercise actual force, Trump has systematically purged leaders who he judges might place constitutional loyalty and oath-keeping ahead of personal loyalty to Trump. It could be Trump's intention is only to remove impediments to his own corruption. But his unprecedented purge opens the door wide to totalitarian use of violence.

There is no reason to wait for a president who has already done that to make use of the tyrannical capacity it enables. The constitution was structured to prevent it, for good reason.

I do not intend to engage word games based on pretense that commonplace insights you already understand are actually Orwellian secret plots. Anti-racism is not the real racism. The real racism is what Trump practices, and what MAGA wants.

Blacks, most of all, are the real targets. If they remain docile while targeted, Trump may choose not to inflict the violence he is arranging, and which he has repeatedly warned he will use. Or he may inflict it.

Trump intends ongoing violence against Hispanics to deliver his threats to any who oppose him, whatever their places in society. That is why Trump insists that violence be publicized beyond the extent it has yet been practiced.

If you do not see the pardon of self-confessed violent J6 leaders as an intended threat of violence against anyone who dares prominent political opposition, then your mind is broken.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you need to review the meaning of the word "totalitarian".

From Wikipedia:

"Totalitarianism is a political system and a form of government that prohibits opposition from political parties, disregards and outlaws the political claims of individual and group opposition to the state, and completely controls the public sphere and the private sphere of society."

Trump is actually trying to reduce the scope of government, this alone is enough to immunize him against any charge of being a totalitarian.

He IS attempting to centralize all power in the executive branch in his own hands. But without an effort to expand the sum of that power, that's not totalitarian.

[Sarcastr0]

He IS attempting to centralize all power in the executive branch in his own hands.
Also the legislative branch.

And maybe the judicial too.

[ThePublius]

No. The judicial branch, via a small cadre of federal judges, and a bunch of legislators, are trying to usurp the executive branch's authority and prerogatives. If he fights back, that's totalitarianism?

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that's totalitarianism, yeah.

One branch usurping the authority of another so there are no checks on their power that THEY don't consent to.

You fucking totalitarian.

[David Nieporent]

The executive branch's authority and prerogative is to do what the legislature tells it to do.

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, no, that's not "totalitarian". "Totalitarian" refers to government that doesn't accept that there is anything outside it's authority, not to how said authority is distributed within the government.

[ThePublius]

I'm just flabbergasted. Do you sincerely believe what you're written, Stephen? Violence against black, against Hispanics? Really? When has he suggested, intimated, implied this?

Of all the baseless, inflammatory rhetoric - wow! Truly deranged, and borderline irresponsible.

I'd like to see you back up what you've said with facts, with examples.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ThePublius — Sorry, but I haven't got the time to try to re-educate people whose media choices range downward from Fox. All you guys have trouble distinguishing political partisanship in news coverage from the factual quality of what gets covered.

NYT, CNN, MSNBC are all biased against Trump and MAGA. But they bring to their partisan attacks evidence featuring verifiable provenance. Your commentary makes it obvious you have not seen that evidence. Give it a month trying and get back to me. You don't yet know what you are talking about.

[Kazinski]

And yet shared by about half the country, who thought Biden was at least as big of a threat to democracy as Trump supposedly is.

The interesting thing is by the above definitions the Biden Administration's (and UK and EU) attempt to control what was allowed on Social Media by coercive "cooperation" with social media companies fits fascism to a T.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned2, I think that historians—after decades of struggle with an eye to define fascism—decided that it has been too variously practiced to permit a definition strong enough to apply alike to particular instances. Fascism seems more a protean tendency than a political philosophy.

But it is a tendency all too common in practice. Recognizable features include opportunism, demagoguery, demands for unchecked administrative power embodied in either one person or a few, and dangerously divisive social impositions—all effectuated with ungoverned violence.

Whether or not fascism is fundamentally anti-institutional remains one of the more-ambiguous historical questions. For instance, it can seem reasonable to distinguish religiously-founded fascism from anti-religious fascism on that basis.

[David Nieporent]

Sometimes the inevitable argument about semantics is more trouble than it's worth, but I don't think fascist is a term like "woke" and "neoliberal", which are only used disparagingly without any attempt at coherent definition.

"The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’."

-- George Orwell, 1946.

[Martinned2]

Not the first time Orwell was wrong, or the last.

[David Nieporent]

What was the last?

[Frank Drackman]

Shoulda banned you for blathering on and on, contributing to the (fake) Global Warming, those 1’s and 0’s don’t come from magic dust, some Oil/Natural gas is getting burned somewhere. And have a point once in a while, makes it so much nicer for the reader

[ThePublius]

Stephen, I noted your use of the terms fascism and fascist in an earlier post today, and it struck a nerve. Perhaps we need a new term for the Trump and MAGA movement, as I don't fascist is useful or even accurate. Note that fascism arose, i.e., was invented by Mussolini and his cohort, and was a phenomenon that sprung from Italian communism, i.e., a phenomenon of the left.

"According to A. James Gregor, Mussolini came to believe that "Fascism was the only form of 'socialism' appropriate to the proletarian nations of the twentieth century" while he was in the process of shifting his views from socialism to nationalism."
(via wikipedia)

Trump and MAGA are anything but socialism. In fact, it is in most cases in opposition to socialism, to statism. It drives towards smaller government, lower taxes, and as is most recently apparent, in uncovering and stopping the flow of public funds through complex, obfuscated channels, to political and press organizations who support liberal, progressive, and Democratic party causes; e.g. USAID. It seeks to stop what many Americans see as ridiculous wastes of public funds on whacky projects all around the world, and in so doing, stop the siphoning of funds to leftist political causes (and likely politicians; one must assume there's a high degree of corruption invilved in all of this). That's not fascism.

[David Nieporent]

Trump and MAGA are anything but socialism.

No, they are very socialist; if you got rid of all the social stuff they'd be on the Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders side of the economic spectrum. (I'm not the only one who has noted that; Trump bootlickers like Tucker Carlson have made similar observations.)

[ThePublius]

Well, give me an example of a socialist thing he's done. And what do you mean when you say "if you got rid of all the social stuff?"

p.s. Tucker is not a Trump bootlicker.

[David Nieporent]

And what do you mean when you say "if you got rid of all the social stuff?"

I mean that obviously he's nothing like them on gays or transgender stuff or racial stuff or abortion or… well, you get the idea.

[Swede425]

I imagine Stephen weeping while typing this.
While wearing his Handmaid's Tale dress.
You're welcome for the visual.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I conclude today's American fascism must be recognized and named outright, at least by me."

Well, fuck. I was skeptical before, but now that you've named the fascism, I'm sold.

[Sarcastr0]

Dunno if Trump is going to start defying court orders, but I wonder if any of the Trump supporters here will take any issue with it if he does?

I doubt it, but I'm eager to be proven wrong.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto, Obama judges should be ignored...

[Krayt]

There was a list of dictatorship steps I used for Venezuela, and later for Turkey. On another site there were some communist true believers who cheered Venezuela, holding up Chomsky books like 60s students held up little red books.

Check, check, check down the list over the months until it was all over.

In no particular order:

Arrest political opposition
Force opposition newspapers out of business
Arrest reporters, or disappear them
Arrests intelligentsia and university professors (Turkey did this)
And usually the last, as it's all over at this point: Gets the emergency power to pass laws by decree, the dictate part of dictator.

We're not anywhere near any of that.

Well, except for a concerted effort to arrest the political opposition, jail them, seize their wealth to the tune of half a billion dollars like a king of yore expropriating an irritating Lord's estate, and use the above to disappear them from ballots. A the while screetching how dangerous the guy is, "uhhhh, not that that justifiies this, it's all on the up and up from disinterested concern for rule of law."

[tylertusta]

"uhhhh, not that that justifiies this, it's all on the up and up from disinterested concern for rule of law."

It would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that their mental illness infected the brains of many judges.

[hobie]

Replace the word "arrest" with "attack", then it sounds like MAGA

[Bwaaah]

OMG! Did you just "attack" half of the people in the U.S.???!!!

[Michael P]

Kind of like how you (personally) were entirely in line with Biden finding new yet still fundamentally illegal ways to try to buy votes by forgiving student loans, in spite of the record of court orders striking down those efforts?

But keep up that big mad about imaginary hypocrisy. Angry meta-hypocrisy seems like an increasingly important part of your identity.

[Sarcastr0]

new yet still fundamentally illegal ways to try to buy votes by forgiving student loans

How was it fundamentally illegal?

Court said statute A didn't have the authority. He did not defy the court. He did retry with statute B.

That's as far as it went.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It’d be a stupid own goal when this Supreme Court is this friendly to both the ideological project and their theories executive power. Why fight now when you’ll win later? Unless the project truly is simply installing a Trump/Vance/Musk triumvirate dictatorship, in which case early and open defiance of any legal constraints would make sense.

[Sarcastr0]

I do not know if it's going to happen, but I don't think this whole thing is strategic at this point; it's just a random-walk rampage.

[Brett Bellmore]

But that conclusion is driven by your starting premise: That Trump isn't capable of anything BUT random action.

If you'd just drop that premise, and recognize that Trump is actually a pretty canny guy who has managed to get elected twice, and came very close to it in 2020, in addition to becoming a billionaire, you'd view this differently.

He's keeping his foes off balance by throwing new 'outrages' at them faster than they can respond. Some of these fights he will clearly win. Others, like the birthright citizenship fight, he will almost certainly lose.

And in many cases, his foes' legal victories will be politically costly, because he's doing things that are popular, and forcing his foes to publicly oppose those popular actions.

And hugely assisting him in this is your own insistence on pretending that he's an idiot who couldn't possibly have an over-arching plan, and so you don't go looking for that plan and try to figure out how to effectively oppose it.

I put it to you that the downsides of assuming that he's a smart guy following a plan, and being wrong about that, are not nearly as big as the downsides of assuming he's just randomly striking out, and being wrong about THAT.

[Sarcastr0]

'He's elected so all he does is cool and good and clever' is the essence of populist authoritarianism.

Project 2025 had a plan. But now? Musk is just kidna picking scalps to take and Trump is pissing off whatever ally he feels like day-to-day.

He's keeping his foes off balance by throwing new 'outrages' at them faster than they can respond
Oh how could I forget what an amazing political move acting like a dictator is.

[RedheadedPharoh]

haha yeah, there's no strategy, it's just get up each morning and react!

That's so true! That perfectly describes what Trump and Elon are doing. They don't know what they're going to do tomorrow until they wake up that morning!

lmao you ppl r lunatics

[LawTalkingGuy]

Quality Selfawarewolf moment here.

[Brett Bellmore]

"'He's elected so all he does is cool and good and clever' is the essence of populist authoritarianism."

"I don't like him, so he's stupid and acts randomly!" is the essence of being a self-defeating whiner who simply can't accept that people he doesn't like are capable of thinking and planning.

What he's doing being part of a considered plan has nothing at all to do with it being cool and good, though clever you might argue over.

[David Nieporent]

"I don't like him, so he's stupid and acts randomly!" is the essence of being a self-defeating whiner who simply can't accept that people he doesn't like are capable of thinking and planning.

Many people are capable in that way. Trump is not. Trump is dumb-with-a-capital-lobotomy.

[Brett Bellmore]

I said it before, I'll say it again: You're the drunk guy in the audience at the Olympics, pointing at somebody on the podium getting his medal, and screaming, "You clumsy loser!".

The amount of self deception required to genuinely believe that somebody gets elected President twice, and comes within a hairsbreadth of doing it on a third occasion, while being "dumb with a capital lobotomy" beggars the imagination.

[David Nieporent]

And I've said it before: Being elected isn't winning a medal. Those Olympic athletes accomplished something themselves. Trump was elected by other people; it wasn't something he did.

[ThePublius]

David, yes it is! For example, Olympic gymnasts are voted on by a panel of judges who determine a score. The score determines the winner. Winning an election is no different. Winning is winning. Geez!

[Brett Bellmore]

And the drunk guy just ordered another beer to lubricate his throat for the next round of screaming "Loser!" at the medal winner.

[David Nieporent]

screaming "Loser!" at the medal winner.

You're still confused. I didn't claim that someone else was elected. I just tried to correct your misunderstanding of who gets credit for it.

[David Nieporent]

David, yes it is! For example, Olympic gymnasts are voted on by a panel of judges who determine a score.

That's a fair enough quibble, which is why I've never considered any event with subjective scoring to be a sport.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not confused. You're quintupling down on the notion that Trump tripped one day and landed in being President. An idea that would be totally clinical if you genuinely believed it.

But I understand: That Trump is an idiot is an official article of faith on the left at this point, and you don't want to be excommunicated.

[David Nieporent]

When you read an article about some performer winning a Grammy (or Emmy, or Oscar), do you think, "Wow, he must be really smart"? When you hear about someone being elected prom king, do you think, "Gosh, he's probably class valedictorian?"

I'm not saying that there's not some attribute about Trump that caused (a minority of) the electorate to pull the lever for him three times. I'm saying that it's not intelligence. What does winning a popularity contest have to do with brains?

Hell, you people think that Biden was suffering from dementia — not merely being dumb — and he had a large margin of victory over Trump in 2020.

But I understand: That Trump is an idiot is an official article of faith on the left at this point, and you don't want to be excommunicated.

I'm. Not. On. The. Left.

[Brett Bellmore]

"When you read an article about some performer winning a Grammy (or Emmy, or Oscar), do you think, "Wow, he must be really smart"? "

Ah, yeah, actually I do. As a general rule, people who excel in pretty much an endeavor more complicated than lifting heavy things or getting punched in the face tend to be fairly smart. They may be abysmally ignorant outside their specialty, though.

Mind you, this was a better rule when applied to competitions like the Oscars before they were so heavily politicized and driven by weird insider causes.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : ".... that would be totally clinical if you genuinely believed it."

Nah, Brett. "Totally clinical" describes your position. Trump says/does an endless series of brain-dead things, yet you pretend-away every single one. We've all heard that Trump could shoot a stranger on Fifth Avenue and cultists like yourself would just ignore it.

Well, there's a corollary to that : Trump regularly speaks like a mentally-challenged grade-schooler, yet you never question why. He seldom manages even base-level coherence, but you refuse to find that significant. He mangles even the simplest facts, but you always look the other way. Every account he gives is tangled-up in ludicrous fantasy & lies, but you (in pure Sgt Schultz-mode) see nothing, hear nothing, know nothing.

That's what it takes, Brett, to pretend Trump has half a brain. David Nieporent doesn't do a fraction of the mental gymnastics you are forced into every day. Just to pretend. Lord alone knows why you put yourself through it. Having never been in a cult myself, I can't remotely grasp the appeal.

For the record, I think most people allow Trump a facility in hustling the rubes, scamming the chumps, and duping the gullible. But that skill only needs low cunning. It doesn't require brain wattage that Trump shows zero evidence of possessing.

[grb]

David Nieporent : "Trump is dumb-with-a-capital-lobotomy"

Trump at the National Prayer Breakfast:

“The water comes down from the northwest parts of Canada, I guess, but the Pacific Northwest. And it comes down by millions and millions of barrels a day and uh, I opened it up. It wasn’t that easy to do. But I opened it up and it’s pouring down.”

Of course none of that bares the slightest relation to reality. Not in its facts; not in its geography; not in its account of any action Trump took. It's complete total gibberish. Either it's the result of someone being hopelessly stupid, or evidence of creeping dementia. There's no other option when the disconnect from the real world is that pronounced.

Probably both factors at once. After all, supposedly skilled businessman Trump still thinks tariffs are a tax on foreign countries. He still believes Canada's trade surplus is a "subsidy" from the U.S. Neither mistake is possible from anyone who passed a high school Intro to Economics course and/or has an IQ that reaches basement normal levels. But Trump can't be talked out of either because he plain f**king stupid.

The other day he was talking about T-bills and unleashed this corker:

“We’re even looking at treasuries. There could be a problem … with treasuries. And that could be an interesting problem because it could be that a lot of those things don’t count. In other words, that some of that stuff that we’re finding is very fraudulent. Therefore, maybe we have less debt than we thought of.”

People have spent days trying to work out what thought was in Trump's addled half-wit brain to produce this babble, but have come up with no logical answer. It's like the stray barking and odd noises that come from someone with Tourettes. Apparently DJT "believes" there is public debt he can pretend away just like he "believes" Panama agreed to lower rates for some U.S. ships or windmills kill whales. Whether by senility or imbecility, the man is a moron.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, pretty obvious that Trump has never spent much time on the West Coast, and has a very limited knowledge of its geography or river systems.

The furthest away any of the California water projects water comes from is the Pitt River (there is also a Pitt River in BC, but I doubt he has ever heard of either one), which technically has part of its watershed in Oregon, but the last time Goose lake overflowed out of its basin to the Pitt was 1881.

Few people outside that region have any idea how those river basins relate to each other or the mountain ranges and basins that separate them.

[grb]

California's water mainly comes from the mountain range that parallels the state's length. It flows east to west. To be fair, I don't claim I knew that in any detail prior to now. But if I was an official, I'd learn the facts before my first public utterance. Trump won't, because he has the disregard for facts common in the deeply stupid.

Here he is today, on the 06 pardon's:

Reporter: You are going to meet with first responders today, but you pardoned hundreds of people who assaulted first responders.

Trump: No, I pardoned people who were assaulted themselves… by our government. I didn’t assault. They didn’t assault. They were assaulted. What I did was a great thing for humanity.

This is "thought" at the level of a small petulant child. You tell me whether it's a symptom of mental illness, extreme ignorance, or advancing senility. But one thing is clear: Trump isn't capable of complicated rational thought anywhere close to a normal level. His brain doesn't have that degree of functionality.

[Commenter_XY]

You last point will sail right over their collective heads...

[Joe_dallas]

responsible individuals are pissed off at the wasteful government spending. Leftists are pissed off that Doge is investigating the wasteful spending

[RedheadedPharoh]

Trump should ignore unlawful orders from judges.

[ThePublius]

Did he defy court orders during his first term?

[Sarcastr0]

1. Does this term seem like his first one to you?

2. What part of "Dunno if Trump is going to start defying court orders" do you not understand?

[ThePublius]

As to 2: what court orders has he defied? And if he hasn't yet, why do you think he will start?

[Sarcastr0]

if he hasn't yet, why do you think he will start?
Because they're standing in his way.

[ThePublius]

Who's "they?" If you're saying that the judiciary is standing in the way of Trump defying the judiciary, that's pretty circular reasoning.

[Kazinski]

Actually nothing in the court order is actually standing in his way.

As I said in Post's post yesterday:

"The train has left the station and there is no stopping it now.

The DOGE team doesn't even need access to the data now that they know its format and what to look for. I worked in IT for over 30 years in development and I seldom had access to production data. We knew the format of the data, had test data to work with and when we finished developing the systems it ran on production data and the end users got the output. I worked on systems with sensitive data like Texaco's 1099 system, which they were extremely protective of both for competitive and legal reasons.

That's standard procedure for large IT installations.

Bessent and his team and Vought, who has been confirmed at OMB, can run the AI tools that musk and his team develop, and then review the output, and decide what spending should be targeted.

And if any legislation is needed there is still the 'Big Beautiful' reconciliation bill to implement changes needed to get at the data they need."

The idea that Musk and his team need actual access to the data themselves to identify the cuts and the fraud misunderstands how computer systems almost universally work, there are generally at a minimum of 3-4 replications of the system, but not necessarily all of its data (especially when the data is sensitive) allowing teams like Musk to develop the queries and programs to run on read only systems and produce the reports and datasets needed by Treasury and OMB without ever seeing the live data themselves.

[David Nieporent]

They don't need actual access to the data not because they're programming geniuses, but because they're just lying about it anyway, and if one is making stuff up, the truth doesn't matter.

[Kazinski]

Even if you were right about that, you would be wrong.

To convincingly lie about data you would need the real data forming most of your data set and interserse your lies within it.

Manufacturing false data from scratch is incredibly difficult and very easy to detect.

[David Nieporent]

To convincingly lie about data

Convincingly? They claimed that $50M was spent on condoms for Gaza!

and very easy to detect.

Yes, it is. But their constituents don't care!

[Life of Brian]

I feel like you've quietly pivoted to a different "they" than the DOGE team you first impugned.

[Kazinski]

Well they took a little poetic license, from Politicos fact check:

"On X, a State Department spokesperson said the freeze stopped $100 million in funding to Gaza which included money for contraception."

[not guilty]

"As to 2: what court orders has he defied? And if he hasn't yet, why do you think he will start?"

As I pointed out upthread, a District Judge in Rhode Island has found that the White House has defied his temporary restraining order which prohibits all categorical pauses or freezes in obligations or disbursements based on an OMB Directive or based on the President’s 2025 Executive Orders.to release billions of dollars in federal grants. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.58912/gov.uscourts.rid.58912.96.0_5.pdf The plaintiff states had not sought contempt sanctions. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.58912/gov.uscourts.rid.58912.66.0.pdf

[JoeFromtheBronx]

They will have various responses, including egging him on (tossing in that he was elected to do this), parsing what he did as not really ignoring them, mildly concerned in theory some things, and so on.

A smaller subset of Trump supporters will be concerned but figure they have to take the bitter with the sweet since the alternative was that socialist horror show Kamala Harris. This group will handwave some of the moves as well and might in a few cases talk about "feigning outrage."

[David Nieporent]

They will have various responses, including egging him on (tossing in that he was elected to do this), parsing what he did as not really ignoring them, mildly concerned in theory some things, and so on.

You forgot the whatabouting!

[Ed Grinberg]

Why shouldn't Trump follow the precedent set by Obama and Biden?!

[David Nieporent]

Do you think that Obama and Biden were good presidents?

[Commenter_XY]

No

[David Nieporent]

Well, then, that answers Ed's question "Why shouldn't Trump follow the precedent set by" them.

[Michael P]

Let me tell you a cliche we have in English: Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. (Obama and Biden were right less often than that, but even they didn't manage to be wrong every single time.)

[Sarcastr0]

'Wattaboutism, why that's my favorite!'

LOL.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Your side whatabouts literally all the time.

[windycityattorney]

https://www.asiafinancial.com/810000-investors-have-lost-over-2-billion-on-trump-coin-nyt

800k people have lost a collective $2billion dollars on $Trump's memecoin. Trump himself (and other undisclosed insiders) have collected over $100million dollars in transaction fees alone.

Reached for comment, financial regulators and consumer protection personnel said "We have all been fired, good luck."

Wonder what government ethics say about this?? Oh wait, most inspector generals have been fired as well.

Guess there is nothing we can do.

Trump sure is a financial genius. Nobody can capitalize on their own govt position like he can.

[Brett Bellmore]

Marks will be marks, I guess. You won't find any of that Trump merch in my house.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Raise your hand if you're surprised that Brett missed the point.

[David Nieporent]

But at least he has finally admitted that Trump is good at only one thing: being a con man.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not at all, but I certainly agree that being a con man is one of the things he's good at.

[Frank Drackman]

Let me know when he goes all Barry Hussain and tells me if "I like my Doctor I can keep my Doctor" (What if my Doctor doesn't want to keep me?)

[Brett Bellmore]

Believe me, if your doctor doesn't want to keep you, you probably don't want to keep him. 😉

[hobie]

Poor Musk. He appears oblivious to all the wreckage of people who hitched their wagon to Trump. Most broke or in jail. The only one who has every gotten ahead with Trump is Trump

[Brett Bellmore]

If Musk bought any of those coins, it was as a joke. You might try to remember that Musk is about 71 times more wealthy than Trump, he could buy Trump with pocket change, if Trump was actually for sale.

[Super Scary]

Idiots lost money to cryptocurrency? Color me shocked.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Before you shed more tears for those FBI agents getting canned:
https://x.com/JohnStrandUSA/status/1888955256316334572

"Shocking footage of violent FBI SWAT raid against nonviolent J6 father reveals agents assaulted THE NURSERY—after he’d already surrendered himself."

These deranged Democrat assholes aimed guns at babies in cribs.

[windycityattorney]

I think the deranged assholes always went overboard in executing warrants/raids but since its now being done to 'patriots' there is suddenly an uproar that it might be overkill?

Cops have shot babies in their cribs (or dropped flash bangs into the crib) doing the same shit. You are like 20years too late.

[DixieTune]

No, asshole, actual patriots have been complaining about SWAT raids for years. Read "Overkill: The rise of paramilitary police raids in America" from CATO. It came out almost 20 years ago.

[David Nieporent]

No, asshole, actual patriots have been complaining about SWAT raids for years. Read "Overkill: The rise of paramilitary police raids in America" from CATO. It came out almost 20 years ago.

Sure. Actual patriots. Not MAGA. Indeed, their cult leader "joked" — ha, ha — about police roughing up suspects for fun.

[Brett Bellmore]

Worth remembering that (Primarily federal) police violence was a major driver in the growth of the militia movement. Waco and Ruby Ridge got a lot of press, but there were a whole series of federal police actions that left smoking ruins and dead suspects prior to them, that the MSM didn't much pick up on, but people were getting outraged about.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, like when the cops bombed houses in Philadelphia to get MOVE, I remember how all the Republicans were outraged at this police violence. Or murdering those civil rights workers — you couldn't get these militia members to shut up about how awful that was.

Okay, I was being facetious; those were in the past. Surely now militia members get upset about police violence. Like the murder of George Floyd.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Do I want Bivens to be overturned? No. Will I laugh when it is and every Jan 6th patriot or their defenders realize they can’t sue anyone in the FBI or DOJ over their experience? Unfortunately, yes.

[Kazinski]

Bivens doesn't need to be overturned, since its dead.

From Scotusblog:

Continuing an unbroken decades-long run, the Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to extend the right to sue federal officers for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. In an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court held that a Washington state innkeeper does not have implied causes of action against a federal agent for alleged First and Fourth Amendment violations arising from the enforcement of immigration laws along the border."

"Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred in the judgment, arguing that the court should not leave false hope for any future Bivens claims, should reject any judicial power to create causes of action, and should return the exclusive power to Congress."

[Brett Bellmore]

You think you're being sarcastic, but, yeah, actually the Michigan Militia folks I knew were pretty pissed off about the Move bombing.

[DixieTune]

And the Cory Maye case. most opposition to his treatment came from white conservatives, not the liberal black movement.

[David Nieporent]

Most opposition to his treatment came from white libertarian Radley Balko. What "white conservatives" spoke up in favor of Maye?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Orin Kerr?

[Brett Bellmore]

No More Wacos: What's Wrong With Federal Law Enforcement and How to Fix It

I think Kopel qualifies as a "conservative", no? The MOVE bombing got extensive treatment in his book.

[David Nieporent]

I think Kopel qualifies as a "conservative", no?

I don't think so, no. I don't really Kopel talking about much other than gun policy, but he has worked at Independence Institute and Cato, libertarian think tanks.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Also funny that the people they voted for and the judges they’re going to install want to:

End Bivens so there is no civil remedy for this type of thing against federal officers;
Keep the broad approach to qualified immunity;
End consent decrees that govern use of force;
Gut or otherwise end both Miranda and the exclusionary rule.

[DixieTune]

We don't need to end Bivens. We just need to make sure federal employees are not targeting conservatives. If law enforcement is only bothering liberals, I don't care about Miranda, QI or anything else.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well yeah, you’re an asshole. So why would you?

[DixieTune]

More like liberals are disgusting, non-human vermin. Rules that apply to good men shouldn't apply to them.

[LawTalkingGuy]

This is something an asshole would say, not a good man.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I don't recall ever supporting armed raids of non-violent suspects who have already turned themselves in.

Regardless of who was getting raided.

And frankly, after what we saw police do during COVID, they're just the blue-shirts for the tyrants and "just doing what their told". So fuck them and their stupid fucking horses they rode in on.

[David Nieporent]

Since the tweeter doesn't even know what the word "footage" means, it's a bit hard to assume any of his other facts are correct.

That having been said, yes, cops routinely use unnecessary and excessive force. That was why there were all those protests in 2014 and 2020. Glad to see you've finally seen the light and will start marching with BLM.

[tylertusta]

You should be happy that conservatives are seeing the abuses in our legal system, and you should be encouraging us towards reform.

In my view, you instead react with indifference or barely-hidden glee when it happens to Trump, his supporters, or conservatives. Here you're replying with sarcastic contempt.

That says a lot about you as a person, and it ain't good.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No they’re not. They’re seeing abuses to THEM and complaining about it. They’re not doing anything for wider reform because they actually want it to continue with respect to other people who aren’t them.

[tylertusta]

The biggest mistake that liberals make is assuming that conservatives act in bad faith.

Turn us into allies on this. Casting us as villains gains you nothing except that you feel superior... for a short while at least.

[David Nieporent]

The biggest mistake that liberals make is assuming that conservatives act in bad faith.

I really hate when people say "assuming" when they mean "concluding."

Turn us into allies on this. Casting us as villains gains you nothing except that you feel superior... for a short while at least.

The MAGA response to George Floyd's murder was to deny that it had even taken place. Not even to insist that Chauvin was a good guy who didn't intend to kill Floyd, but to deny that Chauvin had killed Floyd at all. He just coincidentally died of an overdose!

In the aftermath of Floyd's murder, there was talk about police reform. Tim Scott tried to negotiate a deal with the Democrats, but ultimately admitted that ending qualified immunity was a "poison pill" for the GOP, and the only thing he was able to offer Dems after getting pushback from his own caucus was a bill to increase data collection on police abuses.

[tylertusta]

When I say assuming, I mean assuming.

George Floyd's death predated J6 and was subsumed by Democratic identity politics. It was so toxic that Conservatives weren't going near that with a ten-foot pole.

J6 was the opportunity for the parties to come together, not Floyd.

[David Nieporent]

You should be happy that conservatives are seeing the abuses in our legal system, and you should be encouraging us towards reform.

I would be thrilled if that were happening. Unfortunately, I don't live in Narnia. Conservatives are upset that they are experiencing those abuses, not that the abuses are happening. I saw a lot of complaints about the suffering of J6 terrorists being held in DC jails; not one of them said "OMG, think of what the residents of DC have had to deal with for years; we need to shut down this place." Rather, it was, "How dare they treat us this way?"

And then there's this:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/22/politics/justice-department-trump-police-reform-agreements/index.html

The Trump administration is putting a halt to agreements that require reforms of police departments where the Justice Department found a pattern of misconduct, according to a memo issued Wednesday.

A separate Wednesday memo from Mizelle ordered the civil rights attorneys to not “file any new complaints, motions to intervene, agreed-upon remands, amicus briefs, or statements of interest” until further notice.

President Donald Trump and Republican allies have long criticized the use of court-ordered consent decrees to enforce police reform efforts.

During his campaign, Trump vowed to “back the blue,” a slogan meant to show support for police even when officers are accused of misconduct or civil rights violations. In Trump’s first administration, the Justice Department similarly sought to scuttle police consent decrees.

During Trump’s first term, the Justice Department attempted to upend an Obama-era consent decree for Baltimore’s police department that hadn’t yet been approved by a judge by the time the new administration took over.

[LawTalkingGuy]

MTG kept going on and on about January 6 defendant jail conditions. Did she introduce any bills to improve the jails in DC?

[tylertusta]

Were jail conditions poor because no law existed, or were jail conditions poor because of the incompetence of DC officials?

[tylertusta]

Naturally, you've missed the point, David.

What level of outreach and engagement towards conservatives has happened?

Did Democrats form a working group to talk through the issues in the DC jails?

...or was all of that ignored in pursuit of the J6 Committee's objectives?

(Hint: It was the latter)

[Magister]

Conservatives can't do anything without Democrats. (Which we'll probably see in the current Congress despite Republican majorities. A lot like the last Congress.)

[tylertusta]

I believe that 2022-2023 would have been the best window to collaborate on the topic.

[David Nieporent]

The J6 committee was investigating the events of J6; the conditions of local jails are far far far outside its purview.

What level of outreach and engagement towards conservatives has happened?

Ah, yes, I forgot about Murc's law.

[tylertusta]

Talking about the conditions of the J6 inmates, the due process violations, and the excessive sentences the government was demanding was too much of a distraction from the J6 committee's efforts, you nitwit.

[David Nieporent]

What due process violations? Like the "fraud" that Elon has not actually uncovered with USAID, the "due process violations" are things that are perpetually discussed but never identified.

As for the rest, I guess your wit has just gone over my head.

[Magister]

Unfortunately, I don't live in Narnia.

There seems little indication that reform ever happened in Narnia. Long periods of suffering, brought to an end by a combination of divine intervention and military adventures, mostly aimed at installing or maintaining absolute rulers from another world.

[Brett Bellmore]

Narnia was a first draft that got balled up and tossed in the wastebasket eventually, after the Author decided it couldn't be fixed. The favorite characters got inserted into the next draft, though.

[Magister]

Narnia existed only during a portion of our 20th century, and Aslan's country (if that's what you mean by the next draft) is obviously Heaven, and certainly predated Narnia.

[David Nieporent]

LOL. Live by the pedantry, die by the pedantry.

[tylertusta]

FBI policy for rolling out the troops to conduct all arrests is an unjustified overreaction.

The DOJ's demand for an arrest warrant instead of a demand that they surrender themselves is an unjustified abuse, especially since they know full-well that the FBI comes in heavy.

[David Nieporent]

No, arresting people rather than demanding that they surrender themselves is not an abuse. Sure, if a defendant has previously expressed a (credible) readiness to surrender himself, then they should let him turn himself in. Where is the evidence — beyond a random tweet by some anonymous guy — that this was one of those situations?

[tylertusta]

The DOJ sending armed FBI agents to arrest non-violent people over J6 was bad optics and you know it.

[David Nieporent]

First of all, all FBI agents are armed. Second, I thought we were talking about J6 defendants, not "non-violent people."

The police kicking in someone's door in the middle of the night because they heard there might be some drugs inside, now that's bad optics, and of course actually gets people like Breonna Taylor killed. Was a single J6er shot while being arrested? (Actually, I believe that's already happened — for other crimes — to a couple of J6ers Trump pardoned, but I meant when the FBI arrested them for their J6 activities.)

[tylertusta]

First of all, all FBI agents are armed.

Evidently they must routinely walk around with guns drawn and point them at everyone who isn't in the government.

Second, I thought we were talking about J6 defendants, not "non-violent people."

I said: "arrest non-violent people over J6"

You may want to edit your comment, counselor. You have one minute left before you can no longer edit it.

[David Nieporent]

I said: "arrest non-violent people over J6"

Right: what non-violent people? (Certainly not the guy who was the subject of the above tweet.) This is like the 'fine people on both sides' all over again: positing imaginary people.

[tylertusta]

Pick a non-violent J6 defendant not named Donald Trump.

[tylertusta]

Oh well. Too late now. Your inability to read a single sentence is now etched into the internet for all eternity (or until Reason deletes these comments).

Anyways, it was a policy decision made by the DOJ to cease issuing summons for J6 misdemeanors. Ostensibly the goal was to make examples of the J6 defendants, but instead a significant chunk of the electorate saw it as another abuse by the Federal government.

In hindsight, that was probably a dumb thing for the DOJ to do.

[David Nieporent]

Anyways, it was a policy decision made by the DOJ to cease issuing summons for J6 misdemeanors. Ostensibly the goal was to make examples of the J6 defendants,

Where did the DOJ announce any such policy? Where does your "ostensible" goal derive from? And what does it have to do with the guy who is the subject of this tweet, who was guilty of a felony, not misdemeanor? (Well, both.)

[tylertusta]

Where did the DOJ announce any such policy?

The decision to issue a warrant or a summons is a decision made by the DOJ/USA. It's an internal policy that we are not yet privy to, but we might learn more about it with the change in administration.

However, since every single J6 case* has used an arrest warrant and not a summons- especially non-violent misdemeanors, we know that a policy decision was made.

* Except for Trump's own case that is. Apparently the Special Counsel felt the optics of Trump being hauled off in cuffs on live TV was a bridge too far for even his dull-witted team.

Where does your "ostensible" goal derive from?

It derives from the conduct of the government prosecutors in their handling J6 cases, from how they presented their cases to how they argued their sentencing. The government's stance has been for maximum possible punishment from start to finish. They gave no quarter.

So when the government also departs from its longstanding practice of issuing summons for misdemeanor cases (but only for J6 cases!) then there's only one conclusion to draw.

And what does it have to do with the guy who is the subject of this tweet, who was guilty of a felony, not misdemeanor? (Well, both.)

Did I ever say I was only talking about Bobby DeGregoris?

[David Nieporent]

* Except for Trump's own case that is. Apparently the Special Counsel felt the optics of Trump being hauled off in cuffs on live TV was a bridge too far for even his dull-witted team.

Or maybe Trump is a pussy, and so they didn't fear violence from him the way they legitimately did from people who attacked the Capitol.

[tylertusta]

They didn't fear a guy who they wanted to argue was willing to drum up a crowd of supporters to attack the nation's capital, but they feared a grandmother (Rebecca Lavrenz) who committed no violence on Jan 6th and also consented to being interviewed by the FBI?

You may consider yourself a pedant, but you're just full of shit.

[Kenneth Almquist]

John Strand claims that Bobby DeGregoris was “nonviolent” and “a peaceful J6er.” The judge in DeGregoris’s case didn’t buy that defense, and Strand offers no reasons to think that the judge was wrong. My conclusion is that John Strand is a liar and there’s no reason to believe that any of his allegations are true.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/virginia-man-found-guilty-felony-and-misdemeanor-charges-actions-during-jan-6-capitol

[DixieTune]

The "judge" that enjoined DOGE from getting payment access is a homosexual Jew from New York. Just in case there was any doubt.

[windycityattorney]

You don't have to put judge in square quotes dipshit. Homosexuals and ...gasp... Jews... can still be judges in America. At least for the time being.

Also, did you like wake up from a coma from 1939 Germany or something? Or is this one of those parody accounts that tries very hard to make the commenters sound like inbred racist retards? If so, good job. You are nailing it.

[DixieTune]

Nope. Just a patriot who recognizes that these people need to be neutered from power in America, while there is still an America.

[hobie]

Was there ever any doubt which party is the antisemites?

[Krayt]

Kanye aka Ye has a shirt to sell you. ????

Fast moving story. Man, I missed the days from early admin #1 with muliple shit every day.

[Krayt]

Well, my link was busted. Just as well. It's easy enough to find as all major news are reporting it, and he pushed the site in a Superbowl ad yestarday.

Must be some mistake, right?

[Moderation4ever]

Just remember the dude that pushing JD Vance first for Senate and then for VP is also gay. The elite don't care about a person's sexual orientation, they care about the person's money.

[David Nieporent]

There are different factions within the GOP. The tech/finance bros do not care about social issues like gayness. MAGA very much does.

[David Nieporent]

Judge — with no scare quotes — Engelmayer is not in fact gay. Just in case there was any doubt about your intellectual ability.

[DixieTune]

Yes, he is.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know if you're confusing him with Judge Oetken or are just lying.

[grb]

DixieTune : "Yes, he is"

Judge Engelmayer and his wife, Emily Mandelstam, live in Manhattan and have two children. The two were married in 1994. Their wedding notice is linked below.

So which is it, DixieTune? Did one of your handlers pass on the gay lie, assuming you're too dumb to realize you're being conned? Or are you just another right-winger addicted to lying?

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/03/style/weddings-e-f-mandelstam-paul-engelmayer.html

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I watched the film Bombshell based on the accounts of the women at Fox News who set out to expose CEO Roger Ailes for sexual harassment. Quite good, especially the performances.

Some reviews say they softened the hard edges of various of the characters to make them more sympathetic. If so, that is fairly normal in biopics. We should never take these films as straight history. The film is quite timely for our times.

[Moderation4ever]

The question I got all last week was whether I wanted the Chiefs or Eagles to win the SB. My response was I did not care who won, just wanted a good game. I still ended up disappointed. It would have been nice to see the Chiefs put up a little fight.

[RedheadedPharoh]

The real Super Bowl is still going on. It's The Patriots vs. the Stealers.

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha, very good.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I should note that I saw that originally on X. I just forgot where.

[Frank Drackman]

Rush Limbo's "Environmental Whacko" method would have been tough, because you have the Eagles, who are an endangered National Symbol, and the Chiefs, representing Amurica's screwed over Indians,
That being said, starting his career in KC, he'd probably have gone with the Chiefs, give the point and a hook.
Only "Prop" bet I got right was the coin toss.
Should have been an "Over/Under" for how many Sullen N-words could fit on a stage
I'm guessing 60, but might need to check the video for further review

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Chiefs' defense sorta kept it a game for a while but the KC QB kept on giving the Eagles points w/o scoring any in response.

[Frank Drackman]

Free Frankie Foo-Bawl Betting "Lock": in a game with 2 Afro-Amurican QB's, pick the team with the darker skinned QB. (That's an actual theory that betters use). In a White QB vs Black QB take Tom Brady (who doesn't think He and Gronk couldn't have strapped on some pads and led KC to a comeback win last night?)

[Kazinski]

6 sacks without any blitzes will do that to a QB, usually when a team gets that sort of pressure its because they left someone open, but not only were they rushing just 4 against 5 OL, the Chiefs were having the TE and RB help block on a lot plays too.

Vic Fangio should have been the MVP.

[David Nieporent]

The Chiefs' defense sorta kept it a game for a while but the KC QB kept on giving the Eagles points w/o scoring any in response.

To be a bit more fair to said KC QB, offensive lines usually try to block the other team's players, don't they?

[Frank Drackman]

OK, Neverpotent, don't know if this is the beginning of a beautiful (No Homo) friendship, but I actually agree with you,
my Grandmother Francine Drackman could have blocked more effectively last night and she's been dead for 12 years,
Of Course she was 6'6" 280 ran a Fo-Fo Foaty.....

Frank

[RedheadedPharoh]

It's almost time to rotate my username to foil the surveillance bots and data harvesters.

Here are the candidates:
PresterJohn
BigBalls
109AndCounting

Thoughts? Feedback? Suggestions?

[Jerry B.]

109 BigBalls

You walk very slowly.

[David Nieporent]

Thoughts? Feedback? Suggestions?

NaziPieceofShit.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I was recently watching a clip of RFK speak about one of his books.

He discovered the CIA (via USAID) had programs to inculcate mass Stockholm Syndrome in a population. And that they were actually pretty good at it, as part of their regime change operations. He has the receipts.

It dawned on me, that's the only thing that explain the incessant and pathological bootlicking of Democrat/Deep State elites from people like you. They've been running their regime change ops in the US since at least COVID, and you're just an unwitting victim.

Your pathological need to bootlick the State isn't your fault, David. You're a victim. You can seek help and break free. The elites are not good guys, David. They're evil. DC is a vipers den of corruption, Marxists, and genuinely bad people who seek to lower your quality of life and break up your family. They don't give a fuck about you. They would pull your life support to charge their cell phones (h/t Sen. Kennedy).

Some reading resources you might consider:
"Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence—From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror" by Judith Lewis Herman
"The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma" by Bessel van der Kolk

I'm concerned about your mental health and well-being. You can recover from being a reactionary pathological bootlicker. I promise. I'm here to help.

[David Nieporent]

He discovered the CIA (via USAID) had programs to inculcate mass Stockholm Syndrome in a population. And that they were actually pretty good at it, as part of their regime change operations. He has the receipts.

He did not "discover" any such thing, and of course he has no "receipts." Have you considered getting treatment for your mental illness?

[RedheadedPharoh]

You poor sad little victim.

[Frank Drackman]

Every time Davie Neverpotent says "Nazi" DOGE cuts another USAID boondoggle

[Brett Bellmore]

I've always liked Prester John. You could work in a lot of obscure references with that one.

[RedheadedPharoh]

That was my personal favorite too until "BigBalls" "came" onto the scene.

[Commenter_XY]

Bigballs is the runaway favor, pharoah. No question about it.

You could do a combo thing...PrestMyBigBalls?

[Sarcastr0]

You do love palling around with an open antisemite these days.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, you live in a glass house, calling anyone antisemitic.

[Sarcastr0]

No heat to your heinous accusation, when you hang out with the Antisemite as your MAGA pal.

Shameful, where your priorities lie.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You do love palling around with an open antisemite these days.

[hobie]

Pick something that reflects your maturity

[RedheadedPharoh]

Another vote for BigBalls!

[MoreCurious]

Bigot.

[Frank Drackman]

Tax time, any Tax Shysters out there?
So riddle me this, Batman, does someone's $50,000 "forgiven" Student Loan count as $50,000 of Income?
Asking for a friend (so I can make his life miserable making him worry about it)

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, actually I think it does.

[Frank Drackman]

According to AlGores Internets, so you know it's (probably not) true, it's not taxable on the Federal Level, but is by certain States, which makes no sense at all.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, it does. It is imputed income. Your friend looking at 5K-10K bill.

[David Nieporent]

That is poor tax/legal advice. While forgiven debt is often taxable, there are many exceptions to that carved out for (some methods of) student loan forgiveness.

[Frank Drackman]

he's in a higher bracket than that

[Commenter_XY]

at the 24% bracket, the bill is 12K. Higher than that, why did your friend need loan forgiveness? 😉

[Frank Drackman]

He's in the 37% bracket, and he didn't, yes, I don't get it, guy makes over a million a year ("Interventional Radiology") and has maxed out credit cards, pays a mortgage, has a car note, I haven't had a loan since my own Student Loans (which I spent on essential items, whiskey, women, motorcycle, grass, the rest I wasted) and a Motorcycle Loan that I paid off in 1991 and 1992 respectfully (No Typo, my Motorcycle Loan was through the Giancana Group, I was very respectful)

Frank

[Kazinski]

There is a longstanding program to forgive student loans for people that have made all their payments on time, and have worked 10 years for a non-profit or government.

Since most hospitals are non-profits a lot of medical professionals benefit from that particular program.

George Bush introduced it in 2007.

[Kazinski]

Oh yeah, and the loans forgiven under the PSLF program are by statute non-taxable.

[Frank Drackman]

1: "Payments on Time"? if he'd made all his payments on his time he'd have paid it off 30 years ago like I did with mine,
2: "Non-Profit or Government"?? Good Doctors don't spend years in Evil Medical School to work for Non-Profits/Government (any more than we have to anyway)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I was watching a piece* on Trump's support of Christian Nationalism and it was striking how many people were talking about "Our God" as if there is one we all agree on, putting aside that some don't believe in God while others believe in multiple gods.

The Second Lady, for instance, is a Hindu. Many Hindus believe in multiple gods. I don't know her particular belief on that question.

I appreciated how Obama and Biden were inclusive when referencing religious matters.

==

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6cPdn7lcMQ

The segment is from FFRF, but the Baptist Joint Committee also has spoken out about Christian Nationalism. The two groups co-wrote a report on its involvement regarding January 6th.

https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-bjc-report-christian-nationalism-and-the-january-6-insurrection/

[Frank Drackman]

As the Late Great Yogi Berra (Who wasn't a Lefty, but should have been) said about Agnostics,
"We all worship in our own way"

[Krayt]

For now.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in other news, Trump has filed an emergency motion with the
Southern District Court to dissolve the TRO issued Saturday.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.636609/gov.uscourts.nysd.636609.12.0.pdf

[RedheadedPharoh]

It doesn't seem possible that a judge can make the Secretary of Treasury subservient to unelected bureaucrats at the US Treasury.

[tylertusta]

Judge Engelmayer: "Hold my beer."

[PaulS]

If congress fails to pass or Trump veto's the continuing resolution to fund the government (due by March 14) - would he then have the authority to shut down many (not all) agencies that he would like to - as they are then unfunded? Same question about the debt limit - though with more complications. Does the failure of congress to act provide him with the legal cover for many actions? In the past when government shutdowns have occurred employees were entitled to unemployment payments ie they were laid off - congress authorized back pay etc (which they might not this time)

[tylertusta]

A government shutdown plays right into Trump's hands.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Voters hate shutdowns. Voters also tend to correctly blame the party causing the shutdown, which in this case can only be republicans. So I don’t think it plays into his hands at all.

[tylertusta]

I agree: Voters hate shutdowns, and they also blame the party that caused the shutdown.

However, it's 19 months before the next election, and a majority of public is unlikely to use a shutdown from a year and a half prior in making their decision. In all of my time of watching politics, I've never seen a public backlash against a shutdown that went so far as to actually significantly hurt a party at the ballot box.

A shutdown next month helps Trump in the short term because he can achieve his immediate goal in asserting greater control over Federal agencies and their finances. It'll also throw a massive wrinkle in all of the current (and possibly forthcoming) lawsuits over DOGE and the Impoundment Act.

[Commenter_XY]

The 2018 shutdown definitely had an impact on congressional elections.

[tylertusta]

I can't think of a single exit poll from 2020 that had the 2018-2019 shutdown as a statistically meaningful response.

[Commenter_XY]

So the 2018 shutdown was a thing of beauty, happening at the start of the year, heading into congressional elections. As you recall, the Congress at the time was Team R. That shutdown was relentlessly milked through the primaries.

The Congress changed hands, and within 1 year of the elections, POTUS Trump was impeached.

Regardless of voters stated importance, the shutdown of 2018 had an impact on the elections later that year. Enough that the Congress changed hands.

[tylertusta]

I don't know of a single poll or a single race that showed that the shutdown mattered in the primaries and that the shutdown changed the composition of Congress.

What mattered more in the 2018 elections:

- Mid-term backlash against an incumbent President
- Animus towards Trump from Democrats and the media, motivating them to vote
- Russiagate
- Kavanaugh's confirmation in the Senate
- The economy

[Kazinski]

Its pretty typical that after a president is elected with majorities in both houses the voters take back at least one house at the next election.

See the 2010 election where the Republicans picked up 63 seats in the House and flipped it, and 6 seats in the Senate but failed to get the majority, as one example.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Are you talking about the three day shutdown that began in January 2018? Or the 35 day one that began in December 2018?

[tylertusta]

Both shutdowns had no discernible effect on election outcomes- primary or the general.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I agree with you: I’m just trying to understand what Commenter_XY is even claiming. (An increasingly frustrating exercise these days!)

[Frank Drackman]

Those 10,000,000 dead Biden voters didn't really keep up with current events.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Republicans would be well advised to have their shutdown ASAP, rather than waiting for the midterms to approach. But given their ultra-narrow House majority, I think they'd be foolish to do anything that had such high stakes where just a few defections would spell defeat.

My actual advise to them at this point, would be to declare that enough states have called for a constitutional convention, (Much stronger grounds for that than Biden's zombie ERA.) and get on with one. Such a convention is much more likely to produce amendments to Republicans' liking than Democrats', and they control enough states that nothing they really dislike can be ratified.

And it would be absolutely glorious to go into the midterms with Democrats campaigning against a balanced budget amendment and term limits for Congress!

[Commenter_XY]

They need to do a quick lift of the debt limit...that should have been done last month.

[ducksalad]

And it would be absolutely glorious to go into the midterms with Democrats campaigning against a balanced budget amendment and term limits for Congress!

You're projecting your own goals onto the MAGA team you joined.

1. They don't care even a tiny bit about a balanced budget, and reject the idea of a debt limit.
2. Term limits? Just this week Rep. Andy Ogles (R) introduced a proposed amendment to REMOVE term limits and let Trump serve a third term.
3. If a convention gets called, I will give you 3-1 odds that Trump and his congressional team will propose federal rules that (a) strip states of control over how their representatives get selected, (b) give themselves a controlling role in managing the convention and its topics, (c) are not only biased in favor of MAGA, but are openly trolling about being biased.
4. If a convention meets, I will give you 10-1 odds that Team MAGA will challenge the credentials of non-MAGA delegates.

[PaulS]

If there is a shutdown the equation becomes - If we cut x from the essential services that we are now forced to spend (pick an appropriation like housing undocumented immigrants) we can restore Y that congress is preventing you from having (visiting national parks). Make the fight over would one rather have this or this and congress is playing to Trumps hand. Further - does congress not appropriating the money bypass the union rules preventing layoffs...

[Don Nico]

Brett, there ain't gonna be no Constitutional Convention.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It would almost be worth it if there was, just to see Brett’s reaction to what they’d come up with.

[Don Nico]

No, LTG, Mr Schumer has been promoting a shutdown because he and HJ say no D's will vote for reconciliation. Both sides will blame the other. Question is who the voters believe.

Question for all. If the government shuts down, do the government employees get back pay for the period of the shutdown as they usually do? How that the resulting action pay with the voters?

[Josh R]

It's going to be hard for Republicans to shift blame when they don't need any Dem votes.

[Michael P]

They need Democrat votes for cloture.

[David Nieporent]

A reconciliation bill is not subject to filibuster.

[Mr. Bumble]

From Instapundit:

Joe Biden's final jobs report is out and it's a doozy.

– 589,000 jobs revised into oblivion
– 70% of jobs created in the government sector
– 99.2% of jobs going to foreign-born workers

This is the mess they’re handing Donald Trump. pic.twitter.com/zUmz4pfBKU

— Peter St Onge, Ph.D. (@profstonge) February 10, 2025

[ducksalad]

What's your point in repeating obvious BS like the 99.2% claim?

[ReaderY]

Does the Trump administration even pretend to have a legal justification for embargoing Congressionally appropriated funds, bringing in private individuals to infiltrate public agencies and commandeer their databases and payment systems and lock authorized officials out, and bringing in private security guards to use armed force to physically evict, with armed force, duly authorized government employees?

I’m surprised nobody has sued the security guards and their employers for kidnapping.

[John F. Carr]

A few weeks ago the governor of Massachusetts ordered that all people living in state-provided shelters be subject to criminal background checks. Today the Boston Globe reports that nobody can be evicted for "failing" a check. State law requires that homeless families be given shelter. There is no exception for felons.

The order was a political reaction to a political problem. Real changes may follow, like limiting the amount of time a family can stay in a shelter or limiting the shelter system to citizens.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/02/10/metro/evicted-family-shelters-criminal-background-check/

[M L]

"The @DOGE
team just discovered that FEMA sent $59M LAST WEEK to luxury hotels in New York City to house illegal migrants.

Sending this money violated the law and is in gross insubordination to the President’s executive order.

That money is meant for American disaster relief and instead is being spent on high end hotels for illegals!

A clawback demand will be made today to recoup those funds."

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1888891512303263815

[Sarcastr0]

Asylum seekers are not illegals.

As to illegal, Musk is lying.

This is Congressionally authorized and appropriated. It would be illegal for FEMA to have not spent the money:

https://www.fema.gov/grants/shelter-services-program
"The Shelter and Services Program (SSP), as directed by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, is administered by FEMA in partnership with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). In Fiscal Year 2024, Congress appropriated $650,000,000 for SSP."

[M L]

Nowhere does your link mention asylum seekers. It says "noncitizen migrants."

Anyway, as you know, illegal border crossers are now using the magic word "asylum" as a sham which the open borders operatives here have exploited to flout the law and harm this country.

Your claim is that the executive has no power to delay this particular payment, or otherwise exercise any discretion with regard to these funds, and that it would have been illegal not to pay $59M on that date to those recipients. I doubt that claim is true, and coming from you only casts further doubt on it.

On the merits of the policy issue, the American people don't want their hard earned dollars taken by the government to pay for migrant housing. Only harmful extremist lunatics like you want that. https://www.newsweek.com/illegal-immigration-americans-fema-money-migrants-poll-1969062

[Sarcastr0]

I doubt that claim is true, and coming from you only casts further doubt on it.

Well then. That sure is an argument!

Appropriations bills are binding, even if you don't like me.

[RedheadedPharoh]

How do you know the $59M is from the same grant?

[ReaderY]

If Americans don’t want something Congress appropriated, they can jolly well lobby Congress to change it. And until Congress chooses to change it, the President can jolly well shut his fat ass up and do what he’s told.

[M L]

Do you suppose Congress directed that $59M be paid to these particular luxury hotels, on this particular date, for the housing of these particular illegal immigrants, in this particular manner and in these particular accommodations?

Congress tends to leave a lot of details up to discretion when they do something like appropriate $650M for "sheltering and related activities to noncitizen migrants."

Aside from that, I was also commenting on the policy issue apart from the legal issue. I thought that was pretty clear but maybe not.

[shawn_dude]

Which particular "luxury" hotels? Your link just makes the same empty claim you parrot.

Victor Orban convinced his citizens that Muslims immigrants were going to overwhelm them and destroy their country. He riled them up so badly that they voted him into power and let him systematically dismantle their free society. Years later, with tight border controls, they're still worried more about the immigrants than the kleptocrats they put in power to "protect" them.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Asylum seekers are not illegals."

In theory, no. But the entire current wave is made up of fraudsters.

[LawTalkingGuy]

And you know this how? From your extensive immigration practice and review of applications?

[Bob from Ohio]

From every single border crosser claiming it.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You’ve personally reviewed all these applications?

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes

[TwelveInchPianist]

The guys who do review the applications find that about 60% of them lack merit, so it's a safe bet that maybe half of the asylum seekers are illegals.

[Sarcastr0]

Musk didn't say any of that.

Probably because he has no more evidence than you do, so why not just lie?

[ReaderY]

Mr. Musk has the trust of the Fuehrer. Are you suggesting that the law is anything other than the Fuehrer’s will?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Asylum seekers are not illegals."

About 60% of asylum seekers get denied, so it's probable that many are lying on their applications. Maybe about half are illegal.

[David Nieporent]

Are they lying, or do their situations just not meet the applicable legal standard even though they're telling the truth?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Seems like most of those situations would get screened out during the credible fear screening.

[M L]

Something we learned from Trump 1.0 is being reiterated now with Trump 2.0. Fixing the border was never some intractable problem. It never even needed an Act of Congress. All it took was an executive who was actually serious about it. Some who wasn't actively and dishonestly subverting the will of the American people by allowing millions of illegals to flow into the country year after year for decades.

[MaddogEngineer]

Funding and building a border wall (where crossings are easy) would absolutely help make that easier.

[M L]

Agreed. But even where we are now, illegal crossing is down 91%.

[Frank Drackman]

Having the Bouncers throw out the Riff-Raff tends to decrease the line length

[shawn_dude]

Cite?

That number is unbelievable given the volume of legal visitors that arrive via airports and disappear into the country and overstay their visitor visas.

[MaddogEngineer]

Go Birds!

[Commenter_XY]

Surprising exactly no one, the human animals known as hamas are backing out of the ceasefire, and stalling the release of any further hostages.

The war will resume soon.

[Bob from Ohio]

The latest hostage release has re-kindled my anger.

Looks like it has hardened the hearts of most in Israel too. Let the whirlwind commence.

[Commenter_XY]

No one involved with 10/7, or with hiding/holding/torturing the hostages should die a natural death.

The terms offered in that region of the world are surrender, or death.

POTUS Trump has the right idea; gazan arabs leave and don't come back.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Lol remember when you pretended you weren’t advocating ethnic cleansing.

[Commenter_XY]

LOL, remember when we didn't have Judeocidal terrorists shooting missiles into Israel, kidnapping their citizens, burning and mutilating their women and children, and torturing captives?

Go ahead, take the side of the Judeocidal terrorists dedicated to killing every Jew on the planet. This makes you an evil man.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’m taking the side of not ethnically cleansing 2 million people.

Also lol at being called “an evil man” by a guy who admitted to viewing CSAM on Tawainese TV and gleefully described it as “Hunter was definitely getting his freak on.”

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/03/22/the-question-i-would-ask-kbj-how-would-you-change-the-supreme-court-confirmation-process/?comments=true#comments

[Don Nico]

I am sure that you prefer that they live in the squalor and devastation.
Rather than criticizing a crazy idea, how about you describing your practical plan and how long that it will take.

[Michael P]

Your side instead takes the side of ethnically cleansing seven million Jews, because you think Hitler didn't do a good enough job.

[LawTalkingGuy]

That’s a lie. Fuck you.

[Frank Drackman]

No, I don't.

[John F. Carr]

The start of the cease fire reminded me of the end of Gallipoli (1981 movie set during the Dardanelles campaign). At the end of the movie the British bombarment ends. The Turkish soldiers reappear as if they had never left, waiting for the ANZAC soldiers to charge the trenches. In Gaza the Hamas police force reappeared as if it had never left.

[Frank Drackman]

All with shiny AK-74's (never fired and only dropped once!) and the latest I-Phones

[Commenter_XY]

I know the scene you're talking about. You're right. And it did look that way with hamas.

[Don Nico]

Indeed John, it sure looks that way. Thanks to Herzi Halevi.

[Commenter_XY]

Senator Andy Kim.....POTUS Trump is a big meanie! He is so bad. We can't have those DOGEbags running around shedding light on the deep state sewer! Why, we'll just shut the government to stop them DOGEbags from doing their dastardly deeds!

No problem, Senator. Go ahead. By all means. 🙂

[shawn_dude]

A 19yo high school graduate cannot "shed light" on anything other than* how stupid we all were at 19.

*Although these particular young men are abnormally stupid for even the average kid their age with their neo-nazi activism and hacker collective b.s.

[Estragon]

“No, I pardoned people who were assaulted themselves… by our government. I didn’t assault. They didn’t assault. They were assaulted.”

Presumably that includes Daniel Rodriguez?

What were the cops supposed to do? Let them hang Mike Pence? Wait— don’t answer that.

Certain commenters here get really exercised when I point out that Ms. Babbitt was carrying a knife in response to the curiously-oft repeated assertion around here that she was “unarmed”. As I have stated before, I am pointing out the myth making about that day (and the historical parallels to such myth making). Well, our Donald has taken the next step in the revisionist scheme.

[ThePublius]

We've all gotten too serious on the "open thread." How about some light topics?

Do you guys have any hobbies? Interests, like things you watch on youtube, or shows you binge watch?

[Frank Drackman]

I can't enough of that "The Office" episode where Erin wears a "Wendy's" Halloween Costume. Wind/Rewind/Diagram Perry Mason episodes (did he ever get a simple case?). Spend an hour a week in a batting cage trying to keep up with 90mph pitches (OK, I'll shift over to the softball cage once in awhile) play daily on Internet Chess Club (always open P-K4 and defend with the Sicilian, it was good enough for Bobby F, it's good enough for me, like with Baseball, every game I see something new)

Frank

[grb]

ThePublius : Do you guys have any hobbies?

1. Wreck diving
2. Backpacking
3. Obsessive bibliomania
4. Japanese Woodblock prints (mainly late-Edo & Meiji)

[ThePublius]

Wow, wreck diving is intense, and dangerous. I am/was a diver. Are you a DIR diver? Overhead dives?

[grb]

Yes and no. I've got a slew of dives below 100 fsw, but nothing deeper than 154ft. I've been inside overhead environments, but mainly with swim-thru situations (though a few times I pushed my luck beyond my skill level). I've got a full DIR setup, but that was pretty much a given with everyone doing NJ charters. I've done some multiple mixes dives, but only as training, never for practical need. The longest deco I ever had was fifteen minutes; plus-minus six minutes being the typical time. And - of course - cold & murky water being a common thing once (not recently).

So per Joe Reef Diver, I have a decent CV. Per a really serious technical diver? I ain't jack. And that is by a very wide margin. Plus my double steel 119s seem to get heavier & heavier each year I age.

What kind of diving do you do? And where? The last few years I've only dove North Carolina & Florida. I've also done some cavern (not cave) stuff in Fla.

[Brett Bellmore]

Cool! I'm an entry level diver; I mostly got certified so my son wouldn't lack for a dive partner when we visited the Philippines last year. It certainly is fun, though!

[grb]

There's supposed to be some good diving in the Philippines.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, there certainly is. We stayed at the Submariner Diving Center in El Nidol.

[Commenter_XY]

You've backpacked some incredible places, as I recall.

[grb]

Distance & time having precedence over variety. Aside from weekendy stuff, I did the Appalachian Trail back in 2010/2011, when vexed by divorce and unemployment. Hiding in the woods seemed the only real viable option. (job-wise, it wasn't the best time to be an architect). And I did about 260mi above the Arctic Circle in Sweden a few years back.

When I retire one or two years hence, I plan to do the PCT and AT again. Being plus-sixty, I was worried how I'd hold-up on the Kungsleden in Sweden - but did OK. Fact was, carrying a backpack wasn't a problem. Climbing mountains wasn't either. Where I really showed my age was awkwardly climbing in and out the damn tent. That could be a spectacle....

[Commenter_XY]

The AT is spectacular, I am told. 7-8 month walk.

[grb]

To be honest, most people thru-hike in five or six months. I was exceptionally slow taking eight months almost to the day.

And it's one of the most positive experiences you'll ever have. Yes, the trail may kick your butt at times, but you're part of a community and everyone's together towards the same end. And it's not just hikers. People who live along the trail often make special efforts to help hikers out. It's even got a name : Trail Magic. They'll do an unprompted kindness to a total stranger that's almost unimaginable in any other context.

[Frank Drackman]

Do you ever have Nightmares about a Moray Eel springing out and biting your face off like in "The Deep"??

[grb]

Strangely enough, the only thing I remember from The Deep is Jacqueline Bisset's physique swaying in syncopated rhythms underwater. The first time I ever did an ocean dive was in Key Largo and I swam right up to a moray eel. One of the more experienced guys later suggested there is wisdom in giving the beasties more room.

Likewise, you have to explain to civilians that a diver always swims towards sharks whenever he sees one (most sharks being harmless creatures who sorta wanna be your friend). My first NC dive was the Caribsea, and it was swarming with sand tiger sharks. Sand tigers are the most genial creatures imaginable (despite a very fierce sharkish look) but my dive buddy Leo said I shouldn't have touched one when it swam by.

https://monitor.noaa.gov/shipwrecks/caribsea.html

[tylertusta]

I've been rewatching Chuck lately. It's fun and lighthearted, and it's aged rather well.

[SRG2]

If Trump announced he was going to fund research into building a perpetual motion machine, his supporters would insist that it could be done and that the reason scientists and others oppose funding such research is that they hate Trump. Fox News would interview people with plausible credentials to explain how PMMs could be made to work and Sean Hannity et al would be criticising Biden for not having funded research into PMMs during his time in office.

Supporters would be spamming FB with youtube and instagram videos "proving" that PMMs work, and any GOP politician asked about it would respond, "well, I'm not a physicist". Finally, gateway pundit or zero hedge would have an article explaining that the reason for Democratic opposition is that Soros was secretly funding his own PMM in San Francisco and they don't want the competition.

[ThePublius]

What prompted this? Are you deranged? Trolling?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t want to put words in SRG2’s mouth, but I believe this is an example of what’s sometimes referred to as a “joke”.

[grb]

I dunno. I doubt it's possible to exaggerate the abject slavish behavior of Trump's cult. They have no respect for truth. They have no regard for ethics or common decency. All rational thought flies out the window whenever Trump's shoe leather needs a tongue-polish. Their tiny little MAGA minds go completely blank with joy at the task.

They don't care he's a criminal. They don't care he's an idiot. They don't care he's mentally-ill : a hollowed-out nothing inside. They don't even care when he screws them over, just as long as he puts on a cartoon show hating everyone they hate. SRG2's scenario seems perfectly plausible to me. All the right-types up & down these comments would fall in line like perfect little lemmings, laws of physics be damned.

[SRG2]

It is indeed a joke, and like many jokes, derives the humour from truth. And the truth is that the Trump cultists go along with what Trump says - uncritically, even defending it regardless of hos preposterous. We already know the reaction of right-wing media and how defensive they get, and we also have seen how GOP legislators respond to questions about anti-science propositions.

[Michael P]

SRG2 is a joke? Perhaps a bad one.

[Martinned2]

What prompted this?

The fact that you can't tell speaks volumes. Normally if a President gets mocked for saying something crazy, it's not too difficult to work out which crazy thing he's being mocked for. But with Trump, it's literally impossible to keep track.

[Bwaaah]

Yeah. MAGAs are soooo stupid.

You really bring it home.

I suggest you not bring an argument like that to an election.

Oops.

[santamonica811]

Bwaaah,
Are you suggesting that MAGA dolts are *more* intelligent than the average bear? That would be an odd assertion. [You're certainly not claiming that MAGA are more educated, are you? That would be delusional, yes?]

[Bwaaah]

Yea. MAGAs are soooo stupid.

[Rinse. Repeat.]

[SRG2]

The truth of an argument and electoral success are not obviously correlated.

[Bwaaah]

Seriously...I don't rule out the possibility you are advocating against the Democratic Party, or the Republican Party, or more effectively, both. The only effect of your message is to incite revulsion in people toward both. It plays the "all MAGA are stupid" trope for the left, and the "lefties got nothing but TDS" for the right.

Anyway, you're already in the has-been bin. Every day, every way, nine years later, you're still talkin' same old same-old like it's fresh. It's not. It's like a really old turd...one so dried up that people don't even care if they step in it because it doesn't stick to anything. It can't. It's a desiccated nothing muffin.

Unless you're one of those "tear it all down" people, you should try to up your game. Otherwise, you do a pretty typical job of lining that hopeful road to destruction.

[SRG2]

Unless you're one of those "tear it all down" people, you should try to up your game. Otherwise, you do a pretty typical job of lining that hopeful road to destruction.

Ah yes, the patronising counter. Ineffective when the countering post is not as clever or witty as the original one. Perhaps you should, you know, up your game.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Meanwhile, when Biden told you a grown man can close his eyes and wish upon a star and *poof* get transformed into a real authentic princess all by the power of his imagination and unicorn farts, you then did ????

[santamonica811]

??? I think someone hacked your account. Biden, of course, never said any of this. Please give the cite, if you can find it.

This is the internet, so I guess making up lies out of whole cloth is part of the package. But since you post here, and since you (presumably?) want to convince people generally-speaking that what you say has value; maybe it makes sense to keep a bit of your credibility.

Don't Dr. Ed yourself . . . like the Boy Who Cried Wolf; even when Ed makes an interesting and substantive post, almost no one pays any serious attention to it, because--by now--all his credibility is in the wind.

Just a bit of friendly advice. And, like all free advice, it's worth what you paid for it. 🙂

[SRG2]

So you accept the premise of my post but wish to argue that they do it too.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, so I see from the Marxist Stream Media that the big number for the 1/2 Time Shoe was "Not Like Us"
A "Dis -Rap" (please correct me if I'm not using that correctly, my Ebonics is Rusty) of the Canadian Rapper "Dreak",
C'mon Man! can't we go back to Rappers like 2-Pack and Biggie who just get murdered?
Tried watching the replay on AlGores You-Tubes, but it might as well been Bantu Warriors regaling Allah for Happy Hunting, so does the title mean
"(They) don't resemble "Us"? i.e. "do the Moose-lums value the role of women in society? "No, they "Not Like Us""
OR is it (They) don't "like" us personally, i.e.
"So why did 19 Mooselums murder 3,000 Amuricans on 9-11??"
(They) "Not Like Us"

Frank: Not Like Them

[Bwaaah]

You're like them, but funny. And they're like you, but serious. Not that you're not serious. But they're not funny.

OK. You're not like them. But the difference, I mean, how much of the genome are we talking about, really? And even story-wise, you guys aren't too far off, I mean, like Amuricans an' all.

If aliens from outer space arrive and it happens that they lack a sense of humor, then we should send them away (if we can). I don't care how smart they may be. Without a sense of humor, they won't be able to appreciate what's going on here. Imagine one saying, "I don't understand where Frank Drackman is coming from." I'd tell 'im to login to VC and post that as a comment. That'd be a sure sign that the whole cosmos is as dumb as we are. (I don't mean to speak for the people here who think they know something.)

[zztop8970]

Between David Post and Ilya Somin using the blog as platform to vent their TDS every other day, I expect readership will decline considerably over the next 4 years.
There's plenty of radical left wing outlets in which to read that kind of claptrap

[Noscitur a sociis]

Between David Post and Ilya Somin using the blog as platform to vent their TDS every other day

Yes, David Post is certainly the one around here known for spamming low quality posts.

I expect readership will decline considerably over the next 4 years.

[santamonica811]

LOL. A Blackman diss, without even a whisper of a mention of him. Nicely played!!!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The kids call it a "subtweet," I believe.

[zztop8970]

That there are others who also have low quality posts certainly doesn't mean we should have more of them. Quite the opposite.

[Sarcastr0]

"Between David Post and Ilya Somin" sure sounds like an exclusive list!

[zztop8970]

It's not, as my subsequent comment makes clear.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Ilya Somin uses his posts to promote his libertarian views which clash with Trump's policies. Certain readership likes to hate-read his posts or at least link in to hate comment.

David Post seems to have a bit more anti-Trump grump (shades of Sandy Levinson at Balkinization). He doesn't post that much overall. He also is not "deranged" in his opposition.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ilya's views on immigration and border control don't just clash with Trump's policies. They clash with any policy that would be politically survivable in the US.

[Martinned2]

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. And feel free to take Josh with you.

[zztop8970]

As the last election showed, there are more people whose opinions are the opposite of Post's and Somin's than those who agree, and there's no shortage of other outlets where those opinions can be read.
So I expect I won't be the only one reducing their interaction here.

that may not be any skin off the back of a nobody like you, but I'd like to think the Conspirators would rather see readership increase than decrease, if only for the ad revenue

[David Nieporent]

Even if your math were right, most people aren't such snowflakes that they can't handle a site where some of the posters disagree with them.

[grb]

So what would you do if you were Trump, a corrupt lifelong criminal who leaves a slime trail wherever he goes?

Probably, what he did today:

1. Instruct federal prosecutors in Manhattan to drop corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, who is charged with bribery, fraud and the solicitation of illegal foreign campaign donations. One crook having another crook's back.

2. Quietly fire the watchdog fighting corruption in the government, Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger. He headed the Office of Special Counsel, which polices corruption and illegal acts within the federal workforce. Dellinger was just confirmed last March for a five-year term and can only be fired for cause per the statute. But Trump is in such a rush to cripple anti-corruption efforts, he can't be bothered to follow the law.

3. Pardon former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, whose 14-year sentence for political corruption charges he commuted during his first term. Of course Blagojevich was on tape discussing the sale of a U.S. Senate seat to the highest bidder. What could endear him more to a fellow criminal like Trump?

Just one day's work on the pro-corruption front. MAGA might find stuff like this objectionable - if they hadn't sold away soul, self-respect, and dignity to their cult god.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes, Hampton is the son of Walter Dellinger, who was Acting Solicitor General of the United States and United States Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton Administration. He also served on the Biden Supreme Court Commission.

[shawn_dude]

I look at this from the perspective of what a mob boss would do to buy loyalty. Trump is big on loyalty. This sends the message that the Trump administration will protect corrupt politicians which sets him up collect additional power at every level of government.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Item: "DOJ directs prosecutors to drop Mayor Adams’ corruption case"

https://gothamist.com/news/doj-tells-prosecutors-to-drop-mayor-adams-corruption-case-reports-say

"News of the directive comes on the same day the Democratic mayor ordered his senior officials to refrain from criticizing President Donald Trump, whom Adams has courted since his reelection."

He also pardoned former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, whose 14-year sentence for political corruption charges he commuted during his first term.

https://www.mytwintiers.com/news-cat/political-news/ap-politics/ap-trump-is-expected-to-pardon-ex-illinois-gov-rod-blagojevich-5-years-after-commuting-his-sentence/

Corruption Central.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/10/politics/office-of-government-ethics-david-huitema-trump/index.html

President Donald Trump removed the head of the Office of Government Ethics from his post, the agency said Monday – the latest example of Trump acting against a government watchdog.

The agency’s director, David Huitema, was confirmed to the post by the Senate in November and officially began the job in December. He had been nominated by President Joe Biden but had languished for more than a year in the Senate before lawmakers confirmed him by a 50-46 vote during a post-election lame-duck session.

OGE directors typically serve five-year terms – allowing them to overlap administrations as part of an attempt to reduce partisanship. On Monday, a statement on the agency website read: “OGE has been notified that the President is removing David Huitema as the Director of OGE. OGE is reverting to an Acting Director.”

In an interview with CNN, Huitema said he was notified of his removal by the Presidential Personnel Office through an email he received over the weekend. It had been sent Friday night, he said.

Huitema said he was unaware of any specific agency action that would have precipitated Trump’s decision. “My sense is that the president doesn’t want OGE or really anyone with an independent voice to address concerns that are raised,” he said.

[TwelveInchPianist]

He felt that a couple of Dems were treated unfairly, so he intervened? Where's the corruption?

[Martinned2]

LOL, Eric Adams is about as much of a Democrat as you are.

[Don Nico]

From MIT Pres Kornbluth:
"As you’ve likely heard, Friday evening, the NIH announced drastic across-the-board cuts to the research funding it supplies to universities, hospitals, medical schools and research centers in every US state.

To outsiders, capping the reimbursement rate for indirect costs at 15% might seem like a technicality. But “indirect costs” are actually foundational to a thriving, world-class research enterprise and cover things like data storage; hazardous materials management; radiation safety; the costs of maintaining and renewing research facilities and equipment; research administrative systems; and compliance with federal regulations." (read the last as unfunded mandates such as open access publishing, open data, etc., as of which are bourne by overheads)"

"In other words, the 15% cap – amounting to cuts of $30–$35 million a year at MIT – would undercut our ability to run a top-tier scientific enterprise.."
MIT's overhead rates is ~67%
MIT & other universities have filed suit. Comments anyone?

[Michael P]

I don't know how research grants work, but where I work, costs like data storage and hazmat handling that are incurred due to a project are normally billed explicitly and directly to that contract rather than as overhead. Customer X doesn't want to pay for hazmat handling if customer Y is the one that requires use of hazmat.

[Commenter_XY]

When does Kornbluth resign, or get removed?

[SRG2]

I watched neither the Superbowl nor the halftime show (AFAIC the most important sports result of the day was Plymouth 1 - 0 Liverpool) but I gather that some people would have been happier if the show had been directed by Leni Riefenstahl

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, she did such a good job for Biden in Philadelphia a few years ago.

[grb]

Another Trump quote from today:

"We’re making our country larger, we’re making our country stronger. And in the case of Canada—if this should happen—I don’t know how they can do it without us. Because without the U.S., Canada really doesn’t have a country. They do almost all of their business with us, and if we say we want our cars to be made in Detroit, with a stroke of a pen, I can make that happen. And other things, in addition to that, would not allow Canada to be a viable country."

If any of this forum's cultists had a single ounce of integrity left, they'd own what this clearly is : Evidence of accelerating mental illness. Our president's mind is completely broken. He can no longer distinguish fantasy from reality. He's even lost the ability to hide his sickness. In the past, he managed stretches playacting rationality. I don't think he's capable of that anymore.

[Michael P]

Yes, you provide ample evidence that your mental illness is accelerating.

[Brett Bellmore]

Scotiabank: Canada-US Trade: Getting Up To Speed

It might have been impolitic to actually come out and say it, but Canada is critically dependent on trade with the US. And the US is not critically dependent on trade with Canada.

" Overall, Canada’s exports are highly concentrated to the US. All goods exporting sectors, save agriculture and metals and minerals, rely on US goods markets for between 74% – 100% of overall exports.
Energy (crude oil, natural gas and coal) is responsible for 29% of Canada’s goods exports to the US in 2024 (Jan–Nov.). Machinery and equipment manufacturing, which includes automotive/parts, was responsible for 21% of goods exports in the same year.
All goods-producing sectors, save agriculture and livestock, export to the US more than they import from the US.
Canada imports roughly 34% of its inputs (i.e. intermediate goods) from the US, but exports roughly 75% of total inputs it produces to the US.
US trade was responsible for 2.04 mn direct and indirect jobs across Canada’s provinces in 2020, with 54% of these roles created as a result of manufacturing activity."

So, he's actually right. Without trade with the US, Canada basically doesn't have an economy.

Now, what this implies can be argued, but the actual fact of dependence is indisputable.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Now, what this implies can be argued ....."

Ya think? Recap :

1. Trump : Canada must join the U.S. He can destroy their economy otherwise.
2. grb : That's mentally ill delusion.
3. Brett Bellmore : Look! Canada does a lot of trade with us!

Why do you do this to yourself, Brett? As far as I know, Cult membership doesn't legally require your self-humiliation over every single word of Trump's sick twaddle. You can take a break every now & then. But since you didn't, Trump launches a total trade embargo against Canada. It is effectively a declaration of war. What happens?

1. Canada takes emergency measures. Relations between the countries and peoples are poisoned for generations. Canada remains free and independent.

2. The world condemns Trump as batshit crazy. There's an immense disruption in NATO as our allies side with Canada.

3. Condemnation is universal across the entire U.S. government. Within days, Trump's actions are overwhelmingly repudiated by his party and thru votes by the GOP-led Congress.

4. The vast majority of Americans react with revulsion. Of course, MAGA is the exception, finding it just the kind of pointless WWE-style TV viewing entertainment they voted for. But Trump's approval still sinks into the 20s regardless.

5. The whole farce quickly collapses. Trump stews because he's mentally ill and has a broken mind.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, I am not actually fond of Trump's proposals to expand the US, I was simply pointing out that his statement about Canada's economy was accurate, as acknowledged by Canadian sources. Canada has a lot more to lose from a trade war with the US than the US does.

Am I supposed to pretend that he's wrong about the economic assertion just because I disagree with what he's making noises about doing? Is that how it works?

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Am I supposed to pretend ...."

No, Brett. You're supposed to give up pretending for once. You're supposed to grow a spine & dig out some self-respect. When Trump talks total lunacy - and that's what the above quote is - you're supposed to swallow hard and just admit it. Or if that's too big a step, at least refrain from defending this latest sicko blather.

Let me try again to break thru : If tomorrow Trump says we have the military might to force Canada's surrender, I'll say that's mentally ill nonsense (exactly as with his quote above). You, Brett Bellmore, will then have three choices: You can (1) For once concede the obvious truth about your tawdry cult god, or (2) Duck at least one Trump embarrassment.

But you, Brett Bellmore, will probably do (3) Dig up impressive stats on how many ICBMs the U.S. has versus Canada. But since that doesn't change the fact Trump's statement is mentally ill nonsense, why would you bother ?!?

[Estragon]

The pathological need to come in here and attempt to sanewash every single ridiculous, stupid, or downright delusional thing that Trump says is truly something to behold. He was doing it with me and the ridiculous valve stuff the week before last. I am, of course, curious about why Brett and others feel so compelled to do this, but it’s a question only they can answer and I’m getting the sense that self reflection isn’t big with this crew.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, so I AM supposed to pretend that, when Trump says something that's objectively true, it must be false.

I'll note that down.

[Estragon]

LOL. Res Ipsa.

[Estragon]

Gee if you squint really hard and look at it sideways, there may be a nugget of arguably accurate-adjacent information included in an insane rant about valves in 1000x sized sinks that are being purposefully not turned to make the LA fires worse. See? They opened some dams in central California, never mind that the San Gabriels and Tehachapis are between there and LA! I am not a crackpot, you are the crazy libtard!

[Estragon]

The sad thing is that I identified for you what you should be saying in these situations:

He’s meant to be taken seriously, not literally.

Why you insist on tying yourself up in these knots remains curious to me, but again— only you lot can answer that.

[David Nieporent]

No, you're supposed to realize that just because something is "true" does not make it sane to say it. "We want the UK to do X. And if they don't, we have the ability to nuke London, after all" may be objectively true — we do in fact have that ability — but is something only a mentally ill president would say.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Ah, so I AM supposed to pretend ....."

Pretense is your standard modus operandi. Let's take the Valve Fiasco as an example. Trump wanted to entertain the MAGA faithful with some pointless wasteful stunt. He knew they'd react like spectators at a pro wrestling match. Sure, everything is phony & fake, but the drama is real and the MAGA-ites can scream themselves red-face with joy at Dear Leader's "heroic" action regardless. Meanwhile, back in the real world :

"Peter Gleick, co-founder and senior fellow at the Pacific Institute, a research nonprofit, described Trump’s actions as “a combination of political bluster and blinding ignorance,” adding that the releases allowed the president “to brag, incorrectly, about providing water for tackling the LA wildfires.”

“Not a single drop of the water released can get to Los Angeles — there is simply no physical connection between these basins,” Gleick said. “As a result, all that Trump managed to accomplish was to anger local water districts and farmers who lost more than 2 billion gallons of water that flowed, unused and unusable, into the dry lake bed of the Tulare basin, where it will be unavailable to farmers in the coming hot season.”

Two billions gallons of water wasted in a state where people fight over every drop. And all for the most empty of pointless meaningless stunts.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5126534-trump-california-water-release-order-criticism/

It was an unmitigated fiasco, without purpose or cause. I'm glad I missed you defend such an imbecilic stunt. That would have been painful to watch.

[Sarcastr0]

"This guy better do what I say or I'ma kill him"

Brett: "Well, that guy is a mortal being so where is the issue?"

[not guilty]

A maxim from Aesop's Fables teaches to be careful what you wish for, lest it come true. Has Donald Trump really thought out how annexing Canada to make it the 51st state would shake out? https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/08/canada-new-state-electoral-college-001966

Does the idea of Canada electing two U. S. Senators and dozens of members of the House of Representatives, not to mention the impact upon the Electoral College, appeal to Trump and his fellow Republicans?

[not guilty]

District Judge Beryl Howell in the District of Columbia has ruled in favor of plaintiff Jason Leopold and against the FBI regarding Mr. Leopold's FOIA request for information related to “Presidential Records removed from the Trump White House that were stored at Mar-a-Lago” and an additionalcategory of information related to “Presidential Records from the Trump White House that were destroyed and Presidential Records from the Trump White House that were allegedly flushed down the toilet”. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25517955/leopold-fbi-order.pdf

The nub of the ruling is that since no law enforcement investigation is pending nor is any such criminal enforcement proceeding
reasonably likely anymore, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief that he seeks.

As Louis Brandeis said, sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants. And as Groucho Marx said, time wounds al heels.

Perhaps Mr. Leopold's next FOIA request should be for Pam (Bottle) Blondie to produce Jack Smith's report on the Mar-a-Lago prosecution.

[Michael P]

File your own request. Learn all about "exemption 5".

[John F. Carr]

FOIA got most of the Mueller report out. https://www.justice.gov/oip/available-documents-oip

I'm sure people are working on getting the Smith report. There is no urgency. Smith's indictments and supporting documents were quite detailed. This time we aren't waiting to learn whether our President is a crook.

[shawn_dude]

Right... we're just waiting to learn what other crooked things he's done. But we elected him knowing he was a crook and serial sexual abuser. So... if we elected a snapping turtle can we really complain if it rises out of the mud and snaps at things?

#FAFO #FindingOutPhase

[Martinned2]

Today the Bundesgerichtshof, the Federal Supreme Court of Germany (i.e. not the Constitutional Court but the regular supreme court), is hearing a case that is dear to my heart: Can a company claim back the antitrust fine it had to pay for participating in a cartel from the CEO who decided to join that cartel in the first place?

In German company law, that basically amounts to asking whether joining a cartel falls outside "reasonable business care" (my translation).

The court below, the court of appeal in Düsseldorf, decided that the CEO could not be made liable because that would undermine the object and purpose of the fine, which is exactly to create a financial impact for the company. Which is an interesting argument, but I'm not sure if I'm convinced.

https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/Termine/DE/Termine/KZR74-23.html

[John F. Carr]

The fine was 4.1 million euro for the company and 126,000 euro for the CEO. A commentary on the case suggested that the officer's liability could be covered by D&O insurance.

[Brett Bellmore]

This seems backwards: A CEO is going to be much more motivated if the cost of an action is felt by them personally, than if it falls only on the company they are heading up. Some CEOs will be utterly unmoved by economic damage to the company itself, rather than themselves, and aren't those the ones you really need to be worrying about?

[Brett Bellmore]

Test: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1888990419628839096

[Sarcastr0]

Preacher: "“Sometimes the devil will act so ugly that you have no other choice but to get violent and fight."

Musk: "This tells me that he is trying to hide MASSIVE fraud"

Sometimes people can just hate what you're doing with no ulterior motive.

[Brett Bellmore]

Just so you know, I literally just picked that at random to see how reason was treating X links, since they'd blocked one. Didn't even read it, just wanted to see if it worked.

[shawn_dude]

Reason is a grooming site for future 8kun incels. Why on earth would they block a link that comes from X?! They're both courting the same group of disaffected white boys.

[Brett Bellmore]

The funny thing is that they blocked the link if it was in a properly formatted HTML code, but allowed it through as a raw url.

DataRepublican

[John F. Carr]

The text of the link might be misleading. That's one of the earlier HTML scam methods. The message shows example.org in link style but the underlying link goes to example.com.

Some sites ban URL shorteners for similar reasons.

[Brett Bellmore]

Test: https://x.com/datarepublican/status/1888438050231103559

Interesting: The link to data republican is blocked if you use a properly formatted html link, but not if it's a bare url. I wonder why?

"USAID grant money is everywhere. It’s so deeply woven into the nonprofit world that tracing it is like testing $100 bills for cocaine—at a certain scale, every charity has some residue.

That’s why the disclaimer at the top of the website exists:

**"NOTE: Funding is fungible, meaning USAID dollars do not directly flow into these NGOs in a literal sense. Instead, the money moves through multiple layers, with various entities handling and redistributing it.

Rather than focusing solely on individual grants or making definitive statements about how NGOs benefit from USAID, it’s more important to recognize the broader pattern of funding distribution and influence—and to cut through the layers of unaccountability."**

So, how do you determine if an NGO is truly dependent on USAID money? Context matters.

Let’s go back to the cocaine analogy: Every $100 bill has trace amounts, but a drug dealer’s cash will be covered in it. The same logic applies here.

Look at the graph on the left. That’s Defending Democracy Together Institute, Bill Kristol’s group. Over half of their funding comes from major grants. That’s a lot of cocaine.

Now, compare it to Turning Point USA on the right. Their USAID connections are multiple hops away and bottlenecked by the smallest possible intermediary grants. Even with the most extreme assumptions, only 0.2% of their funding could possibly come from this path."

[Commenter_XY]

The deep state sewer is getting drained, one agency stop at a time.

[Sarcastr0]

So, how do you determine if an NGO is truly dependent on USAID money? Context matters.

ie vibes.

You also act like grants aren't competed. And ignore the confirmation bias that right-wing think tanks have their own funding lines of anonymous rich people.

[David Nieporent]

Look at the graph on the left. That’s Defending Democracy Together Institute, Bill Kristol’s group. Over half of their funding comes from major grants. That’s a lot of cocaine.

That's not any cocaine, and it's a terrible analogy. I am not Bill Kristol's lawyer, and I'm not going to spend time analyzing the work of DDT to see whether it is a good use of anyone's money, but it got $0 from USAID. There is no evidence presented that it indirectly got even a penny from USAID.

Now, compare it to Turning Point USA on the right. Their USAID connections are multiple hops away and bottlenecked by the smallest possible intermediary grants. Even with the most extreme assumptions, only 0.2% of their funding could possibly come from this path."

Maybe that's because TPUSA is just a grift to give Charlie Kirk a sinecure;¹ it doesn't do anything that could possibly merit a grant, from anyone.
​​
​​
¹In 2023, the most recent year for which the disclosure forms are available, Bill Kristol was paid $500 by the DDTI; Charlie Kirk was paid $393,000 by TPUSA. A similar pattern goes back multiple years — exactly $500 to Kristol, around $400k to Kirk. (Though Kristol did get $1,000 in 2021, but he also got $0 in 2018.)

[Brett Bellmore]

"In 2023, the most recent year for which the disclosure forms are available, Bill Kristol was paid $500 by the DDTI; Charlie Kirk was paid $393,000 by TPUSA. A similar pattern goes back multiple years — exactly $500 to Kristol, around $400k to Kirk. "

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the point at hand, that Turning point, even using the most aggressive possible assumptions, derives a trivial fraction of it's budget from USAID, while Defending Democracy Together derives over half their funding from USAID. Indirectly, of course, by way of intermediaries.

[David Nieporent]

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the point at hand, that Turning point, even using the most aggressive possible assumptions, derives a trivial fraction of it's budget from USAID, while Defending Democracy Together derives over half their funding from USAID. Indirectly, of course, by way of intermediaries.

That is not the point at hand, because that point would be a lie. DDT got not a penny from USAID. The claim is simply a fabrication from your source. Putting the word "indirectly" in there doesn't make it not a fabrication.

My point, however, was that the contrast between the grants to TPUSA and DDT can be explained by the fact that TPUSA doesn't actually do anything that would make anyone want to give it a grant; that it's just a grift by Charlie Kirk. And — anticipating that someone would try to IKYABWAI? about DDT — I pointed out that in fact Kristol doesn't make money off the thing.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/403712

Hamas official: 'October 7th massacre was just a prelude'

The Judeocidal hamas terrorists are holding 6 American hostages. There is no deal to be had, hamas must be defeated and removed from gaza. And be seen as utterly defeated by the entire arab world.

[John F. Carr]

Israel can't rule Gaza. Egypt doesn't want Gaza. Who is going to rule in place of Hamas and keep Hamas from regrowing?

[Brett Bellmore]

Hamas says Trump’s threat to unleash hell ‘has no value’

They're definitely spoiling for a fight, that's for sure.

[apedad]

TBH, the US hasn't faired well rooting out and destroying non-govt entities, e.g., insurgents, terrorists groups, narco-terrorists, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

Our government doesn't have enough riding on winning, so losing is always viewed as an option. So we always stop before we're done.

[John F. Carr]

(moved)

[John F. Carr]

Today is the 47th anniversary of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The revolution ended in victory on February 11, 1979. For years afterwards there were rumors of Iranian moderates America could negotiate with.

[Estragon]

Credit where it is due: I agree with eliminating the penny.

[ThePublius]

This phenomenon of a random federal judge issuing an injunction to stop the executive branch from doing something is fundamentally wrong, in my opinion, and should be ended. I hope SCOTUS can do something about it, and in so doing, say that only the SCOTUS can issue such an injunction against the executive.

It has really gotten out of control.

[ThePublius]

“These injunctions did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion in the travel ban case Trump v. Hawaii. "And they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts. If their popularity continues, this court must address their legality.”

[ThePublius]

Yale Law Prof Backs Vance’s Claim: DOGE-Blocking Judge Violated Constitution

"A Yale law professor says Vice President J.D. Vance is right: the federal judge who blocked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from exposing wasteful spending by the Treasury Department violated the U.S. Constitution.

On Saturday, Judge Paul Engelmayer sided with 19 pro-waste state attorneys general who filed a lawsuit against the President Trump-created, Elon Musk-led DOGE seeking to prevent scrutiny of how Treasury is spending taxpayer dollars.

Judge Engelmayer issued a temporary injunction preventing DOGE and Treasury officials from examining Treasure expenditures – and declared that the Democrats have a strong case for a permanent ban.

However, as Vice President Vance wrote on X.com (formerly Twitter), judges don’t have the legal authority to dictate the actions of generals, prosecutors and the president:

“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.

“If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal.

“Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.”

In his response, Yale Law Prof. Jeb Rubenfeld agreed with Vance and explained how Judge Engelmayer violated the Constitution with his ruling:

“JD is correct about this, and his examples are exactly right. Where the Executive has sole and plenary power under the Constitution--as in commanding military operations or exercising prosecutorial discretion--judges cannot constitutionally interfere.”"

https://mrctv.org/blog/craig-bannister/yale-law-prof-backs-vances-claim-doge-blocking-judge-violated-constitution

[Voize of Reazon]

Yes, those examples are completely right. Jed (not "Jeb") Rubenfeld is right to say they are right.

And if the President also had "sole and plenary power" to ignore laws like the Administrative Procedure Act and the Privacy Act the same conclusion would hold for this TRO. But he doesn't.

[tylertusta]

Well, he wasn't random. The state Attorneys General in the RI case knew full well who was going to handle emergency motions.

It's part of that forum shopping trend that our left-wing friends insist that they don't do, and isn't a problem if they do it.

[ThePublius]

By random I meant a federal judge other than a SCOTUS justice. We well know it's forum shopping, and there are enough anti-Trump federal judges to keep this up ad infinitum.

[John F. Carr]

In its decision allowing Karen Read to be retried on murder charges the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts quoted General Laws Chapter 234 Section 68C:

If a jury, after due and thorough deliberation, returns to court without having agreed on a verdict, the court may state anew the evidence or any part of the evidence, explain to them anew the law applicable to the case and send them out for further deliberation; but if they return a second time without having agreed on a verdict, they shall not be sent out again without their own consent, unless they ask from the court some further explanation of the law.

The defense had argued a mistrial was not necessary. Under the circumstances, with the jury repeatedly stating it was deadlocked, a mistrial was required by law.

[ThePublius]

I think the big issue is that the jury was deadlocked on only one of the three charges, but the verdict form didn't allow them to so indicate that. Karen should have been acquitted on two charges, and if a mistrial was required on the third, so be it. I think it's a case of judicial incompetence, and probably grounds for an appeal.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think the big issue is that the jury was deadlocked on only one of the three charges, but the verdict form didn't allow them to so indicate that. Karen should have been acquitted on two charges, and if a mistrial was required on the third, so be it.

As with pretty much everything else you’ve claimed about this case, that is incorrrct. The jury never indicated (until the posttrial interviews) that they had reached a verdict on any count, and their notes to the judge strongly implied the opposite.

I think it's a case of judicial incompetence, and probably grounds for an appeal.

That argument was presented, and rejected, in the case that John F. Carr is talking about. The analysis seems pretty persuasive to me.

[ThePublius]

Several of the jurors said, after the fact, that they were not deadlocked on two charges, but the verdict form didn't allow them to indicate that. That's a fact. The entire point of this most recent hearing was on that point - and the argument that trying her on those two charges amounted to double jeopardy.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You are, to repeat, completely and totally wrong. Here are the verdict forms: as is always the case, there was a separate form for each count.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24779194-verdictslip/

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The jury never indicated (until the posttrial interviews) that they had reached a verdict on any count, and their notes to the judge strongly implied the opposite."

Seems like the judge better find that out. I don't see why a judge can ignore an acquittal by not asking about it.

[John F. Carr]

Procedurally, an acquittal is a statement by the jury in open court. It is not discussions in the jury room or thoughts in jurors' heads.

[ThePublius]

Yes, yes, I get that. The screw-up that I'm asserting, and that jurors and defense lawyers have spoken of, is that the verdict form provided to the jury did not provide for them to indicate guilt or innocence of the three separate charges. So, they couldn't say she was not guilty of two charges and they were deadlocked on the third.

[TwelveInchPianist]

In the William Penn trial, the jurors were locked up until they agreed to convict (which they didn't).

Hopefully due process includes an opportunity for the jury to make a statement in open court once they've agreed that the defendant is not guilty.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, of course the jury had that option (as they do in every trial). They’re the ones who told the judge that they weren’t able to do it because they hadn’t agreed on a verdict and wouldn’t be able to do so no matter how long they kept at it.

[John F. Carr]

Sorry, I forgot to post the link to the case.
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2025/02/11/r13663.pdf
In written notes the jurors said they were deadlocked. They did not suggest a partial verdict was possible. State practice discourages partial verdicts when lesser included charges are involved, as was the case for the murder charge. There is no obligation on the part of the judge to request a partial verdict even if the defense attorney wants one.

On exclusion of posttrial statements of jurors, the SJC discussed a reason for the rule.

Were it otherwise, "[j]urors would be harassed and beset by the defeated party in an effort to secure from them evidence of facts" that might be used to set aside a final verdict (citation omitted).

Quoting Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192 (1979).

[grb]

Among the flakes, leeches, and loons who stock Trump's Cabinet, Hegseth stands out as a nullity more than anything else. Others like RFK, Jr and Gabbard pose greater risk to America, but the new Defense Secretary was notable for being such a nothing.

He never managed anything larger than a platoon. He spent time running a think tank, but was elbowed-out as a clumsy unreliable bungler. In terms of ethics or morality, he's a loathsome cretin. He treated the women in his life so horribly even his own mother denounced him. He had zero qualifications for running the most complicated organization in the world aside from being a Fox News talking head & having once defended an odious war criminal. He's so brainless as to believe the biggest issue facing the U.S. military is "Woke". It's always sad when people fall for their own tinhorn propaganda.

So he was confirmed and immediately issued fiats making the military all manly-men again. Problem solved! His whole mandate as Defense Secretary wrapped-up & done! Nothing left to do....

Indeed, nothing at all. Yesterday, Hegseth ordered Fort Liberty to again become Fort Bragg. But it "won't" be the Confederate general Braxton Bragg this time (nudge, nudge, wink, wink), but a PFC from WWII named Roland L. Bragg. Apparently they did a deep dive into U.S. military history, found a half-dozen available Braggs, and Roland won. Three points :

1. While is the Right so obsessed with honoring Confederate traitors? Of course the stomach-churning reason is obvious, but the question still must be asked.

2. This juvenile nonsense is to subvert a congressional law, which required U.S. military facilities no longer honor the Confederacy. In saner times you'd expect Congress to be peeved. Not this spineless bunch though. They're too busy whoring away duty & integrity on much larger issues.

3. And this nothing stunt is exactly the kind of nothing trolling you'd expect from a nothing like Hegseth.

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2025-02-10/fort-bragg-liberty-hegseth-16791540.html

[David Nieporent]

Come on; he says it was to honor Roland Bragg, but we all know that he did it to honor Alvin Bragg, the man who successfully prosecuted Donald Trump.

[ThePublius]

Trump could appoint Mother Theresa to a cabinet position and you'd have the same kind of bad stuff to say about her.

[grb]

You're comparing RFK Jr, Gabbard, Bondi, and Hegseth to Mother Theresa? You might wanna rethink that. Note also, the idea Trump could name a "loser" like Mother Theresa to a cabinet position is absurd on the face of it. As with all those dead soldiers in the military cemetery, I'm sure he'd ask, "what was in it for her" and then answer his own question with contempt & scorn.

As for "bad stuff" about Saint Theresa, there is a long lasting tradition. The late British firebrand Christopher Hitchens wrote a book on the topic, entitled (sigh) "The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice". The criticism by him and others isn't entirely persuasive, but makes a few valid points. They say she provided substandard care to those in her charge despite having the financial means to do much, much better. They accuse her of embracing poverty and suffering as a religious ideal, even at the expense of her patients.

[ThePublius]

No, I'm not comparing Mother Theresa to any of those people. I was making a point ad extrema that you will criticize anyone Trump takes on board.

Is there anyone Trump has taken on board of whom you approve, or at least tolerate?

[tylertusta]

Trump could nominate Jesus Christ himself to a cabinet position and he'd accuse Christ of supporting a christofascist nationalist movement.

[grb]

tylertusta : "Trump could nominate Jesus Christ himself...."

Two Points :

1. As noted with Saint Theresa above, it's an absurdity Trump would nominate Jesus Christ for anything. After all, per the Trumpian worldview, He is a "loser" many times over. The Man died badly and never made even his first million.

2. That said, I'm sure your version of Jesus Christ would be a "christofascist nationalist", tylertusta. None of that namby-pamby talk of the poor from your version of JC, no siree. As a general observation, most Right-winger's version of Christianity bares no relationship to Christianity.

[tylertusta]

As a general observation

And as a general observation, the only people more incapable of understanding Christ than the right... is the left.

[not guilty]

I am reminded of the Mahatma Gandhi's comment: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians -- they are so unlike your Christ."

[grb]

ThePublius : "Is there anyone Trump has taken on board of whom you approve, or at least tolerate?"

I thought Rubio a reasonable choice, which makes it all the more dispiriting to see the poor sap yipping around like a pet poodle, defending Trump's imbecilities to the world. Of course he knew he'd be whoring for a buffoonish clown, but you can still have sympathy.

And the money positions were at least mainstream choices, but that was predictable. Trump doesn't give a shit about public health - he has his own doctors, thank you very much - thus RFK. He famously considers soldiers losers, thus Hegseth. All throughout his cabinet are positions he doesn't care about, so they were filled with jokey trolling picks to show his contempt for everyone & everything. A pedophile rapist at Justice was the ultimate kick, though he eventually had to settle for someone he'd successfully bribed in the past.

But money ?!? Money's important to Trump, so he actually look for people qualified to do the job there.

[David Nieporent]

As I've said many times, I wouldn't have picked Trump's picks but I'd have voted to confirm some of them if I were in the senate; they're bog standard GOP picks. Rubio, Noem, Burgum, Duffy.

Gaetz, Hegseth, RFK, Gabbard — hard hard hard nos.

[ThePublius]

"Lloyd Austin wore five face masks and skipped out on his job without telling anyone.
Pete Hegseth works out with the men he's tasked with leading."

https://x.com/theMRC/status/1889318433386316260?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1889318433386316260%7Ctwgr%5E9038459ab41729743726e90472ad5511b2736930%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F702053%2F

[David Nieporent]

So the Washington Times — a Trump-friendly publication, so it's unlikely they're spinning this in some way to make him look bad — reports that Trump excluded an AP reporter from an event open to the press because the AP has announced that it's not going to use Trump's retarded "Gulf of America" label for the body of the water that everyone on the planet knows as the Gulf of Mexico.

(To be clear, I'm the one calling it retarded; the AP was far more circumspect. They just said that they were using the name that would be recognizable to worldwide readers.)

The party of free speech, folks!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Retarded? Trump didn't go far enough. He should have named it the Gulf of America Fuck Yeah!