Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Happy three day weekend edition of Washington's Birthday.
The original Indispensable Man.

[Frank Drackman]

It’s actually Presdient’s Day, the original “Everyone gets a Trophy” The Official Seal of the Confederacy was Washington riding a Horse, surprised he (Washington, not the Horse) wasn’t “cancelled”

[Mr. Bumble]

No, it's still actually Washington's birthday:
"Presidents' Day, officially Washington's Birthday at the federal governmental level, is a holiday in the United States celebrated on the third Monday of February."
per wikipedia.

...and that's as it should be.

[Longtobefree]

Also per Wikipedia, his birthday is the 22nd, so NOT Washington's birthday, just another random Monday off for federal "workers".

#DOGEforever

[Satchmo_Lives]

Not only is the third Monday not on a birthday this year, it will never be with the current crop of presidents.

I am OK with it as February contains three of the greatest:

Washington Feb 22, 1732
Lincoln Feb 12, 1809
Reagan Feb 06, 1911

[Mr. Bumble]

FWIW:
"No, it's still actually Washington's birthday:"
My comment was meant to refer to the holiday, not his actual date of birth.

"George Washington was born in Virginia on February 11, 1731, according to the then-used Julian calendar. In 1752, however, Britain and all its colonies adopted the Gregorian calendar which moved Washington's birthday a year and 11 days to February 22, 1732."
https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/washington

[No One Of Consequence]

The federal holiday, as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 6103(a), is: "Washington’s Birthday, the third Monday in February."

Curiously, § 662.003(3) of the Texas Government Code says, "the third Monday in February, 'Presidents' Day'" is a "national holiday."

Of course, either way it's just a holiday for bankers, brokers, and bureaucrats.

[Mr. Bumble]

The federal holiday only applies to the federal government and DC.
States are free to choose for themselves how holidays are observed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Can we admit that he was a far better diplomat than military leader? While tensions were running high, he essentially started the French & Indian War.

[Frank Drackman]

You essentially don't know how to use the word essentially, essentially.

[not guilty]

President John Adams appointed George Washington's nephew, Bushrod Washington, to the Supreme Court, where he served from 1798 to 1829.

I suppose Bushrod is the First Cousin of the Country.

[santamonica811]

You just don't meet a lot of Bushrods nowadays.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Bushrod" was his mother's maiden name.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Rod was his dad's name and Bush was his mom's maiden. They combined as the hyphen wasn't invented and was he precursor to Brangelina.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Hon, I've got something to tell you. Remember the time you put your rod in my bush?"

[Stephen Lathrop]

At what point, and by what reasoning, does the judiciary take proper note that Musk/Trump's attack on the federal bureaucracy amounts to continuation of Trump's former coup attempt by other means?

This unprecedented series of actions will not be adequately addressed piecemeal, with one lawsuit after another. It will take too much time to do it, and open too many doors to evasive non-compliance. While the reality of the damage inflicted on American Constitutionalism continues.

[Frank Drackman]

The calls coming from inside your head

[Mr. Bumble]

If you're waiting, best not to hold your breath.

[Brett Bellmore]

The reasoning for that involves mushrooms, I think.

How do you envision Trump being President being "adequately addressed", then? The Senate won't remove him, the courts aren't allowed to. A sniper?

[Mr. Bumble]

Fortunately the preemptive attempts failed.

[Michael Ejercito]

At what point, and by what reasoning, does the judiciary take proper note that Musk/Trump's attack on the federal bureaucracy amounts to continuation of Trump's former coup attempt by other means?
The executive bnranch part of the federal bureaucracy has no authority apart from the President.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

This unprecedented series of actions

"Unprecedented" seems to be the new "literally".

[Sarcastr0]

“He who saves his Country does not violate any Law”

Explicitly lawless.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's being picky, I suppose, but "does not violate any law" is an explicit claim that the conduct ISN'T "lawless".

So, maybe you mean "implicitly"? That WOULD be a fair take, I agree; That's as bad as Obama claiming he had the right to do stuff if Congress refused to enact it.

[Sarcastr0]

Not what Obama said or what he did. Your deflection, however, is noted. Congrats on being the first; I doubt you'll be the least 'falls equivalence to the libs is all Trump defender have left these days.

Apply it to an Antifa assassin perhaps, and you may realize how it's explicit and it's lawless.

[Brett Bellmore]

I am not arguing with the "violates the law" bit. I'm arguing with your characterization of the statement as explicitly being lawless. It isn't; It's implicitly lawless. The two words mean different things, learn to use the right one.

[Sarcastr0]

Saying 'the law doesn't count' is *explicitly* lawless, you foolish quibbling man.

[Brett Bellmore]

Saying the act does not violate the law is "explicitly" a claim that the act is NOT "lawless". Again, the word you want here is "implicitly". (We both agree on the "lawless" part, though.)

People do not "explicitly" say what their words explicitly deny.

Stop confusing what you draw from somebody's utterance with their utterance itself. You do this all the time, claiming people have "explicitly" said what their words actually denied. It's one of your trademark rhetorical tics at this point.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Shorter Brett: "If I say it's the law, it's the law."

[Brett Bellmore]

"We both agree on the "lawless" part, though."

"Shorter X" is always and everywhere just a rhetorical decision to put into somebody's mouth what they didn't say.

[Sarcastr0]

Explicitly: "in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt"

You admit the lawless part.
So I dunno what definition of explicit you are using, but it's not a normal one.

I'm going to disengage rather than go round and round.

[RedheadedPharoh]

'the law doesn't count'

CTRL+F

Zero times.

Weird. You put that phrase in quotes as if it was, you know, a quote. But turns out, that phrase was never uttered by President Trump.

Classic Gaslightr0

[Krayt]

“He who saves his Country does not violate any Law”

Explicitly lawless.

Indeed. And not that different from "The Constitution is not a death pact."

[Sarcastr0]

It is pretty different.

The death pact bit is generally cited as a rule of construction that given 2 ways to interpret the Constitution don’t choose one if it is fatal to the Republic.

This Napoleon quote is not limited to the constitution and interpretation seems left entirely out.

[Michael Ejercito]

The death pact bit is generally cited as a rule of construction that given 2 ways to interpret the Constitution don’t choose one if it is fatal to the Republic.
And how do you deduce this interpretation.

It seems to me that "The Constitution is not a death pact." is just an excuse to violate civil rights.

[Sarcastr0]

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

But yeah, it is absolutely been used as a way to leverage a parade of horrible into a strained interpretation that curtails rights. That's not contradicted by what I said.

Would you also say that the above Trump quote is an excuse to violate the law?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Explicitly lawless."

If you cats didn't chase the light around so hysterically, he'd use the pointer less.

[Sarcastr0]

You keep falling for the law of goats.

[Bob from Ohio]

Keep chasing the light then, you'll catch it yet.

[No One Of Consequence]

A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.

[Reallynotbob]

"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." --Ulysses S. Grant

I'm not championing the quote, just pointing out that aphorisms come in all sizes.

"Saving the country" is pretty subjective when we're talking about a peacetime president claiming the right to ignore laws he doesn't like. Claiming a crisis exists does not make it so. Creating a crisis to prove a crisis exists is not "saving the country."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

How can you say that, with an invasion going on!

[Commenter_XY]

Does POTUS Trump and his team win this case? Yes or No.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/02/trump-seeks-emergency-scotus-stay-of-district-court-tro-preventing-termination-of-senior-employee/

District Court prevented termination of Hampton Dellinger as head of the Office of Special Counsel. Emergency Application: “The United States now seeks this Court’s intervention because these judicial rulings irreparably harm the Presidency by curtailing the President’s ability to manage the Executive Branch in the earliest days of his Administration….”

[Noscitur a sociis]

I mean this in the spirit of genuine curiosity, so don’t take it the wrong way, but: there’s a post specifically about this lawsuit two below this p one. Why bring it up here?

[Mr. Bumble]

Crossed in the ether?

[Commenter_XY]

I read the comments. Is Myers (1926) is no longer good law?

[not guilty]

"Does POTUS Trump and his team win this case? Yes or No."

No, or at least not at this stage. The relief requested is for SCOTUS to vacate the district court’s February 12, 2025 order granting Mr. Dellinger's motion for a temporary restraining order. https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2025-02-16-Dellinger-application.pdf The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals had ordered that the Secretary of the Treasury's appeal be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the emergency motion for stay be dismissed as moot, and the alternative request for mandamus relief be denied. https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/orders/docs/2025/02/25-5028LDSD.pdf Because the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction, the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction as well.

No federal statute authorizes an appeal from a district court's granting of a temporary restraining order. Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2951 (3d ed. June 2024 update); see also Adams v. Vance, 570 F.2d 950, 953 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (“The grant of a temporary restraining order under Rule 65(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., is generally not appealable.”). The granting or refusal of a preliminary injunction is appealable as of right under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). "In a civil action a restraining order qua restraining order is non-appealable," whereas a preliminary injunction is. Grant v. United States, 282 F.2d 165, 167 (2 Cir. 1960), quoting 7 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 65.07, at 1649 (2d ed. 1955).

In a rare case. an order styled as a TRO may be appealed if it is in substance a preliminary injunction. The D.C. Circuit explained in detail at pages 6 through 9 why this is not one of those rare cases.

Neither is a writ of mandamus appropriate. As the Supreme Court has emphasized, a writ of mandamus “is a drastic and extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary causes.” Cheney v. U.S. District Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004). A court should issue a writ of mandamus only if: (1) the party seeking issuance of the writ has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires; (2) the petitioner satisfies the burden of showing that his right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable; and (3) the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, is satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Id., at 380-381.

The Secretary here has other adequate means to attain the relief he desires -- the District Court has scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing to be held on February 26. A ruling granting or refusion injunctive relief there will be appealable as of right to the Court of Appeals. The Secretary's right to issuance of the writ is by no means "clear and indisputable." Mr. Dellinger's appointment in February 2024 was to a fixed five year term of employment, from which he may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, pursuant to 5 U.S. Code § 1211(b). Donald Trump's kicking and screaming notwithstanding, that statute has never been held to be constitutionally infirm. President Trump, despite being tasked under Article II, § 3 of the Constitution to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, flouted the requirements of the statute.

The Secretary's instant SCOTUS filing is idle ceremony. W. Shakespeare, Henry V Act 4 Scene 1 (circa 1599).

[Commenter_XY]

This was a really great explanation, NG. Very readable, which I appreciate. Thank you. The upshot I took away...it is a 14-day pause unless it is an emergency, and then, only a writ of mandamus is the remedy (very rare). I don't see an emergency.

Why is the remedy keeping the employee in the position, and not simply awarding back pay instead?

[Drewski]

A TRO isn't a remedy, it's an order to maintain the status quo. What your talking points generator meant to ask was why the availability of backpay doesn't obviate irreparable harm. I suggest you read the relevant order if you have questions about the court's reasoning.

[Krayt]

Oh no, backpay stumbling block might require it.

Oh no, spending hundreds of billions in loan forgiveness without authorization, sorry, no controversy or standing there.

Said with a straight face. I can't imagine why politicians are at the level of used car salesmen.

[Riva]

No, not a great explanation. An explanation that leaves out this minor point, from the Trump administration’s emergency petition:

Until now, as far as we are aware, no court in American history has wielded an injunction to force the President to retain an agency head whom the President believes should not be entrusted with executive power and to prevent the President from relying on his preferred replacement.

[not guilty]

The New York Times has published an interesting account of goings on in a meeting of the Department of Justice public integrity section on Friday morning regarding the government's corrupt request to dismiss corruption charges against Mayor Eric Adams of New York. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/16/us/politics/justice-department-trump-eric-adams.html

The article suggests that a senior prosecutor in the section offered to sign the motion to dismiss in order to save younger colleagues from the prospect of a mass firing.

The agreement to seek dismissal of the indictment without prejudice appears to have come about in return for Mayor Adams's promises to assist the Trump administration's efforts to deport more brown folks. Donald Trump's hatchet man, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, had acknowledged in a memorandum of February 10 that the decision was made “without assessing the strength of the evidence or the legal theories on which the case was based”. https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/7e89a255-4fb3-44c4-a912-aaadd74c2473.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_8

A federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 530B(a), mandates that "An attorney for the government shall be subject to State laws and rules, and local Federal court rules, governing attorneys in each State where such attorney engages in that attorney's duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State." Rule 3.4(e) of the New York Rules of Professional conduct mandates that an attorney shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.

The Trump DOJ is playing Let's Make A Deal to bargain away the pending indictment (albeit without prejudice) in order to ensure the accused's cooperation in deportation matters which are civil in nature, with the prospect of reinstating criminal prosecution if the mayor is insufficiently pliable. That is corrupt and highly unethical.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That is very obviously not what the rule means, in either part.

I don’t get it. Trump does enough stuff that is actually bad that it seems like it should be plenty of fodder: when you make up stuff like this, that only gives fodder for the people who want to defend it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Can you help me out? I cannot tell who you are disagreeing with, or what your first, "That," refers to.

[not guilty]

What Emil Bove and Company are doing here is precisely within the ambit of Rule 3.4(e). The DOJ is trading temporary relief in a criminal prosecution -- not because of the merits of the prosecution or lack thereof, but instead in order to gain an advantage in civil deportation matters. Once Mayor Adams capitulates to that overture, the prospect of reinstatement of the charges will hang like the Sword of Damocles over his head lest he disappoint Team Trump.

[RedheadedPharoh]

So kinda like that Judge Merchan thing where they were going to defer sentencing until after his term, and dependent upon how many Good Boy Points Trump earned with Merchan's daughter, the Democrat Activist who profited handsomely off of the case before her father?

[SRG2]

Difference between deferring charges and deferring sentencing, obviously.

[David Nieporent]

This thing that didn't happen that you pretend they "were going to" do would not be kinda like that, no.

[Riva]

I wonder how much ink The NY Times spilled covering Acting AG Bove’s letter eviscerating the insufferably insubordinate Sasson? Or the February 5, 2025 memorandum regarding Restoring the Integrity and Credibility of the Department ofJustice? That would be the directive ordering the dismissal of the Adams’ prosecution “based on well-founded concerns regarding weaponization, election interference, and the impediments the case had imposed on Mayor Adams’ ability to govern and cooperate with federal law enforcement to keep New York City safe.” Not much coverage, if any, I suspect.

[SimonP]

I wonder how much ink The NY Times spilled...

This is an excellent example of how MAGA feels no particular need to inform itself of the facts before opining, and in fact goes to great lengths to avoid the facts, in order to better preserve itself from the cognitive dissonance of repeating preferred narratives when contrary evidence is known.

As anyone who subscribes to and reads the NYTimes would know, they've been covering the ins and outs of this extraordinary matter over the past several days, and in fact did report on Bove's letter in response to Sassoon's resignation letter. NG's link was just to yesterday's story.

[Riva]

And your response is an excellent example of how the left distorts and misreports the facts. And how they are oblivious to their own biases. Enlighten me then. How did The NY Times report on the letter and memorandum?

[SimonP]

Read it yourself, fuckwit. I don't owe you a lesson.

[Riva]

My contention was that the NY Times was biased and unbalanced with respect to its reporting of Acting AG Bove’s letter to the insubordinate attorney and the memorandum/directive. You responded that I was ignorant of the facts and that the Times covered the “ins and outs” of the story. But when asked to justify that response, you have nothing. Well, you’ve sure put me in my place.

[SimonP]

You're right, I don't feel the need to provide evidence to rebut your evidence-free assertions, particularly when I know what the truth is.

[Riva]

Uh huh, except you made the assertion about the NY Times but apparently know jack shit about what they actually reported. Maybe you should have shown some self restraint before posting your inane response? But self restraint and intellectual integrity are not really hallmarks of the left. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be Democrats.

[SimonP]

Don't know what else to tell you. "How much has the NYTimes covered Bove's letters?" "I dunno, why don't you read the articles and see?" "SOURCE????"

[Riva]

Well you could start with all those "ins and outs" You did write this, didn't you?
"As anyone who subscribes to and reads the NYTimes would know, they've been covering the ins and outs of this extraordinary matter over the past several days, and in fact did report on Bove's letter in response to Sassoon's resignation letter."

But now, it's "I dunno." What an f'ing clown.

[David Nieporent]

Also, you do not in fact know what the word "insubordinate" means. Bove gave her an unethical order. She responded by going over his head, writing to his boss, saying, "You guys can't really mean this, right? If you do, I offer my resignation, because I can't do this." And then her resignation was accepted.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is there a difference between unethical and illegal?

[David Nieporent]

Yes. You can be sanctioned or disbarred for the former, but you can't go to jail for it.

[Mr. Bumble]

So while you think it was unethical, was it illegal?

[Noscitur a sociis]

My contention was that the NY Times was biased and unbalanced with respect to its reporting of Acting AG Bove’s letter to the insubordinate attorney and the memorandum/directive.

No it wasn’t. Your contention was that they didn’t cover it all, or at least not enough. (“ Not much coverage, if any, I suspect.”) You didn’t say anything about the tone of the coverage. (And still haven’t explained what you think is wrong with it, for that matter.)

[Riva]

If one isn't a complete idiot, my facetious tone more than conveyed my view that the coverage was likely the typical biased and distorted reporting the NY Times specializes in. Rather a stupid, petty complaint on your part but we've already established that you're an idiot.

[SimonP]

Riva: You still refuse to even look and see if you're right.

[Riva]

I dunno. You apparently didn’t read it yourself. Why should I waste my time with that garbage?

[David Nieporent]

I wonder how much ink The NY Times spilled covering Acting AG Bove’s letter eviscerating the insufferably insubordinate Sasson?

Since no such letter exists, none. The NYT did, however, cover Bove's thuggish, unethical, and incoherent threatening letter, though.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

By the way, how weird was it for him to "publish" such a letter at all?

[Noscitur a sociis]

1. They are granting a benefit in a criminal prosecution, not threatening one. (This ia perhaps pure fortuity due to the posture when they took over, but it’s true.)

2. The rule refers to a civil dispute with the person being threatened, which is not the case here.

3. The rule prohibits threatening or pursuing criminal charges solely to gain an advantage in civil litigation, which wouldn’t be the case should they need to threaten Adams.

4. Section 530B notwithstanding, rules of professional conduct cannot be enforced against federal prosecutors if they’re preempted by federal law, including law derived from constitutional structure. United States v. Supreme Court of New Mexico, 839 F.3d 888 (10th Cir. 2016). So to the extent that this was a proper exercise of executive authority, the New York court system can’t stop it.

Again, the criticism of this is so obvious, and the conduct so indefensible (witness the unusually pathetic defenses being offered) that I don’t see why you think it’s useful to get creative.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem with continually crying "wolf!" is that when Trump eventually does something he shouldn't, as all Presidents inevitably will, no one will care...

Anyone with a scintilla of integrity would mention Bondi's suit against the corrupt NY State folk in any mention of Adams. Anyone with a scintilla of integrity would have to concede that this is just like Bill Cosby, another Black man whom no one would say anything about until he left the plantation.

IF Adams is corrupt, he was corrupt before he left the plantation.

[David Nieporent]

when Trump eventually does something he shouldn't,

"eventually." LOL.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The agreement to seek dismissal of the indictment without prejudice appears to have come about in return for Mayor Adams's promises to assist the Trump administration's efforts to deport more brown folks."

He actually specifically promised to deport more "brown" folks? Seriously?

No, not seriously, it's just the usual "I'm going to inject baseless claims that every policy I don't like is racist, because I've got no other argument."

[not guilty]

Brett, I realize that you are a Michigander, but you have spent enough time in the South to recognize the dog whistling here.

Then-Senator Lyndon Johnson identified the wellspring of racism's virulence. As Bill Moyers has described it:

WHILE Lyndon Baines Johnson was a man of time and place, he felt the bitter paradox of both. I was a young man on his staff in 1960 when he gave me a vivid account of that southern schizophrenia he understood and feared. We were in Tennessee. During the motorcade, he spotted some ugly racial epithets scrawled on signs. Late that night in the hotel, when the local dignitaries had finished the last bottles of bourbon and branch water and departed, he started talking about those signs.

"I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it," he said. "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1988/11/13/what-a-real-president-was-like/d483c1be-d0da-43b7-bde6-04e10106ff6c/

The godfather of today's Republican Party was (most of the time) a Democrat: George Corley Wallace. (Who to his credit later in life repented of his racism.) Donald Trump's invective about "illegal aliens" is comparable to Governor Wallace's hateful rhetoric about "niggrahs."

[Frank Drackman]

Have Wallace’s John Hancock on my Undergrad and Medical Sheepskins, good chance he would have won in 72’ if he hadn’t been shot, the Nomination I mean, nobody was beating Milhouse that year

[Michael P]

Brett already identified that you have no argument other than the naked assertion "you're a racist". You didn't need to prove it further. Wallace was a Democrat; own him. The modern Democrat party still relies on racism; it merely turned the old version on its head, and picks the pockets of those gullible enough to fall for the nine most dangerous words in our language.

[not guilty]

George Wallace was a Democrat when he ran for office in Alabama and when he ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1964, 1972 and 1976. He ran for president as an independent in 1968.

[Michael P]

His only election wins were as a Democrat.

[not guilty]

Prick Nixon's odious "Southern Strategy" was designed to persuade Southern ancestral Democrats who had supported George Wallace's 1968 presidential bid to convert to the Republican Party. It was conceived and birthed in white racism, and it was remarkably successful. (Especially after another old time segregationist, Jerry Falwell, joined the effort in the wake of Bob Jones University losing its tax exempt status.)

Wallace planted. Nixon and Falwell watered. Satan gave the increase.

[Mr. Bumble]

Another episode of "Alternate History" brought to you by not guilty.

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, I have spent about 16 years in the South, and that has taught me that the South is, if anything, LESS racist than Michigan at this point. Possibly because the South is far less segregated than Michigan; Almost the entire black population of Michigan, after all, live in a few urban centers, while in the South the races are pretty well mixed, and must live together.

I see inter-racial couples all the time here, and nobody gives them a second look. Never saw that when I lived in Michigan.

I'm unpersuaded. You're just asserting racism, not demonstrating it. It's a tactic which doesn't depend in any way on racism actually being present.

What's going on is that the Democratic party switched from being racist against blacks, to being racist in favor of blacks, and then declared simply ignoring race to be "racist".

[Frank Drackman]

I’d call the party supporting the murder of over 50 million unborn Black Babies since 1973 as being “Racist against Blacks”

[SimonP]

In fact, I have spent about 16 years in the South, and that has taught me that the South is, if anything, LESS racist than Michigan at this point.

You must feel lonely, then, Goober.

[Michael Ejercito]

My longtime Usenet ally, Christopher Charles Morton, wrote about his own lived experiences when attending IOBC.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.politics.misc/c/VpEAR7U15rA/m/C_e-Co0C8HYJ

[SimonP]

Not clicking that link.

Anyway, I wasn't disputing Goob's account. He equivocates strategically in his use of the term "inter-racial," when describing South Carolina's comparative lack of racism (again, equivocal), but if he wants to assert specifically that anti-Black racism is less of a thing in SC than it was in Michigan (which, again, not sure why that's the question, since NG was asserting that Goober should recognize dog-whistling when he sees it), then I'm happy to accept that might be the case. I agree that racial diversity and open racism are unlikely to go hand-in-hand.

I'm just noting the fact that Goober's said same pretty obnoxiously anti-Black racist things here.

[Kazinski]

Had a argument with my brother over racism and I pointed out to him that according to anti-racist dogma that very liberal Marin County is one of the most racist places in the country.

Despite their surface commitment to DEI the very affluent county is has a miniscule Black population, yet while right across the bay the much less affluent cities of Oakland, Richmond, and Vallejo have black populations of almost 20%.

According to anti racist theory those differing outcomes could only come from racism.

Of course the real reason is that very hilly Marin county especially the southern half has never much industry or even agriculture, and the East Bays Black population migrated to the steel mills, refineries and shipyards located on that side of the bay.

While California did have an Asian exclusion law, it never had a Black exclusion law as its very liberal neighbor to the north, Oregon did.

In any case neither Marin County nor Oregon should be pointing any fingers at the South.

[Jmaie]

Public schools in Marin are 5% Black and 55% Latino while those groups comprise 2% and 15% of the population. For some reason the good liberal White folks all send their kids to private schools...

[Mr. Bumble]

Just like the governor.

[Michael Ejercito]

Donald Trump's invective about "illegal aliens" is comparable to Governor Wallace's hateful rhetoric about "niggrahs."
Laken Riley and A.J. Wise unavailable for comment.

[Kazinski]

Wallace followed in Orval Faubus's footsteps, who tried to stop integration of Central High in Little Rock, Arkansas. Bit Caucus clearly was not a conservative with a (D), he was a red diaper baby on the far left of the New Deal Democrats, as well as being a virulent racist.

And lets not forget it was a Republican President that integrated Little Rock schools, and DC, and appointed the key members of the Supreme Court that wrote Brown.

Eisenhower was the most consequential civil rights President, not Johnson.

And Woodrow Wilson was hands down the worst.

[not guilty]

Only one member of the Supreme Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), Chief Justice Warren, was appointed by a Republican president.

[Riva]

Is this same The NY Times that helped perpetuate the Russian collusion fraud?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or who lied about the Holocaust when it was happening...

[David Nieporent]

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

[John F. Carr]

From the commentary to rule 3.5:

The use of threats in negotiation may constitute the crime of extortion. However, not all threats are improper. For example, if a lawyer represents a client who has been criminally harmed by a third person (for example, a theft of property), the lawyer’s threat to report the crime does not constitute extortion when honestly claimed in an effort to obtain restitution or indemnification for the harm done. But extortion is committed if the threat involves conduct of the third person unrelated to the criminal harm (for example, a threat to report tax evasion by the third person that is unrelated to the civil dispute).

[John F. Carr]

"The article suggests that a senior prosecutor in the section offered to sign the motion to dismiss in order to save younger colleagues from the prospect of a mass firing."

I read much the same thing on Friday. The article made me think, "Somebody volunteered to be Robert Bork."

[ReaderY]

A question to unitary executive theory folks who claim to be textualists or originalists.

Article II of the Constitution contains one and only one clause describing the President’s relationships with members of the civil administration once appointed and commissioned. It’s in Section 2:

“He may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer of each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.”

My question is, why is this clause there? Under the unitary executive theory, this is a relatively obvious and trivial power. The President can order anybody in any executive department to do anything he wants, at least anything not inconsistent with the law, upon pain of being dismissed at any time. So it would be absolutely obvious that he could order this. So why mention this? It’s pure surplussage.

It seems to me that the only way this phrase could be made to be meaningful is if the President has far less than absolute power over the administration; indeed, if the President does not rule it like a business CEO, but merely presides over it. indeed, taking the clause seriously, as a grant of power that wouldn’t otherwise exist, tends to suggest that the President has so little power over the administration that, but for this clause, the heads of departments wouldn’t even have to tell him what they were doing unless Congress authorized it by statute! That, I think, is the necessary implication of this clause.

The President may well have unenumerated implied powers, the equivalent of Congress’ “necessary and proper” powers. But it seems a very long and twisted path to get from a written document in which the President is such a figurehead, a kind of chairman of the board, that even the power to ask for progress reports from department heads is an enumerated power that wouldn’t exist unless specifically enumerated, and in which otherwise ALL the President’s other powers over subordinates have to be individually authorized by Congress to come into existence, to an interpretation where the President has inherently, autochthonously to his office, absolute power over all subordinates and can ask any of them to do anything he wants.

In the Johnson impeachment, it was taken as a given that the President’s power to fire a subordinate was determined by Congress. The question for the Senate was whether disobeying Congress’ instructions on this point was a sufficiently grave offense to warrant removal.

Does the unitary executive theory have any basis in the text or history of the constitution? Of course it is rooted in the commom law. But the common law speaks of the powers of a King. The Framers wanted a President, not a King. They wanted someone to preside over the administration, not command it absolutely. They wanted an officer with considerably less power over the civil administration than the British Monarch had.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why were you not asking this of Obama?!?

We ave the right to play by the same rules Obama did.

[hobie]

Wasn't Obama our president nearly a decade ago?

[Bored Lawyer]

So what? His point is, that there are many (not ReaderY, whom I consider intellectually honest) had no problem with Executive overreach by Obama (remember "pen and phone) and are now squealing when Trump supposedly does it.

[hobie]

Bro, like the last four years have taught, nothing before or since has any meaning. Every single thing is the fault of the sitting president. All these cuts, all these people losing their jobs, every egg sold...Trump owns it all. I welcome all of these cuts and layoffs. I'm hoping for more

[Bored Lawyer]

Thank you for that complete non-sequitur.

[Don Nico]

Indeed, hobie. As I told my management class two weeks ago: it doesn't matter which of your folks fucked up; it's the boss's fault.

[bernard11]

I don't get the right's obsession with the "pen and phone" business.

I've got a pen and I've got a phone - and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.

What's the problem here?

Was Obama not entitled to issue any EO's at all? Was he not entitled to call people to garner support, try to convince them of something.

If you announce that you have a gun, and intend to defend yourself with it, are you saying you intend to rob someone with it?

Really, using that to defend Trump, aside from it being a moronic whataboutism, makes no sense.

[SRG2]

Was Obama not entitled to issue any EO's at all? Was he not entitled to call people to garner support, try to convince them of something.

No, because as Obama was a Negro from Kenya, he wasn't really a president at all. At least, according to many on the right, it seems.

[Satchmo_Lives]

It was said because congress refused to pass laws he wanted. If you don't see the problem with "I will take the power designated to congress because congress has wrong-think" why the hell are you griping about Trump at all?

Is Biden saying he couldn't legally forgive student debt recent enough, but doing it anyway, knowing he could get away with it until it wound its way to SCOTUS? The left cheered. They didn't call it a constitutional crisis.

[JasonT20]

It was said because congress refused to pass laws he wanted. If you don't see the problem with "I will take the power designated to congress because congress has wrong-think" why the hell are you griping about Trump at all?

"Obama did something that that I think violates the Constitution, therefore it is the correct thing for Trump to do."

That sum it up?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, because Obama did something Obama said violated the Constitution.

Which doesn't make it the right thing for Trump to do, too.

[Sarcastr0]

You are going to honestly argue that Obama basically said 'Ima violate the Constitution' with his pen and phone thing?

You can't think of ANY other interpretations for that statement?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm going to honestly argue that he said he couldn't do DACA without legislation, and then when no legislation was enacted, went ahead and did it anyway.

Even SNL thought Obama's 'pen and phone thing' was deserving of mockery, though.

[Sarcastr0]

The Dream Act was not DACA. As I've walked you through many times. And others as well.

One important distinction is the path to permanent residency, something only Congress can give.
And DACA didn't give it.

Remember this for next time.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Dream Act was not perfectly identical with DACA. Both shared the fact that they would require legislative action to be legal, though.

[Sarcastr0]

So NOT "when no legislation was enacted, went ahead and did it anyway."

He did something different. So right there? You've admitted you were wrong.

The rest is just BrettLaw.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Nope. Poor effort.

My comment is how many of you guys think it is so much different now.

Biden does it=no big deal
Trump does it=constitutional crisis putting our democracy at risk

I personally think it is all wrong, but I wasn't screaming "democracy at risk" over forcing middle income households to pay for Ivy League degrees. Now firing someone using unsettled case law is the death of America requiring judges to use never before seen methods to "correct" the threat.

[Bored Lawyer]

What Satchmo said. You are omitting the context that Obama threatened to do what he wanted Congress to do.

[Sarcastr0]

Obama didn't do this. Which is why you just haul out the quote.

DACA was substantially descoped from the Dream Act.

Trump, on the other hand, is full-on ignoring appropriation acts and authorizations all over the place.

[bernard11]

What is the context you are looking for?

As I read the statement he is saying he will do what he can to advance his goal, not. that he will disregard the Constitution.

Besides, the whole whataboutery is idiotic. If you think Obama did something unconstitutional that doesn't mean it's OK for Trump to do it.

Most of us learned that from our mothers at a tender age.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Biden was Obama's 3rd term.

[ReaderY]

It seems to me that just as liberal justices see penumbras and emanations in the constitution when they roll it up and smoke it, so conservative justices see structural principles.

[Bored Lawyer]

And what is wrong with that? The Constitution vests the "Executive Power" in one man. That language means something. You can disagree about what, exactly, it means, but that is hardly the same thing as fabricating the right to abortion when none ever existed in almost 200 years of Constitutional history.

[Drewski]

"The Constitution vests the "Executive Power" in one man."

No, it vests in the office. This was, and is, an important distinction.

[Satchmo_Lives]

The office of the president is what is invested.

I am sure you have many examples where there were co-presidents. Realizing, of course, that acting president is not the same as co-president.

In any case, the office of the president is held by one person--not a committee.

It is only a distinction in your mind that the office of president is more than one person.

[Drewski]

That's an interpretation of my comment only an LLM could come up with. No human would read it that way.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is it wrong?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You might want to check your quote.

It does not in fact grant the “Executive Power” to anyone. Read carefully.

[Bored Lawyer]

It's a good question, which I have to think about. But I don't think the Constitution can be read to say the President is a figurehead.

I also refer you to Federalist No. 70, which is here: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-61-70. It has an extensive discussion of why a president should not be answerable to his cabinet (or, as he calls it, council.)

Practically, the president instructs a cabinet member to implement a policy. The cabinet member says, "Sod off." What, acc. to you, can the president do?

Let me also add one hypothetical. A president has a majority of his party in both houses of Congress. At the next election, he both loses office and Congress is won by the other party. The lame duck Congress then passes a law, which he signs, that all cabinet members and other heads of federal agencies now have lifetime tenure, and cannot be removed, except upon conviction of a crime. So is the incoming president now stuck with the last one's cabinet? Sounds bizarre.

[Bored Lawyer]

BTW, the flip side of the unitary executive theory should be the unitary legislature theory. Congress has the legislative power, not administrative agencies run by the Executive. A great deal of federal regulation is just legislation in disguise. Much of it is invalid without a vote by Congress. IMO.

[Michael Ejercito]

It is a good question if Congress can set up inferior legislatures outside of its power to "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States" and the "Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States".

[Krayt]

Alternately, that requirement is to point out an important function so the president can run a tight ship.

But like you, this is supposition. According to form, those who study the constitutional convention and other writings of the time, and the states, should be able to answer that.

Followed shortly by none of that matters look at the text, which binds.

[Riva]

You might have saved yourself some embarrassment by reading the Executive Vesting Clause.

[ReaderY]

So how do you explain this clause? The Framers had already paid for the paper and needed to fill it with something because they didn’t want it to go to waste?

If not, what does this clause add to the Constitution that wasn’t already there?

The constitution doesn’t define the “executive power.” Sure, the common law defines it. It defines it in terms of the traditional powers of the King. But we know the framers didn’t want a king. Further, they added a clause that seems rather inconcsistent with powers that extensive So why should we assume that “the executive power” means what the unitary executive people say it is, that it is as absolute as the British Crown’s traditionally was?

Once again, do you have any explanation at all for why this clause is there, other than decoration to fill up paper that would otherwise be wasted white space?

[Riva]

“The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Art II, sec. 1. “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Art. 1, sect. 1. “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Art III, sec. 1 It’s called the separation of powers and the checks and balances do not create a monarchical system. Quite the opposite actually.

[ReaderY]

In other words, you can’t explain the clause at all. You just pretend not to notice, and hope that other people won’t notice, that it’s there. You’ve made that clear enough.

[Riva]

Not sure why you think a mention of the president’s discretionary authority to request written opinions from executive officers somehow limits the previous grant of all executive authority in the office of the president. Is that what you think that means, that the President is deprived any executive authority over principal officers apart from that ability to request written opinions? And i guess necessarily he has no authority over inferior officers under the control of these officers. That’s, frankly, an insane reading and would operate to negate the vesting of all executive authority in the presidency and completely undermine our constitutional structure.

[ReaderY]

Because if the President already had this authority, it wouldn’t need to be granted. The fact that the Framers thought this power needed to be granted is evidence they thought he didn’t otherwise have it. This makes it evidence that your theory, that the other clauses are sweeping enough to grant this power already and this is obviously so, is not what the Framers were thinking when they wrote the document.

In other words, the clause evidences that the validity of your theory wasn’t nearly as obvious to the Framers as it is to you.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The Constitution says that, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” If you read this as saying that Congress gets to make the laws, you end up with a contradiction. The Constitution says that if Congress passes a bill, the bill doesn’t become law if the President vetoes it (unless Congress overrides the veto).

What ReaderY is pointing out is that the President’s powers are also less than an expansive reading of the grant of executive power to the President would imply.

[Riva]

And I’m pointing out why that contention is an absurdly superficial and uninformed view of the Constitution and its separation of powers.

[David Nieporent]

Not sure why you think a mention of the president’s discretionary authority to request written opinions from executive officers somehow limits the previous grant of all executive authority in the office of the president.

He doesn't think that this mention "limits" anything; he thinks that it implies that the previous grant is much less expansive than you think it is.

[Kazinski]

Here is how Roberts explained it in Seila, quoting Madison:

These lesser officers must remain accountable to the President, whose authority they wield. As Madison explained, “[I]f any power whatsoever is in its nature Executive, it is the power of appointing, overseeing, and controlling those who execute the laws.” 1 Annals of Cong. 463 (1789). That power, in turn, generally includes the ability to remove executive officials, for it is “only the authority that can remove” such officials that they “must fear and, in the performance of [their] functions, obey.” Bowsher, 478 U. S., at 726"

So because the Executive power is invested in the President, and according to Madison that "is the power of appointing, overseeing, and controlling those who execute the laws", and Roberts then makes the very small leap to hold (along with the a majority of the court) that includes the power to remove them.

[David Nieporent]

Here's what the "Executive Vesting Clause" says: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Here's what the "Executive Vesting Clause" doesn't say: "The power to fire anyone in the executive branch shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Here's what the "Executive Vesting Clause" also doesn't say: "The power to command employees to carry out each and every one of his orders shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

What you're not able to grasp is that "the Executive Vesting Clause" doesn't actually say what the executive power consists of, so repeatedly referring to it contains no information. That it includes whatever power you think it includes — beyond things explicitly stated like pardons and vetoes and being CinC — is inference, not some sort of truism.

And ReaderY's point, which you also aren't able to grasp, is that the founders must not have thought that it was obvious, or they wouldn't have felt the need to separately specify this particular power. If that clause weren't in there, and Trump ordered Pam Bondi to prepare a written report to him about what DOJ was doing to help punish all the Democrats who won't help get rid of illegals, and she didn't do it, would you argue she could be fired for not obeying his order? I am sure we all agree that you would say Trump could fire her for that; you'd argue that of course he can. You'd say that she's his subordinate, he asked her to prepare a report and she didn't, and he's got the executive power vested in him to do something about that. So what does the clause add? By your logic: nothing. It's entirely superfluous. The same thing would happen whether it was there or not.

To be sure, that is one possibility. Another is that the "executive power," while indisputably vested in him, is far narrower than you want it to be.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court (in its present guise) has proven that it believes parts of the written Constitution are indeed superfluous and may be ignored. I'm referring to their recent deletion of Article 3 from the 14th Amendment.

In that and other recent decisions the Supreme Court has shown a remarkable deference to the current President which is seemingly not grounded in the Constitution itself.

Crimea Riva's expectation that the Court will also ignore the cited portion of Article II Section 2 is, therefore, a reasonable one to hold at this time.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Well, what do you think it means? Suppose we ratified a 29th Amendment that removes that clause (and made it clear that it imposed no other changes). The next day the president asks the secretary of defense to report whether we would lose a war to China or whatever, and the secretary says, “I don’t really feel like figuring that out, and I’m definitely not writing it down.” What happens?

[ReaderY]

Under the “figurehead absent enumerated powers or congressional authorization” theory, Congress can always grant the President additional authority by statute. This means the President could turn to Congress and ask it to authorize him to require this if it hasn’t done so already. But if Congress chooses not to grant or even chooses to remove this authority, which could happen in the latter case if more than 2/3 of both houses are controlled by opponents bent on maximally weakening the Presidency, the President is stuck.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2025/02/15/northern-california-zizians-border-agent-death/

An interesting story on the vegan tranny cult that have killed at least six people, including the Vermont border guard. Why is it that the crazies on the left are largely ignored?

[Mr. Bumble]

One more you probably haven't heard about:
"Did you know about the anti-Trump gunman who tried a mass sh—ting in Milwaukee on Feb. 12? Of course not! "

https://x.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1890168749803859975

[Dr. Ed 2]

See also: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/new-details-bay-area-zizians-death-cult-20165754.php?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

[Riva]

Did you watch Face the Nation? Brennan’s ignorance, stupidity and bias fairly epitomizes the modern left. It corrupts their reporting of everything.

[Michael Ejercito]

I read the quote.

Would you have trusted Jim Crow state governments to police “misinformation”, “disinformation”, “harmful speech”, and “dangerous speech”?

[Satchmo_Lives]

They still haven't released the manifesto from the trans shot up her former private Christian school. If they have, it sure hasn't been widely disseminated.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Who is this "they"? The Biden Administration, maybe?

[Commenter_XY]

So this case St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond will be argued sometime soon (one hopes). There hasn't been much discussion about that here.

Saw this article discussing the case from a different perspective.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-us-supreme-court-case-could-pave-the-way-for-publicly-funded-jewish-day-schools/

Is this an establishment case, or a parental rights case? Because it sure looks like both. In a clash of rights as we see here, which right, privilege, immunity 'Trumps' (pun intended)?

[ReaderY]

It’s not a parental rights case. What’s in dispute is whether Oklahoma is PERMITTED to charter a religious school as a public-education charter school or not. Nobody in the case (at least none of the parties) is arguing that Oklahoma is OBLIGATED to do so. So the case is not about whether parents have any right to such a school as a matter of parental rights. It’s a pure establishment clause case.

Of course, if the Court decides that the state can fund such a school without running afoul of the Establishment Clause, we will doubtless soon see an argument that the state must do so because not doing so would be discriminating against religion. But even that argument would be a religion-clause or equal protection argument, not a parental rights argument.

Parents of course have long had a right to send their children to private schools of their choosing. They just don’t have a right to do so at public expense.

[Brett Bellmore]

"They just don’t have a right to do so at public expense."

And the problem with saying this has always been that the government is taking large amounts of money away from the public, yes, including parents, to pay for the school system, and in so doing renders it impossible for people of modest means to afford to send their children to private schools of their own choosing.

It's a neat recipe: Tax people to the point where they can't AFFORD to do something they've an admitted right to do, and then offer to pay only for the government approved version of it, knowing you've stripped them of the ability to pay to exercise that choice.

[hobie]

"and in so doing renders it impossible for people of modest means to afford to send their children to private schools of their own choosing."

No. Public funding means that every child gets to have an education with free books in a building instead of from Mom in the woodshed. It does not mean our money pays for kids to go to the Khomeni School of the Golden Koran for $30,000/semester

[Krayt]

This is the "we provision services, that's all" rhetorical model. It is not new, and is common in education. It is also used to piss on charter and other schools where "the money follows the kid".

To normal Americans, that seems reasonable. To those with an interest in...something else...this cannot be allowed as it crushes that business model.

Of course, the crushing is also the real reason for it. Both sides pick their position for behind the scenes power struggles, then commence faceting about.

[Don Nico]

hobie,
When I lived in Chicago, many black parents with no affiliation to the Catholic Church sent their kids to inexpensive Catholic schools rather than to the Chicago public schools which turned kids into sociopaths.
Your dog just don't hunt.

[hobie]

And if the Muslims get their shit together and start a nationwide fleet of stellar yet Quran-based private schools? Do they get public funds?

[Don Nico]

As long they allow non-Muslims to attend and do not co-mingle religious instruction with secular subjects. Same applies to Catholics and Jews.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, and I would allow religious instruction as well, hobie.

[hobie]

That would violate the establishment clause, it was also cause terrible isolation of the secular children

[Don Nico]

Hobie,
Excusing non-members of the faith has worked well for decades. That is why parents of other faiths have used various denominations of parochial schools.

[ReaderY]

Well, the there’s also a constitutional right to travel.

The same government taxation that is taking away people’s money to spend on private schools of their choice is also taking their money to spend on private transportation of their choice. So if I’m a person of modest means and I choose to charter a helicopter instead of taking the public bus, under your theory government is obligated to fund it.

Correct?

[Krayt]

To make the analogy accurate, the percent of that person's money provided for public transport could be applied to the helicopter, and anyone could take advantage of it, or open a helicopter service that otherwise followed the rules.

[hobie]

As long as the schools don't violate the establishment clause and are cheaper, I say give it a shot

[Brett Bellmore]

No.

Self-driving cars are starting to be a real thing. So, looking at the freedom to travel, suppose the government started heavily taxing cars, to the point where most people of ordinary means could not afford them. And then offered subsidized self-driving cars that would refuse to take you where the government didn't want you to go.

In theory, you still have the right to travel freely. In practice, unless you're wealthy enough to pay for two cars in order to have one, you can only exercise that right in ways the government favors. Only go where the government wants you to go.

Now, if the government took that transportation money, and instead provided car vouchers, they'd lose that capacity to dictate where you could travel. And I suppose you could spend yours on a helicopter, if you could afford the difference in price...

Or, suppose the government heavily taxed media of all sorts. Impartially, of course, no content discrimination. But heavily enough that most people couldn't afford to buy books, watch movies. And then allows free government subsidized access to only those books and movies the government likes.

Or taxes groceries, and sets up food kitchens.

I'm saying this is a general recipe for rendering rights meaningless: Tax to the point where people can't afford to exercise them, and then offer the government's preferred version. In theory the right remains, in practice only the wealthy can exercise it anymore.

The wealthy LOVE this in the area of education, of course: Their kids get a leg up over everybody else's, because everybody who can't afford private schooling is stuck with the deliberately dumbed down public schools, crippled right out of the starting gate.

[ReaderY]

How does your hypothetical defer from what has been the case for a long time, where those who can’t afford their own car or a taxi can only go where the public bus goes? Isn’t that exactly what having a fixed bus route means? You can only go where the government wants you to go?

We take an extensive road network for granted. But public roads do the same thing. They go where government wants you to go. In the days when most of the land was wilderness, that often meant government decided what would get developed and what wouldn’t because it decided where people could transport goods to and where they couldn’t.

Why is that any different? People have never had a right to have government build roads for them just because they want to go somewhere that currently doesn’t have one.

[Brett Bellmore]

"How does your hypothetical defer from what has been the case for a long time,"

I distinguish natural poverty from having enough income to do as you please, and having it taxed away from you. It's the difference between not having a choice, and having a choice taken away.

Government spending as a percentage of GDP, 1800-2022

Total government spending as a percentage of GDP represents the extent to which government choices are displacing private sector choices as to how a society's wealth is expended. As you can see, our own government is currently directing a fraction of the economy we'd only previously seen during the worse of WWII.

As a society we've grown much more wealthy over the last half century. Our government has consumed a huge proportion of that growth in wealth, leaving only a fraction of it for private individuals to spend as THEY wish.

[apedad]

Gee, I wonder if things like better public education, better financial controls , e.g., FDIC, SEC, etc., safer working conditions, better public infrastructure (and yes we can and should do better), increased international partnerships, etc., have led to our society growing much more wealthy over the last half century.

All things that Trump is actively trying to tear apart BTW.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's like you think nothing good can happen if the government doesn't do it.

[Sarcastr0]

You think what apedad listed there are the sum total of what happens in America?

[bernard11]

It's like you think the private market can do anything at all.

Do you think the activities of the SEC and FDIC, for example, are worthwhile? How would private companies carry them out? I'm sure you have some Bellmorean scheme, but it won't work.

And if they could profitably do that, why did no one do so?

[John F. Carr]

The car control war has been going on for a while. People try to update the traffic map databases, mostly Waze, to make the other guy's road look more attractive.

When you rent a scooter in the LA area it will lock up the wheels when it crosses into a city that doesn't want scooters. Car drivers don't put up with that yet, but remote control of cars has been on the government's wish list for decades.

[bernard11]

suppose the government started heavily taxing cars, to the point where most people of ordinary means could not afford them.

First of all, Brett, this case is not about taxing private schools. It's about whether the state may subsidize an explicitly Catholic school.

Further, AFAIK private schools are not taxed at all. So your "model" doesn't quite fit. They do, of course receive government services.

Finally, there is nothing at all to prevent the same people from chartering a non-denominational school, and running it the same way, for most purposes, that Catholic schools are run - rigorous classes, firm discipline, uniforms - whatever. The only thing missing would be the religious instruction, as well as, maybe, rules about hiring and the like.

So the state can clearly spend $X to fund such a school, but what the St. Isidore people want is for it to spend $X plus $Y to support religious instruction.

That's a ridiculous request (though I'm sure Alito will be all for it), no matter how many bad analogies you dream up.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Tax people to the point where they can't AFFORD to do something they've an admitted right to do, and then offer to pay only for the government approved version of it, knowing you've stripped them of the ability to pay to exercise that choice.

I am skeptical that the tax burden is what stops very many people from being able to afford private schools. Can you flesh this out a little?

[Commenter_XY]

ReaderY, let me ask this. Non-sectarian and sectarian parents both pay property taxes to support public schools. If taxpayer dollars are going to create sectarian charter schools, why are non-sectarian off the table.

Why isn't this an 'all can do it or none can do it' sort of legal issue, independent of any supposed establishment issue.

State X says: program here to start charter school, parents, pick any one you like...sectarian, Christian, Jewish, Hindi, Muslim, Scientologist, whatever. How is that wrong? The program is administered independent and indifferent to viewpoint.

I would pick a Jewish day school. You might pick sectarian. Another might pick Hindi. This is where my parental rights might come into play...why can I not choose (with my tax dollars) where my child is educated?

What am I missing. Relatedly, if vouchers can be used at a religious school, what's the difference?

[Don Nico]

Exactly, the point. It is why many Jewish parents in Oakland sent their kids to a Catholic high school (at 1/3 the cost of the private high schools) than had then go to Oakland High.

[bernard11]

Read your own link, XY.

Peter Deutsch, a former Congressman who set up Jewish day schools in FL, and supports the St. Isidore school went to Oklahoma to see about starting a Jewish school there, "However, after speaking with rabbis and Jewish parents, he concluded that the state’s small Jewish population made the idea impractical."

So how many places are going to support your rainbow of schools?

And if the Catholics can have a school, then the Baptists surely can as well, and Methodists, and... In places where one or two religions are dominant you may not have enough secular residents to support a non-religious school. Then what? This is one reason I think the Maine decision was incorrect.

[Commenter_XY]

If there aren't enough Tribe members in OK to support a Jewish day charter school, then there won't be one. You have to have sufficient enrollment. Same for the Scientologists, or Hindi.

In NJ, it would be a lock = sufficient population

[Noscitur a sociis]

So… why exactly should the Jewish people who do live in Oklahoma have to pay for a Catholic, evangelical, or Muslim school?

[Commenter_XY]

For the same reason they pay for public schools, Nas.

If there aren't enough Jewish students, or Muslim students or Scientology students, then there won't be a charter school in OK for those sectarian schools.

[bernard11]

What happens when there are so many Catholic schools and Baptist schools in OK, or some large part of it, that there aren't enough other students to make a non-religious school, public or charter, viable?

You going to send your kids to a Baptist school?

What you are potentially doing is turning education over to curches in some places.

What you are certainly doing is using public money to provide religious indoctrination. How that doesn't violate the Establishment Clause is a mystery to me.

[Josh R]

Why isn't this an 'all can do it or none can do it' sort of legal issue, independent of any supposed establishment issue.

As I explained in more detail below, you are right (it's a decision that can't be based on viewpoint, including religious versus non-religious) assuming there is not an Establishment Clause violation. But, if there is an Establishment Clause violation (as the Oklahoma supreme court held), that takes precedence.

[David Nieporent]

What am I missing.

Charter schools are public schools. "Why can't we have Catholic public schools?" is a question for which to ask it is to answer it.

(Oh, and by the way, you are using "sectarian" backwards; sectarian means religious.)

[Commenter_XY]

David, we agree. Charter schools are public schools (thx for correction on sectarian! LOL). So what? The parents are still taxpayers (religious and 'heathen' alike).

I am hard-pressed to see why we cannot have Jewish day schools, Christian schools, Muslim and Hindi schools. They're all taxpayers too. If they teach the state mandated curriculum, fine. They can add on what they wish (I don't have a problem teaching any child kaddish, or hashkivenu). The parents always have the public school option.

[Josh R]

You can't have public Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Hindu (Hindi is a language) schools. So if charter schools are public schools, then you can't have religious charter schools.

[Josh R]

Nobody in the case (at least none of the parties) is arguing that Oklahoma is OBLIGATED to do so

That's not quite right.

It is true that the Oklahoma Charter School Board chose to recognize a religious school as a charter school. And it is true that Oklahoma's attorney general sued to reverse the Board's decision on the basis (in part) of the Establishment Clause. So, it might appear like this is only a case about whether Oklahoma is permitted to charter a religious school.

However, the school countered that once Oklahoma made charter schools available, the Free Exercise Clause obligates the state to to make them a charter school. In Carson v. Makin (2022), SCOTUS required Maine to provide tuition assistance to religious schools on an equal basis with non-sectarian private schools. SCOTUS held there was no Establishment Clause violation had Maine chosen to provide tuition assistance to religious schools, and thus the Free Exercise Clause required them to do so. That is, there was no "play in the joints" where a state could choose either to accommodate religion (without violating the Establishment Clause) or not accommodate (without violating the Free Exercise Clause). The result has to be one (the state cannot accommodate religion) or the other (the state must accommodate religion).

The ruling below by the Oklahoma supreme court held that a charter school, unlike tuition assistance, is a state-created school. As such, the Establishment Clause is violated and the state cannot charter a religious school.

[Commenter_XY]

The state 'must' accommodate is where I ultimately come out. Hopefully, SCOTUS will agree.

[bernard11]

There's no Free Exercise issue here. The school's argument is horseshit.

No one is stopping the church from operating its school. No one is interfering with any of the church's religious activities. The church and its members are perfectly free to exercise their religion as they like.

What they are after is not Free Exercise, but Subsidized Exercise.

[Josh R]

In Carson, SCOTUS said:

we have repeatedly held that a State violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.

[Kazinski]

They already had the Maine case as to whether Maine was permitted to exclude religious schools from a tuition reimbursement:

"In its clearest statement to date, the court said that if a state uses taxpayer money to pay for students attending nonreligious private schools, it must also use taxpayer funds to pay for attendance at religious schools. For all practical purposes, the decision thus invalidates provisions in 37 state constitutions that ban the direct or indirect use of taxpayer money in religious schools."
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/21/1105348236/supreme-court-rules-maines-tuition-assistance-program-must-cover-religious-schoo

Seems to me if Oklahoma allows a secular private school to be chartered as a public school then they would have to allow a religious school the same privilege. But I don't really know just what chartering means in a legal sense in this case, is it subcontracting, or is it a takeover?

[Josh R]

But I don't really know just what chartering means in a legal sense in this case, is it subcontracting, or is it a takeover?

That's the crux of the case. The Oklahoma supreme court said:

St. Isidore is a state-created school that does not exist independently of the State. [...] The Carson Court specifically distinguished that the private schools at issue "were not public schools," noting all the differences between private schools and public schools.

The dissent countered:

St. Isidore would not become a "state actor" merely by contracting with the State to provide a choice in educational opportunities

[Frank Drackman]

2d Amendment Solutions:
MANCHESTER, Ky. (WKYT) - Two people are dead after a juvenile thwarted a home invasion attempt.
Kentucky State Police Trooper Scottie Pennington posted on Facebook on Saturday that Clay County 911 contacted KSP after two people were found shot in Manchester.
When troopers got there, they found that the two men shot had tried to break into a home and steal firearms from a safe.
Pennington says that after the two broke in, a juvenile living in the home saw them holding guns and shot them both with a handgun.

[not guilty]

Thirty-three years ago today, the serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer was sentenced to life imprisonment after being found guilty of 15 counts of first-degree murder. All but one of Dahmer's killings took place in Milwaukee, where Wisconsin does not have the death penalty. The first one, however, took place in Ohio, where he received an additional life sentence.

I have heard that Ohio authorities decided against seeking the death penalty because of the tradition of the condemned prisoner being served whatever he wants for his last meal.

The comedy duo Pinkard and Bowden wrote and performed "The Ballad of Jeffrey Dahmer: Friends in Crawl Spaces" to the tune of "Friends in Low Places." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGI5jhmoRhk

[Frank Drackman]

Ironically, Dahmer was killed much sooner in Wisconsin than he would have in a Death Penalty state.

[Bored Lawyer]

I have heard that Ohio authorities decided against seeking the death penalty because of the tradition of the condemned prisoner being served whatever he wants for his last meal.

Sounds like an urban myth to me. You really think Ohio, had they sentenced Dahmer to death, would be obligated to feed him human flesh prior to execution?

[not guilty]

Imagine me saying in my best Foghorn Leghorn drawl, "Ease up. It's a joke, son!"

[apedad]

Here's a sign that the US has not completely disengaged from international organizations.

INTERPOL WASHINGTON AND CANADA SIGN HISTORIC PARTNERSHIP TO COMBAT TREN DE ARAGUA

Lyon, France — INTERPOL Washington Director Jeffrey A. Grimming and National Central Bureau Ottawa Director Marie-Josee Homsy have signed a historic Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) to strengthen cross-border law enforcement collaboration against Tren de Aragua (TdA), one of the world’s most dangerous transnational criminal organizations. Exploiting recent migration patterns, TdA has expanded its presence in North America and is now in cities and communities across both countries. This landmark agreement enhances the ability of INTERPOL Washington and NCB Ottawa to combat TdA through robust information sharing, coordinated law enforcement support, and strengthened border security efforts.

https://www.justice.gov/interpol-washington/pr/interpol-washington-and-canada-sign-historic-partnership-combat-tren-de

FYI, INTERPOL Washington falls under the Department of Homeland Security.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Jeffrey A. Grimming was appointed by Merrick Garland. People appointed under Biden are still doing their jobs, but are being removed day by day.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Canada NOT doing this is what Trump threatened sanctions over.

[Moderation4ever]

The US Army's recent decision to not participate in the "The Becoming Everything You Are Conference (formerly known as the Black Engineer of the Year Award Conference)" is an example of the stupid level to which the current administration's DEI purge has been taken. The justification of getting rid of DEI is to get talented worker based on merit. But if you don't go looking for people with talent all you will end up with is the mediocre. Some may see accepting the mediocre as OK because they will be white. I have hired people under DEI rules and I have never been force to accept anyone other than the best candidate for the job. What DEI asked of me is to look around and get a diverse pool for the selection process. The pressure on the Army to not participate and not to look for candidates with merit is just showing that the anti-DEI nothing but old fashion racism.

[Frank Drackman]

Why not judge Engineers on the content of their Engineering Ability (and Character) and not some immutable physical characteristic? I just came up with that, surprised nobody thought of it before

[Moderation4ever]

So, you don't think black engineering students have character? You would not even look at them for part of your recruiting pool?

[Dr. Ed 2]

In 2025, a competent engineer doesn't know you are hiring?

[hobie]

Frankie "Wounded Warrior" Drackman, America's neediest veteran:

because when the hillbillies in organizations like the DoD or Trump Hotels and Casinos go on a hiring sprees, resumes from people with goofy brown names like Loquacious Jackson or Vivek Ramaswamy get quietly nudged into the respective golden toilets of each

Like Moderation inferred, DEI only provides a chance, not a job

[Dr. Ed 2]

The chance IS a job....

[hobie]

Shouldn't bother asking this but...proof?

[Sarcastr0]

Well yeah, the implication is only outreach to largely white groups will avoid the wrath of the administration.

It's racial illiberalism sub rosa.

[Michael P]

Is that as true as your "explicitly" up-thread?

Your tedious hypocrisy about mind-reading and projection is a cliche at this point.

[Sarcastr0]

No, that's literally what is going on at my agency.

[Commenter_XY]

Start preparing for a workforce reduction of 30%-40%.

[hobie]

Like you said yesterday, XY, isn't this just a form of censorship? These people merely wanted to express themselves through their works

[Michael P]

No. Next.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto now has to read proposals submitted by White heterosexual males.

[Brett Bellmore]

What will avoid the wrath of the administration is flatly ignoring race. Nothing less will do, we've had it proven to us over and over for decades that any program that pays attention to race devolves into racial preferences.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm sure that's what you want to believe. But that's not what's getting programs looked at.

[apedad]

That's a two-way street Brett, i.e., you can't be a racist either.

You going to tell you racist and bigots friends to stop being racists and bigots - at least in the public arena, e.g., employment, housing, services, etc.?

[Brett Bellmore]

I would have to HAVE racist friends to do that.

[hobie]

Look in the mirror...there's one...if you're on friendly terms with the chap

[Brett Bellmore]

Your race card has been declined. You didn't notice?

I live in a neighborhood that's about 50% black. I'm inter-racially married. And I'm advocating that people simply, flatly, ignore race, just as I do.

To you that spells "racist". Because you just use "racist" as an all purpose epithet, and haven't yet figured out that it's lost it's sting from gross over-use.

[Ed Grinberg]

Brett Bellmore: "[The government should] flatly ignor[e] race."
apedad: "That's a two-way street Brett, i.e., you can't be a racist either. You going to tell you racist and bigots friends to stop being racists and bigots - at least in the public arena, e.g., employment, housing, services, etc.?"

Brett is 100% right. It is utterly wrong (not to mention illegal / unconstitutional) for the government to enage in racial discrimination.
apedad is ... wrong. There is no "two-way street." There is no equivalent obligation on non-governmental actors to "not be a racist." In a free country, a person can be as bigoted as he likes. And yes, that would include "the public arena, e.g., employment, housing, services, etc." (Of course, apedad & his ilk are very upfront about not wanting a free country.)

[Sarcastr0]

What is discriminatory about recruiting at this conference, so long as it's not the only conference where recruiting happens?

[Brett Bellmore]

That it's a discriminatory conference, and the government isn't allowed to outsource its discrimination.

[Don Nico]

Brett, S_0 already answered you:
"so long as it's not the only conference where recruiting happens."

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, so you can go out of your way to recruit from the Aryan Nation, so long as you also recruit from Linkedin?

[Sarcastr0]

Can you think of any differences between BEYA and an Aryan Nation meeting, when it comes to pure merit-based recruiting potential?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not any relevant ones, no. I'm pretty hardcore about objecting to governmental racial discrimination, even by proxy.

The only reason you've even GOT BEYA is decades of governmental racial discrimination, it's time it went away along with that discrimination.

[Don Nico]

What an absurdly dishonest comment.
I doubt that I will find engineering or physics talent at the Aryan Nation.

[Ed Grinberg]

Did you read Brett's comment?!
Here, I'll reproduce it for you:

What will avoid the wrath of the administration is flatly ignoring race. Nothing less will do, we've had it proven to us over and over for decades that any program that pays attention to race devolves into racial preferences.

[Sarcastr0]

Ignoring race locks in the current unequal levels of race in positions of power and expertise.

Which is fine if you're into short-term thinking, or think nonwhites are inherently worse at these things. Otherwise, it's foolish.

The administration's chilling effect is going well beyond colorblindness, as this example of leaving talent on the table shows.

And Brett at least is into it. Just don't ask him what he thinks about the inherent talents various races pass down.

[Artifex]

Ignoring race locks in the current unequal levels of race in positions of power and expertise.

No it does not. This is just the usual you assuming your conclusions.

[Sarcastr0]

'lets make no efforts to change the status quo' does tend to lock in the status quo.

[Artifex]

... and this piece of insipid rhetoric dodges both what the "status quo" is and why it is. It is simply trying to slip your assertions in sideways as true and valid without the capability to actually argue them.

[Sarcastr0]

Why is the status quo that white dudes are overrepresented in STEM?

[Artifex]

Who says they are "over represented" or we should be doing anything about it ? All that is insipid built in assumptions.

[Sarcastr0]

YOU asked why. You reject my explanation, so what is yours?

You know what overrepresented means; it's not normative is comparative to the proportions within the general population.

So, again, I ask you what that cause might be.

[Artifex]

YOU asked why. You reject my explanation, so what is yours?

What explanation ? You just did your usual dishonest tap dance. All of your assumptions are baked into your question and you won't approach them with a 10 foot pole because you simply don't have the wattage to actually coherently discuss the underlying ideas.

Are women overrepresented in giving birth ? Why would I want to change that ?

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe you missed it. I went into it here: https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/17/monday-open-thread-93/?comments=true#comment-10919824
And there's a bit more dialogue below.

Seriously, though, what is your explanation for the overrepresentation in STEM?
Yelling at me is fun and all, but do you have any thoughts yourself?

[Artifex]

Ah, you are now shifting the goalposts. Trying to dodge away from the assumptions underlying your bullshit:

Ignoring race locks in the current unequal levels of race in positions of power and expertise.

Which is supported by nothing more than ipse dixit by some idiot with a cartoons worldview.

[Sarcastr0]

You, 2 hours previous: "this piece of insipid rhetoric dodges both what the "status quo" is and why it is."

Now you're mad I'm asking why you think the status quo is the way it is. You tied that question to the status quo discussion yourself.

Now. Answer the question.

[Artifex]

I am not mad at all. That is simply the standard projection of the usual buffoon. The fundamental answer is I don't know why White males outperform some demographics any more than I know why Asian males outperform them.

More fundamentally, I don't care. For someone like yourself who is racist and sexist and sees the world through a religious haze of race and sex, such questions are all consuming. I would simply make sure there are no discriminatory laws and then let the chips fall where they may.

[Don Nico]

Artifact,
If one searches widely and if you hire for attitude and potential, the status quo ante will change. It always does. If you insist on just looking under your own particular lamp post, you'll never find the keys to the future.
BTW, how much recruiting and hiring have you actually done?

[Artifex]

BTW, how much recruiting and hiring have you actually done?

Quite a bit actually. I suspect it is different in academia or the mediocrity of government work where the goal is to impress by ticking the right boxes, but in my lines of work where my own capital was stake, I admit I would usually hire from my known talent pool. With something critical where I could not afford to make a mistake, I would generally run with a known quantity.

In general, I would even avoid new grads preferring someone with a longer resume because the difference in capability even between engineers in the same speciality is vast. I would supplement this with candidates from a head hunting firm if an obscure specialised skill was required. That being said it is going to come down to the interview and how well I felt the individual would mesh with the team. Race and sex was never the slightest concern. Fundamentally, you don't hire for DEI reasons if your own livelihood is on the line. I understand your point about only looking under your own light post, but the consequences of failure are a bit different in the private world.

[Artifex]

Also, with more reflection, I suspect their is another difference between your experience and mine. I have never hired a person just to hire a person and be "keys for the future". In absolutely every case that I have hired someone, I hired them to perform a very specific task that I needed accomplished as part of a greater plan.

I am not hiring to promote a specific world view or new way of looking at things, I am hiring to obtain the maximum likelihood of accomplishing a specific task at the best price. I suspect our fundamental goals are very different. DEI might work in your world, but it has no place in mine.

[Commenter_XY]

Thank God...someone NOT infected with WMV (Woke Mind Virus).

[Don Nico]

" I hired them to perform a very specific task"
Yes, that is a difference between hiring routine workers and innovative and creative engineers and scientists for rapidly growing technical and research-heavy organizations.

[Artifex]

Yes, that is a difference between hiring routine workers and innovative and creative engineers and scientists

Not been around very many high end engineers have you ? I'll match their creativity against some grant writer any day, at any time. The dirty little secret is that the vast majority of those government grants like DoD SBIRs go absolutely no where. The engine of the tech economy is groups of creative engineers after a buck. I think you will find there is a quite bit of a difference between being on the hook for a working device you can sell in the market and publishing a paper and collecting your cash.

[Sarcastr0]

Hey, you described how narrow and important the purposes you hire for were.

Can’t have it both ways.

[Moderation4ever]

But this is not about race but about looking for candidates at a prestigious gathering? The administration is making this about race saying you cannot look at a black gathering. Can the Army recruit at campuses of traditionally black colleges or at traditionally women's colleges? Seems like they cannot according to the Trump administration.

[Commenter_XY]

The candidates can submit resumes. This is fed govt, not a talent agency. Immutable factors shouldn't come into play.

That said, it has been my practice to get a diverse pool of candidates for positions I hire, on the private side. That is a function of telling recruiters what you want.

[Moderation4ever]

If candidates can just submit resume, why does the Army recruit at all?

[Commenter_XY]

Then go in-person to a recruitment center. The point is, we don't have the resources to send govt staff to prestigious gatherings on the taxpayer dime. Don't get me wrong, would love to do that recruitment, but just cannot in todays fiscal environment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And shouldn't the HBCU placement office be doing something?

[David Nieporent]

You're arguing in bad faith. That is not the government's reasoning, and it's obviously not true.

[Commenter_XY]

Bad faith, my ass. We have 36T in debt.

[David Nieporent]

What do you think that statistic, entirely out of context, tells you?

The financial position of the United States includes assets of at least $269 trillion (1576% of GDP) and debts of $145.8 trillion (852% of GDP) to produce a net worth of at least $123.8 trillion (723% of GDP).[a]

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

[Brett Bellmore]

Suppose somebody put together an explicitly white "prestigious gathering". Should the government recruit there?

[Dr. Ed 2]

There would be a judge prohibiting it.

[Sarcastr0]

Your resentment-fueled hypothetical doesn't matter, though.

[Ed Grinberg]

Doesn't matter because ... ? Because you think we should have special rules for "special" groups? Well, I don't. (And, to the best of my understanding, the law doesn't either.)

[Sarcastr0]

Because it's a hypothetical fishing for white resentment.

[Bob from Ohio]

Analogies, how do they work?

[Don Nico]

If one wants the best candidates, one recruits wherever top candidates may be present. One recruits broadly, "so long as it's not the only conference where recruiting happens."
After that one screens.
As one who has spent considerable time recruiting, I'll tell you that is much more time effective than sorting through hundreds of resumes.

[Kazinski]

What was clearly illegal was racial quotas and it was not only being allowed but in some case mandated.

As well as scholarships and internships specifically reserved for one race or sex, which is also mostly illegal (I think private parties that don't receive federal funds can fund scholarships as long as its completely independent of institutions that do receive federal funds).

[Moderation4ever]

As you have noted racial quotas are illegal based on SCOTUS rulings. You suggest that such quotas are happening and encouraged. Please offer a citation or other proof of this.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If you don’t want to fix yourself I understand, but I’d love if you could elaborate.

[Sarcastr0]

It's pretty standard chilling effect stuff.

Civil leadership is putting themselves in the headspace of a largely political layperson to figure out what would look bad to them.

In STEM, it ends up looking like ignoring every group that isn't way white.
That is the status quo, and that is going to be embraced. Which is short term thinking at best and instantiated white resentment at worst.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I guess what I was hoping for was a more detailed description of exactly what your agency is doing that you think fits your characterization. E.g., what exactly they’ve canceled, what they’re doing instead, etc.

Again, I probably wouldn’t do it in your place (and the keyboard warriors here get a lot madder at you than they do at me!), so no problem if you don’t want to.

[Kazinski]

Lets not forget there is research that finds DEI makes racial tension worse, not better, so that's a good reason to get rid of it.

https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/study-dei-training-could-make-racial-tensions-worse/91024524

[Sarcastr0]

DEI trainings != DEI.

I agree the trainings suck.

[Armchair]

That ridiculous. Searching for people based on merit, means searching for people based on merit, no matter their skin color.

[Moderation4ever]

Right so why not look for candidates at a prestigious gather like this conference?

[Armchair]

Why not look for candidates at the local "Whites only" conference?

Sorry...newly rebranded "Used to be Whites Only, but we didn't give anyone who wasn't white time to show up".

Because it gives the appearance of racial selectivity. Where certain, good candidates, won't apply, because they feel "They aren't the desired race".

The way to emphasize merit is to emphasize merit.

[Sarcastr0]

Wrong questions. Your resentment is besides the point - like it or no, there is no whites only conferences. So this is a telling decision to disengage.

And of course the reason why there are no whites only conferences are because STEM remains really really white and male. So don't worry yourself on that front.
Unless you're going to claim that white guys have an inherent tendency towards STEM as compared with everyone else, we are leaving talent on the table.

[Absaroka]

Wait. Let's say you want to reach out to hire EE's. You can afford to set up a booth at either the IEEE conference, or the Black Electrical Engineering Society (yes, I made that up).

When deciding, your boss asks 'So, the IEEE is only for honkies?'. 'No, they are totally colorblind, but a lot of EEs are in fact white males'. You think the right answer is 'Well, let's skip IEEE then and go to BEES so we don't leave talent on the table'?

'We have a preference for organizations that cater to everyone regardless of race, sex, creed, national origin, ...' just doesn't seem that objectionable to me.

[Sarcastr0]

You're artificially creating a zero sum game where none exists. So this hypothetical is not useful to judging the real-world issue in the OP.
It does seem a very popular hypothetical, however. Which I think says something about the worldview-over-actual-world going on here.
----------
As to your hypo, I think you're hands-down right in the short term. But it sure does point to some issues with our system in the longer term.

I talk to scientists who are interested in workforce development and they talk over and over about how good a job the current system does of weeding out promising scientists. Women who want families, people unwilling to move out of their home state, first-time college goers, and people not connected to the right career networks.

None of that is specifically racial, but all are correlated enough it adds up pretty well to explain why we see what we see racially.

And it suggests solutions, but they're hard and long and difficult.

And in the meantime, I got no problem with engaging with support systems and networks set up along any demographic correlate people wish to see.

So here we are. Pretending there's no problem, and getting angry at anyone who says different.

[Absaroka]

"Women who want families, people unwilling to move out of their home state, first-time college goers, and people not connected to the right career networks.

None of that is specifically racial, but all are correlated enough it adds up pretty well to explain why we see what we see racially."

I'm having trouble getting this to add up. I agree that prioritizing things other than your job will negatively affect your career, whether that's kids or in my case spending summers in the mountains. But the IEEE doesn't care about any of that. I don't see a case for prioritizing outreach to climbing bums.

And how is "unwilling to move out of their home state" a racial thing, and why should we care if it is? The people I have known who are most reluctant to move are white Appalachians and Montanans who just don't like big cities. Heck, I don't like big cities, but I have lived in them when that's where the jobs were, and spread across 7 states. If you aren't willing to move for a job upgrade, you won't get the job upgrade. What's racial about that?

[Sarcastr0]

Better support for scientists having families would help the issue. As it is STEM jobs (I'm thinking of a particular conversation I had with an applied mathematician) assume a caretaker member of a marriage. That's outmoded, and acts unequally on women.

Hobbyist support is a somewhat different issue, seems to me. Though I would think that a system that allows some work-life balance would pick up some additional talent, that has a closer cost-benefit.

Unwilling to move out of their home state has a racial component due to the family dynamics across various races. Multigenerational families correlates to nonwhites at the moment.
The solution is to make sure there's good STEM jobs everywhere in our country. Support that big ultrafast laser system for Alabama Tech - it may not get you as strong an incremental push as at like Stanford but it increases the odds you'll get someone with a transformative talent.

There are cities in almost every state that can support R1 institutions. If University of Wyoming can do it, everyone can. We just need to build on that seed capacity.

Territories might be an issue, I will allow.

[Bob from Ohio]

And that applied mathematician was Albert Einstein!

[Sarcastr0]

I'm explaining how good DEI should and can work.

It's not affirmative action, and it's not endless trainings or paperwork.
It's also not 'no DEI evar.'

That comes from talking to both policymakers and professors who think about it. As opposed to politicians or activists.

[Don Nico]

" Women who want families" – not an allowed topic of discussion at an interview
"people unwilling to move out of their home state" that is the choice of the interviewee
Etc.
Much of that "weeding out" is the choice of the interviewees; they are the ones doing the weeding.
However, I agree that those factors do review many potentially excellent workers from being hired.

[Sarcastr0]

I think we agree.

I'm not talking about explicit denying people jobs. That happens, but it's not the core issue these days. Progress!

[Don Nico]

Yes, that is progress.

[Don Nico]

Simple, if recruiting is actually important to you. You pay to set up a booth at both.

[ducksalad]

Yeah, the answer to this seems pretty easy, and wasn't considered even a tiny bit difficult for the last 30 years or so.

And if there was, hypothetically, a White Engineering Society that was similar to the Society for Hispanic Professional Engineers and the National Society for Black Engineers - meaning focused on networking and careers, and open to membership and attendance regardless of race - then the answer would be yes, you recruit at the White Engineering Society and anywhere else you can find a lot of engineers.

The reason the hypothetical sounds bad is because we're all kind of assuming a WES conference would be about white supremacy and the attendees would be white supremacists or at least comfortable with it.

But if it was really just a social and career advancement club, in a society where we'd gotten past race, there wouldn't be any harm in showing up.

Also wouldn't be any harm in showing up at a Christian Engineers Club meeting, assuming it wasn't advocating for a new inquisition or advocating Christian supremacy.

[Swede425]

That's a lot of words.
Sorry to read that you needed DEI to widen your applicant pool.
Seems like common sense to want the most qualified, regardless, but you do you.
And here's a tip for you and others: the US Army isn't looking to be "diverse". They're looking to be uniform. They take diverse, break it down, and build it up uniformly. They want a bunch of round pegs to fit into round holes. That's how you get discipline and good order. Celebrating the things that point out how different we are based on race, religion, what have you, is directly at odds with what the Army actually needs. This administration recognizes that and is getting the military back on track.
Thank you for attending my TED Talk.

[Moderation4ever]

LOL, Your post reminds me of the saying "only the mediocre are at their best everyday." If the Army wants uniformity why have ranks, enlisted personnel and officers. Why have specialized groups like Seals and Rangers? The Army needs people of merit and that means drawing from a wide diverse pool.

[Swede425]

Newsflash: SEALS and Rangers (and others) have standards and are molded into what they're needed to be. Regardless of their background. You being obtuse doesn't change that. Get it?

[Moderation4ever]

Am I being obtuse? First you claim the Army can recruit diversity because it has to be uniform. Now you assert that people are trained to standards and mold to the needed. There is no reason you cannot start from a diverse group to mold and build the Army needed.

BTW - all your talk reminds me of the story of Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm I's army of giant soldiers, the Potsdam Giants. The unit did not see battle, but they were all very tall.

[Swede425]

Read what I said again.
Only slower.

[SykesFive]

Since the Civil War, and more relevantly since the introduction of the All Volunteer Force in the 1970s, the Army has in fact been self-consciously trying to diversity its recruiting particularly in terms of race. Army officers have consistently submitted amicus briefs in cases touching on college admissions where they argue the Army needs access to a diverse pool of educated Americans.

It's true the current administration has taken a very different view of this issue.

[Frank Drackman]

And you get Colon Powell and Floyd Austin, who went missing for 4 days getting his Prostatectomy, and you’re questioning Pete Hedgesex’s Boner Fides???

[Bored Lawyer]

Here's a radical thought: look for talented engineers at . . . .engineering schools.

[Sarcastr0]

It's note either or it's yes-and.

The commitment a lot of the righties on here have to all things being a racial zero-sum game is extremely telling.

[Bob from Ohio]

"extremely telling"

Do you ever get tired of mind reading?

[Sarcastr0]

I point to what’s telling.

You gonna show your ass I get to point it out.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its not "telling" at all. You just imagine racists under every bush.

[Bored Lawyer]

I infer that Sarcastro has posted one of his usual stupidities. As I have muted him, I don't know exactly what he said, but it's something along the lines of accusing me of racism.

Funny how color-blind approaches are accused of racism.

[Mr. Bumble]

Given SarcastrO's propensity to expound on anything and everything your feed must be full of grey boxes.

[Sarcastr0]

Either BL has me muted and still want to write about what you think I wrote,
Or you don't and you're pulling a Blackman.

Either way, kinda sad.

I like that he's calmer and more considered than the bomb throwers on here but his committed support for MAGA is going to extract more and more of a price in dignity.

[Commenter_XY]

Drexel U, a very good engineering school.

[ducksalad]

Well, there's nothing wrong with it.

[Commenter_XY]

Their co-op program is very tough to beat.

[Don Nico]

Yup. Been there...done that... it works.

[SRG2]

Some may see accepting the mediocre as OK because they will be white.

Most of the right-wing posters here, for example.

[Bob from Ohio]

"US Army's recent decision"

The Army is pretty big, who exactly made the decision and with what motive?

[Sarcastr0]

More dodging. From hypothetical to ignoring what is driving this decision.

You know this is bad; you just want to weasel.

[Bob from Ohio]

"what is driving this decision"

The desire of someone in the Army to keep the status quo and give people like you an excuse to cry "racism". Its like when school bureaucrats dump the music program when they are budget cuts.

So who made the decision?

[Sarcastr0]

You don't think this is actually driven by someone in the Army.

You're playing dumb.

Enjoy.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The Army is pretty big, who exactly made the decision " was my original comment.

It explicitly states some one in the Army made the decision.

So stop dodging, what person in the Army decided this? Then we can maybe find out why.

[Armchair]

In 2022, President Biden removed Sean Spicer (a Trump appointee) from the U.S. Naval Academy’s Board of Visitors. His reasoning was Biden needed "nominees and people serving on these boards who are qualified to serve on them and who are aligned with [his] values.”

Spicer sued to keep his position, and lost. Thus setting precedent...

What's lost in all of this however, is how petty and unnecessary it was to remove Spicer. He only had 3 months left on the board. The board was only of minor importance, with minimal...if any...policy setting views, and Spicer wasn't doing anything wrong on it...except being a Trump appointee. Trump hadn't fired anyone during his first term like this, as was tradition he let the previous appointee serve out their term, before appointing his on person.

So, Spicer sued...but he knew he wouldn't win. He was angry though. And losing the lawsuit, it would set precedent for a future Republican President to "clean house" and sweep out the boards of previous Democratic president.

Trump and his appointees learned the lesson. They learned this is how you "play the game".

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Well, in personal news, my promotion (which was strongly supported by my manager and I am the top person on my team, and routinely outperform people at the level above me) was just rejected.

Big tech company too. I would expect a big tech company ought to know how to run an engineering org in a way that doesn’t shaft competent engineers for corporate politics reasons but whatever.

For software engineers it’s supposed to be simple. You do X, Y, Z, you make your employer money by building features used by hundreds of companies, you get more money. But not at this one apparently.

Not really sure what to do at this point. Trying for an internal transfer, but they're gonna ask why I am applying to mid level/senior positions despite not being promoted. Applying externally but … not a good job market. Made it to the final round of FB but it ended up being a no and I don’t really want to live in SF?

Just all around frustrated. They actually promised this a year ago but delayed it, and kept being like you will 100% get it this time.

[Sarcastr0]

Worth at least checking around to see the lay of the land, especially if you're willing to move.
Key in a rough job market is who you know, so if you job brings you in contact with external folks keep an ear out.

And worth at least trying for a higher position.
Or you can try and lateral.
I dunno the tech world, but it's not ridiculous to say that you didn't get the promotion and want to try again in a different unit doesn't seem odd to me.

Yeah, no shame in being frustrated. But in most orgs that's a setback, not a slammed door.

[Don Nico]

Again I agree with S-O today.
Yes, keep applying for mid level/senior positions.
Yes, look around. Even when the job market is tight, there are desirable positions available at all levels.
Yes, emphasize what your accomplishments are relative to roles and responsibilities; to many people quote responsibilities only rather than their actual accomplishments.

[Moderation4ever]

Hey, sorry you got the bad news you did get. The reality is that life is tougher than you might think. Promises made even a short while back get set aside for reasons, good and bad. If you have a good job that makes you enough money, consider yourself fortunate. Do the work, take the money and use it for something you will really enjoy. Your job should only be one part of your life, not all consuming.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Yeah, I definitely have focused too much on work in the past to the detriment of other things and it’s caused … issues. Took the time today relax to take advantage of all the big tech perks they advertise but no one has time to use, and then I’ll … well, keep working but also plan my next move.

[Commenter_XY]

AC, I have been on both sides: delivering the news that candidate X was not successful, and being told I was not the successful candidate.

Rule #1, stay employed.
Rule #2, stay employed.
Rule #3, refer to Rules #1, #2.

The psychology aspect, that is another matter. It hurts. That is a very normal human reaction. Take some time out to work out the emotional detritus, do not allow your performance to be affected one iota. I would also simply say, don't get too discouraged. Setbacks are a part of life; be resilient.

But I would also tell you to take a critical look at yourself. What are you being told when you've come up short? Do you have an 'Organizational Rabbi'? Or a trusted member of the senior team? Are mentorship opportunities available? Ask them what holds you back.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sucks, that's for sure. I'm sure you've seen this graph before.

I was discussing this with my son just the other day: He wants to go into cyber-security. I was explaining to him that the rising tide of automation was starting to hit IT professionals and engineers; If you're a real hotshot, you might do really well leveraging your skills by managing AI to do the routine stuff, and doing the cutting edge stuff the AI can't (Yet!) do. But if you're a mid-tier STEM worker, you're looking at being the intellectual equivalent of a ditch digger when backhoes were invented, or a draftsman when CAD started being adopted.

My own job formerly required me to understand how to edit NURBS surfaces, know what could and couldn't be manufactured using our tool room, and juggle hundreds of factors in my head while doing a design. There was a lot of 'black arts' involved, and the product of long experience.

Now the software is handling that juggling, and FEA is eating away at the black arts, and while my own job will last until my retirement, I couldn't in all honesty recommend that anybody at the start of their career plan on pursuing it.

The rising tide has passed the midpoint of the bell curve, and is working it's way up the left tail. The best I can suggest is to find some specialty that's obscure enough that AI won't take it over soon, or learn to herd AIs.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I would suggest knowing how to know the computer is wrong, i.e. when the cash register says give back 4 figures in change...

[ducksalad]

Ever thought about starting your own? You're in a line of work that doesn't require much capital to get started.

[Michael P]

Is there legal remedy for being invaded by man-made "super pig" hybrids? Or is the primary remedy a military one?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/canada-destructive-super-pigs-u-s-ranchers-farmers-alarmed/

[Brett Bellmore]

Relaxing gun control laws, and encouraging people to eat them? That's how we do it here in the South: No season or bag limits on feral pigs, and you can use any legal weapon you want. (Though AK variants with large magazines are recommended; They travel in packs and have nasty habit of attacking en masse if you shoot at them, instead of running away.)

[SRG2]

PSA: If one is a professional athlete one should not consume wild boar. There's a significant risk of testing positive later for steroids. In fact - flipping this around - some pro's, notably the boxer Canelo Alvarez and the runner Shelby Houlihan, have claimed that a positive test was due to contamination of their pork burrito (or whatever) with wild boar.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, how are the steroids getting into the wild boar?

[SRG2]

Wild boars have naturally very high levels of testosterone - which is why they're such ferocious animals - as well as nandrolone, also a prohibited substance.

[Mr. Bumble]

Does that also apply to sows?

[SRG2]

Probably not.

[ducksalad]

Legal remedy for tasty "wild" boar? I'd say legally it's no different than a steer.

If a Canadian tries to sell us that steer it gets hit with a 25% tariff starting in about two weeks. But if the steer wanders across the border on its own, we eat it tax free.

[apedad]

So what dirt does Musk have on Trump anyway?

Trump is the ultimate egomaniac and will throw friend or foe under the bus but then does that Oval Office presser with Musk (and Musk's kid mouthing off to Trump).

I'd put money the dirt will come out and the entire situation will become a scorched earth scenario (with Dems chuckling on the side).

[Sarcastr0]

I think Trump hates the job. He ran to avoid going to jail.

He’s happy to wank about renaming stuff and take in the news cycles about Musk and Project 2025 as something he caused.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think Trump is macro, Musk micro.

[SimonP]

Yeah, every time you hear him talk about what he's doing, it's clear he's half checked out. It's just constant bullshitting.

[Moderation4ever]

This, The best job in the world is the one where someone else does the work.

[Kazinski]

He seems to be enjoying himself more this time around.

Vance seemed to be enjoying himself in Germany too.

[Mr. Bumble]

More than "seems" to be.
More like enjoying every minute.

[Sarcastr0]

He's not doing anything this time around except slapping names on stuff and tweeting authoritarian bullshit, so that checks out.

[Swede425]

One can always dream, I suppose.
It gives one hope when all is forlorn.
Chin up!

[Brett Bellmore]

None.

Trump just recognizes that on every metric Trump judges himself superior the common man, Musk has him beat. And yet, doesn't feel particularly threatened, because Musk can never be President.

Oh, "and Musk's kid mouthing off to Trump". You do understand that Snopes does not have your back on that, right?

[Commenter_XY]

This is where I just SMH.

We have Elon Musk, CEO of 5 companies, arguably one of the smartest people ever, working for FREE (no charge) to help America. And to boot, he recruited some very talented staff to work for FREE, 120 hours weekly, to help America. They make our fed bureaucritters look like lazy drones.

And they have identified billions in fraud and waste. The financial ROI on DOGE is astronomical, off the charts.

Any one of the Hairy Balls Bunch could be pulling down 7-figures (or more, elsewhere). But no, patriotism and a desire to help ones country could not possibly be a motive. Nah. That makes me SMH even more.

Many say they want to make a difference; DOGE actually is.

[SykesFive]

Team DOGE does not even know what the Department of Energy does. They seem to be running very simple searches of databases then deciding a priori that any line that contains certain terms is "waste, fraud, and abuse," defunding it, and claiming to have delivered value. It is like a parody of the clueless consultant coming into a business he does not understand and recommending sweeping changes.

[Commenter_XY]

The searches were so simple that dozens of IGs, the GSA and a host of others could not do it in the last, I dunno, 50 years or so. Doesn't say much for DC-based bureaucritters.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The point is that these searches are not actually an effective way to identify “waste, fraud, and abuse”, and that pretending like they are is neither a display of exceptional intelligence, nor a service to the nation.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and just how would you identify waste, fraud and abuse?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Turns out it’s kind of hard!

[Commenter_XY]

Nas....the bureaucritters had decades to identify wasteful spending, and singularly failed at the task.

Now DOGE will do it, and let them go as well.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Now DOGE will do it,

Like Absaroka, I would love for it to be true that there are hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of dollars that the federal government just plain shouldn’t be spending, and that all it takes to stop it is a couple of smart outsiders spending a few minutes looking into it. (I’d of course still prefer that they cut the spending legally rather than illegally, but we’ll set that nuance aside for the moment.)

But it’s the stories that you want to be true that you should check the hardest. Here, I’ve yet to see any proof that DOGE has identified any fraud. And a pretty high percentage of their specific claims have proven out and out false. So I think there’s a lot of reason to question whether DOGE will, in fact “do it”.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who said it was limited to fraud?
I thought what everyone agreed upon was to cut waste, fraud and abusive spending.
Even Obama and Biden thought so:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14405949/karoline-leavitt-democrats-federal-spending-doge-protests-NEW.html

[Noscitur a sociis]

Who said it was limited to fraud?

Certainly not me!

[Mr. Bumble]

"Here, I’ve yet to see any proof that DOGE has identified any fraud."
It was the only thing you mentioned in your comment above.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It was the only thing you mentioned in your comment above.

You may want to try reading the very next sentence, which talked about their (generally false or misleading) claims of wasteful or abusive spending?

[Commenter_XY]

Nas, there is a lot of wasteful spending. Are you really denying that?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Of course I’m not denying that. But I do see very little reason to think that DOGE is doing a very good job of identifying it. And I think that the spending that is broadly agreed to be completely not worth it is going to be fairly small: actual fiscal getting our fiscal house in order is going to require some actual hard choices and political capital.

[Mr. Bumble]

Prior to DOGE (in just a few weeks) who looked for it (wasteful, fraudulent or abusive spending)? William Proxmire? The Grace Commission?
No one seemed to care and the result was a $36 trillion national debt.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You cannot possibly believe that.

The national debt was incurred in part by spending that almost everyone agrees was appropriate. It was incurred in part by a decision to lower taxes that a lot of people think was a good idea. It is the result of spending that is politically divisive. And some of it, to be sure, comes from spending that is wasteful, fraudulent, or abusive. But the suggestion that no one was trying to curb that last category until a month ago is of course absurd. And again: I’d like to believe that they were doing such a bad job that Big Balls and his time can sort it out with a couple of database searches. But I haven’t seen any evidence that would make me think that’s likely to be true.

[David Nieporent]

No one seemed to care and the result was a $36 trillion national debt.

No. The result of having park rangers and foreign aid and inspectors general was not a $36 trillion national debt. The $36 trillion national debt is the result of military, SS, and Medicaid spending, without the tax levels to support those programs.

[Noscitur a sociis]

.

[bernard11]

We have Elon Musk, CEO of 5 companies, arguably one of the smartest people ever

He's a bright guy and, I'm told, a very good engineer. That soesn't make him "one of the smartest people ever."

working for FREE (no charge)
except for some of those nice contract

to help America.

I don't think he's helping. YMMV

And to boot, he recruited some very talented staff to work for FREE, 120 hours weekly, to help America. They make our fed bureaucritters look like lazy drones.

See above. What makes you think these people have any understanding of what particular agencies and their staff do? I bet they don't and are just on a random firing spree. Do you think Musk&Co. could just walk into any organization - a department store, say, and immediately understand whether it is overstaffed and, if so, who should be let go?

You are building fantasies in your mind.

Meanwhile, he and his geniuses now apparently want access to individual tax returns. Sounds like a terrible idea to me. What do you think?

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, ok bernard11, Elon is a dummy. Just a middling engineer. The Forest Gump of CEOs. The accidental billionaire. Probably uses Lego's to model rockets, amirite? 🙂

I actually do think he is one of the smartest people ever, and his unpaid DOGE group is doing the country an enormous service, rooting out fraud. And firing non-essential DC-based bureaucrats.

The Q1 bureaucritter body count is up to 300K (~200K probationary employee layoffs, ~75K buyouts, another ~25K dismissals). A pretty good start.

The woodchipper goes brrrr....The IRS is changing this week.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yeah, ok bernard11, Elon is a dummy.

I have pretty high standards too, but I don’t think not being one of the smartest people ever makes you a dummy.

[Absaroka]

SpaceX is building rockets like nobody's business, for sure.

That doesn't mean Musk can't be very wrong. Remember the kids caught in the cave? Musk said he'd build a one person capsule to evacuate them. The guys doing the rescue diving in the cave said it wouldn't work and he had a hissy fit. In the fullness of time I read a couple of books on the rescue, and his capsule idea wouldn't have worked - there were obstructions in the cave that wouldn't allow a rigid capsule to pass; you had to remove air tanks and flex bodies to squeeze through. You can be brilliant at rocket building and lousy at other things.

(what I find so sad about this is that I would *love* a hard nosed businessman to have the brief to *carefully* looking for and excising waste. That would be effective. I'm not at all sure that the current bull in a china shop approach will give good long term results)

I've done a lot of move fast and break things software development, but I dunno if it's the way to do government reform)

[David Nieporent]

And they have identified billions in fraud and waste. The financial ROI on DOGE is astronomical, off the charts.

They have identified $0 in fraud or waste. Nothing in the way of fraud at all, and as for waste, nothing unless by "waste" you simply mean "Things that I don't want the government to do," in which case they didn't "identify" it so much as tweet about stuff that was already public information.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes David. I am hallucinating the canceled contracts, clawbacks and RIFs. It is all an illusion. C'mon man. 🙂

[David Nieporent]

You are not hallucinating them; your notion that those have anything to do with "waste, fraud, or abuse," is, however. pure fantasy. Any president could indeed have done what President Musk is doing, but they didn't because they're smarter than he is.

[Mr. Bumble]

Then explain this from Obama and Biden.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14405949/karoline-leavitt-democrats-federal-spending-doge-protests-NEW.html

[Noscitur a sociis]

I really don’t know how to say this any simpler, so I’ll probably give up after this one.

The complaint isn’t that the federal government shouldn’t spend less money. The complaint is that what Elon Musk has been doing isn’t an effective, productive, or socially beneficial (or legal, but again we’ll set that aside for now) way of getting there.

[David Nieporent]

On another online forum where I waste time, most of the people there are liberals. I was offline there for several weeks, and when I came back the other day one of those liberals — knowing that I am a libertarian — said, in essence, "You must love the stuff that Musk is doing since you are a drown-the-government-in-the-bathtub type." I might as well quote my response verbatim, to save the trouble of explaining this again to dummies like Mr. Bumble:

I am fine with drastically reducing, if not entirely eliminating, large swaths of the federal government. But that is a job for Congress, not the president. (Let alone some rando who nominally reports to the president.) And I don’t mean that in some hypertechnical lawyerly way; I mean that the president is not a fucking king and doesn’t get to say “Make it so” to his whims. (And yes, I know that’s a mixed allusion.)

And when Congress does it, it should be done systematically, by people who know what the programs do and made the decision not to fund them, not arbitrarily and haphazardly by someone doing keyword searches and finding things that can be made to sound bad in a 280-character tweet. Chesterton’s fucking fence.

And when those decisions are made, the programs should be wound down gradually. Not burned to the ground by a bunch of meth-addicted Jacobins.

And finally, while a reduced government should lead to a reduced government workforce, doing it in the reverse order is incredibly stupid. Firing people who run programs without eliminating the programs doesn’t make them run better or more efficiently. If you go to the DMV and get upset that the lines are really slow, getting rid of half the people who work there will make the lines even slower. The same procedures need to be completed and the same paperwork needs to be processed, but there are fewer people to do that. That makes the public worse off, not better.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's remarkable how willing you are to believe things you want to believe without any evidence of their truth, and mounting evidence that they are not.

You really are a dipshit.

[Sarcastr0]

Some of you people are so fucking weird.

What dominance games do you play in your head with everyone you interact with?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto is scared....

[Brett Bellmore]

I describe how I think Trump is thinking, and you assume it's how I think? Even setting aside that I didn't inherit a fortune, the list of life choices we made differently is... practically all of them!

[SimonP]

Goober's been pretty clear that there is only one person he admires more than Trump, and it's Musk.

The fantasies this man plays! Trump is sufficiently self-aware to be humble before Musk! Musk is the acme of the Trumpian ideal! And then he purports to disclaim that any of this is anything other than his remote-psychologizing of Trump, while not denying that he, in fact, views Elon as just the tippity-toppity of human excellence.

What a total Goober.

[Brett Bellmore]

You want fantasy, it's that the only reason a billionaire would be relatively humble around a guy who's edging into trillionaire territory is blackmail.

[SimonP]

Right, it's more likely to be extortion.

[apedad]

"Trump just recognizes that on every metric Trump judges himself superior the common man and generals and scientists and economists, etc., Musk has him beat."

FTFY

Trump acknowledging that there's someone better than him in anything?!?

Not buying it; Musk has dirt.

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump is using Musk to slash and burn and take a lot of the heat. Old management trick, the "hatchet man".

But go ahead with your fantasy.

[SimonP]

Maybe, but then one might ask why Elon, in his position, would accept such a role. Who would want to be left holding the bag?

It seems, at first glance, like a fairly high-risk game he's playing, as his gleeful destruction of the U.S. government and close alignment with Trump/Vance puts his business interests in Europe at risk. He's trying to manage that by trying to tie himself and MAGA with right-wing populists throughout the UK and the rest of Europe. But that strikes me as potentially a deeply mistaken mis-read of European politics and political sentiment, informed more by MAGA fantasy and Silicon Valley hubris than it is current conditions. For instance, his overtures towards Reform in the UK and the AfD in Germany seem more likely to bolster their weak PM/Chancellor and other mainstream parties than the emergence of a transcontinental MAGA movement.

Given the stakes and risks involved in Europe, it seems like the play for Elon is actually focused on the US. It's been noted elsewhere, for instance, that his access to government records gives him information on his competitors, while he's defunding and firing the regulators that would prevent him from exploiting consumers through the "everything app" he's working on. His position puts him in a better place to protect SpaceX from competition than any inauguration donation from Bezos could possibly muster. I expect that Elon looked at the whole picture and concluded that he could make more money by manipulating the American government to his benefit, more certainly, than he would potentially lose in Europe if his political shenanigans there were to fail.

[Bob from Ohio]

"why Elon, in his position, would accept such a role"

Ego.

[SimonP]

Only the best people.

[Brett Bellmore]

"His position puts him in a better place to protect SpaceX from competition than any inauguration donation from Bezos could possibly muster."

SpaceX doesn't HAVE competition. They're so much better than every other rocket company in the world that the only thing keeping the others in the business is governments demanding local providers and/or second sources. As it is, they're launching in excess of 90% of the payloads to space.

It's the same thing with Tesla: They manufacture about 75% of all electric cars in the US, everybody else is in the single digits, and except for Hyundai, the low single digits at that.

It would be more accurate, though not the complete story, to say that Biden did a fine job of convincing Musk that it was a desperate necessity for all his endeavors that the President not be a bitter enemy of his.

The truth of the matter is that he has hitched his corporate future, and the future of all his causes, to the US being a free and successful nation, and the Democrats did a bang up job of convincing him that this requires that Democrats not be in control of the government, on both scores, by going after him hammer and sickletong just because he relaxed political censorship on Twitter.

[SimonP]

Keep on fucking that chicken, Goobs.

[David Nieporent]

Trump acknowledging that there's someone better than him in anything?!?

Not buying it; Musk has dirt.

Trump has a massive inferiority complex; it's why he's such a bully. When he encounters someone who indisputably has been far more successful than he has been, yes, he acknowledges (to himself, not publicly) that this person is better than him.

[SRG2]

Trump is a starfucker - part of his insecurity - so having the richest man in the world working - in his eyes - for him is a boost. When he realises that Musk is taking credit, exposure, etc away from him, Musk'll be ramaswamied.

[SimonP]

My current theory on Vivek was that he understood that what Musk was planning was likely to be entirely illegal, requiring the insurance on the back end of a presidential blanket pardon. Musk may be able to live with a blanket pardon for everything he does over the next few years, but that would be a bit more problematic for an aspiring politician. Safer to run for governor of Ohio.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Musk may be able to live with a blanket pardon for everything he does over the next few years, but that would be a bit more problematic for an aspiring politician."

I doubt that will turn out to be true.

[Armchair]

It's worth considering the Ukraine situation, and how we got here, and what the likely solution is.

1. Ukraine's taking a pretty severe hit. Over the last several months, the front lines have been slowly...but consistently moving against Ukraine. There are severe manpower shortages and desertion issues on the main lines in the Donbass. Not to say Russia hasn't also taken a severe hit...but Ukraine is doing worse.

2. As a review here, the war (since the full Russian invasion) has had several phases. The first was the initial Russian strike in 2022, including the fresh, well trained Ukrainian forces repelling the attack on Kiev. Then in September 2022 was the Kharkiv counteroffensive. But then in 2023 the war settled into a stalemate....a war of attrition, which favors the larger power. And 2024 has seen slow...but consistent...Russian advances in the Donbass.

3. The problem is...Ukraine is running out of troops. Conscription age is up to age 55, 60 for officers. There was an opportunity in 2023 and 2024, but the western powers were half-assed with their supplies and the "restrictions" on what could be used where. The young, well trained troops are gone.

4. So now, there is a real risk of the front lines in Ukraine just collapsing, allowing Russia free reign in the country. It's happened before in many wars. So, the US has to weigh it's options. Is it worth the risk of Ukraine just collapsing (and totally becoming a Russian puppet) to have it "keep fighting"? Or is a peace deal which gives up some land (but keeps Ukraine independent) preferable?

5. The question is not one of "betraying Ukraine". It's one of "preserving Ukrainian independence". And if Ukraine needs to give up its claims to Crimea to remain an independent state....that may be a deal well worth taking.

[Swede425]

The most surprising thing to come out of this whole fiasco is how overwhelmingly unprepared and overrated the Russians are.
They fail at military 101: logistics and maintenance.
They are literally struggling to supply themselves with arms, food, and forces. And they're fighting right next door. Not even really expeditionary. Corrupt, bogged down, incompetent, poorly trained, poorly lead. And the Ukrainians are worse. How do you solve it? Not by throwing more US tax dollars at it. A European problem that requires a European solution. The Brits, French, and Germans can throw their treasure and blood at it if they really thinks it's worth it.

[Commenter_XY]

NATO would absolutely devastate RUS in a straight-up conventional battle = RUS military status

Not too worried about NATO security. All that goes out the window with nukes in play, though.

[Swede425]

That's where everything is heading, isn't it?
North Korea and Iran don't really need large standing armies/navies if they can fly a nuclear weapon to a target.
Russia will come closer to accepting this for themselves once they're able to extract themselves from this cluster and do a cost/benefits analysis. I think we'll see smaller armies become the norm, even for us, and larger navies for everybody who can afford them. Which ain't many.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump Floats Proposal To Cut Defense Spending In Half Along With China, Russia

Mind, I can't see China agreeing so long as they are still planning on invading Taiwan.

[tylertusta]

I wonder if Trump is going to use China's refusal to agree to a conventional arms treaty to justify certain defense moves in the Indo-Pacific region.

And if China agrees, the political shitstorm would be very entertaining to watch.

[Brett Bellmore]

If China agrees, the real problem begins: Would they actually keep their end of the deal? Or just count on us unilaterally cutting and not having the political will to reverse course when they renege?

[tylertusta]

The speculation on whether China was abiding by the terms of any treaty was part of the shitstorm I alluded to.

[Artifex]

We have dealt with this before right ? Just like with the Soviets, any arms reduction treaty necessarily includes an inspection regime. Trust but verify.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The Brits, French, and Germans can throw their treasure and blood at it if they really thinks it's worth it.

Not likely that will happen and succeed. Thus, you are mistaken to suggest there is no need for U.S. involvement. Unless you think Soviet-style Russian tyranny over Europe is in the U.S. interest.

[Swede425]

The Russians are emptying their prisons to fill the ranks and bringing in North Koreans. That is how badly they are struggling. Thus, they can barely export their Soviet-style Russian tyranny over a militarily weak neighbor, let alone the rest of Europe.
This is a prime opportunity for the Brits, French, and Germans to put their big boy pants on and defend their continent. If they haven't convinced themselves that is what's needed, they haven't convinced me they need our help. Intelligence sharing is always on the table. Possibly logistics. But pew-pewing should be all them. I would be pleasantly surprised if they had the guts, but stranger things have happened.

[Don Nico]

It is time that the EU faces the music and creates an EU army. This is now a call in many European media.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Soviet-style Russian tyranny over Europe"

Russia is a gas station with nukes of dubious quality. A weak declining state. Its not the Soviet Union.

[Don Nico]

"with nukes of dubious quality."
Like you would have any scintilla of an idea. Stop the bullshitting

[tylertusta]

The one thing that the Russians have going for them is that they're willing to pay a steep price in blood for Ukraine.

That's something that people should not forget. Just because Russia sucks today doesn't mean that five, maybe ten years from now that they won't have reformed their military well enough to become a serious threat to Europe.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, not "just" because Russia sucks today. Mostly because they won't have the military age males to do it with.

Look at that age pyramid! Where are they going to get the soldiers?

And there are hardly any new children entering the pipeline, either!

Now, in theory they could wholeheartedly embrace drone warfare, and become really, really good at it. Except, their high tech industry is crap, so how are they going to do that?

Look, Russia was artificially inflated by having an empire they could bleed dry, and they've lost that empire. For a while they might have replaced it with petrodollars, but they screwed the pooch pretty badly by invading Ukraine.

They're on the decline, and no particular reason to think they're going to turn it around any time soon.

[tylertusta]

Good points, but your conclusion does not account that however Russia's population crisis goes, Europe is in just as bad of a spot as they are.

If European military spending continues to shrink because "peace" was reached with Russia, then the problem of Russian military aggression doesn't go away.

[Bob from Ohio]

They gotta go thru the Poles first.

[tylertusta]

To get to Germany, yes. But the Baltics, Finland, Sweden, and Norway don't require travel through Poland first.

If Russia invades western Ukraine from Belarus they can skirt Poland entirely to attack Moldava, Romania, and Hungary.

That last hypothetical scenario is incredibly unlikely, but theoretically possible.

[Bob from Ohio]

They have to get thru Ukraine first. As we've seen, no guarantee of that.

Of course Romania, and Hungary are NATO states so Russia ain't touching them.

Its really a fantasy that Russia has the military power to do what you are suggesting.

[David Nieporent]

Of course Romania, and Hungary are NATO states so Russia ain't touching them.

Before or after Trump pulls out of NATO?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

EATO?

[Frank Drackman]

Last time I checked the Russians were winning

[Commenter_XY]

Arm...The fundamentals have not changed in 3 years.

This war would not have started had POTUS Trump been in power; and,
UKR is not a vital US national interest, and never was; and,
UKR is not an EU member, or a NATO member (and won't be); and,
UKR simply doesn't have the manpower to defeat RUS, and never did; and,
UKR and US do not have a shared culture, history, and, UKR is corrupt AF.

It is time for all involved to cut their losses, RUS included. It is not wrong to advocate for the killing to end, and peace in Europe.

VP Vance (and team) delivered a reality check last Friday. Expect to see movement before end of Q1.

[SRG2]

And after all Russia is an ally, and people like XY don't like to see bad things happening to our allies.

[bernard11]

A reality check? WTF? Lecturing Europe about the flaws in their democracies, endorsing AfD, etc. He made an insulting, offensive speech that did no good, and much harm.

And Trump is now advancing very bad and dangerous policies.
Are we now going to team up with Putin and abandon Ukraine and Western Europe? That would be the dumbest move in the history of diplomacy, which doesn't mean Trump won't do it, if just to show what a big shot and "stable genius" he is.

The front lines in Ukraine move back and forth. Russia's advances are small and getting smaller and their army is weakening. So now Trump and Vance can't wait to make concessions to Putin.

What does he have on Trump. anyway?

[Commenter_XY]

You've been wrong for three years. Why are you right now?

[Armchair]

"The front lines in Ukraine move back and forth. Russia's advances are small and getting smaller...."

No. This is denial. It has been a consistent move forward in the Donbass over the the last 6 months. Ever since Vuhledar

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You are a liar. The rate of Russian advancement has been slowing for quite a while - almost a year.

[Armchair]

Link it then. Show the proof. Give us the numbers.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Absaroka helpfully provided some right below.

Notably, where's your proof? You're the one asserting a claim which has been challenged. The burden of proof is therefore on you to actually provide support for your assertion.

I'm guessing that isn't forthcoming, so how about you go fuck yourself?

[Armchair]

Oh, poor Jason....

No, he showed two pictures. That doesn't show a rate slowing. You can get a single rate from two pictures. You need more than that to demonstrate a rate "slowing".

Perhaps you should stay out of conversations that you don't understand and can't adequately back up yourself.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Where's your evidence, fuckwad? You know, the one who had the burden of proof to demonstrate you weren't full of shit in the first place?

Here's my evidence:

https://www.understandingwar.org/

They've posted a Ukraine war update almost every single day since it began, including maps of all the various fronts showing the ebb and flow of the FLOT.

You're welcome to actually look at the daily reports and read them as I have, for ~ 3 years now.

I eagerly await your proof that we both know you will *never* show because you're lying about the rates not slowing.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

By the way, since you're not smart enough to figure it out, there's a third data point that requires no outside linking or verification: the international border of Ukraine before Russia invaded.

Case closed.

[Absaroka]

Here are the front lines as of 1Jul24.

Here they are as of today.

Put them up in side by side windows and compare.

[Armchair]

Sure, if you zoom out enough anything looks small.

Here's the pictures from 1 year ago, versus today. https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Donetsk%20Battle%20Map%20Draft%20February%2017%2C%202024.png

https://understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Donetsk%20Oblast%20February%2017%2C%202025.png

You're looking at a the front lines being driven back a good 30-60 km...

[Absaroka]

"a good 30-60 km"

In a country that is 1100 km wide. 30 km is 18 miles - a good days hike. Over months. We had gone that far in six days after D-Day, and that was considered a slow advance.

[Armchair]

1) True
2) True
3) True
4)....eh...
So, a war isn't ALL about manpower. It is very possible for a nation with inferior manpower to beat a nation with superior manpower. It requires either
a) a short, fast war, where key strategic positions are take before the superior manpower can be brought to bear
b) Or vastly superior technology, equipment, and tactics, such that superior kill ratios (ie, >3:1) are brought to bear.

Neither of those occurred. Ukraine was kept from striking into Russia for far too long. And the allies have been far to stingy with equipment. It's devolved into a war of attrition. And that tends to go to the power with more manpower.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

America should cut its losses with you, that's for certain.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"This war would not have started had POTUS Trump been in power;"

Fitting as the first line of a Catechism, but it is an otherwise evidence-free assertion.

Based on his servile interactions with Putler, and his team's propensity for adopting Russian arguments as their own, I expect that had he been in office in 2022 Trump would have certainly attempted to pressure Ukraine to surrender the Donbas region to Russia without a shot.

However, it wouldn't be because he's some sort of humanitarian alarmed about the "tragic loss of life" in Ukraine and Russia--he considers soldiers who fought for his own country to have been "suckers" and "losers"--I'm sure he doesn't care one jot about those fighting for another country.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is that Ukraine knows where giving up a piece to Russia leads: A few years peace, and then Russia comes back for the next bite.

And it's not like Russia isn't doing badly themselves; They've been reduced to obtaining troops from NK to bolster their numbers, their stores are shrinking rapidly.

It does appear that Ukraine will lose the battle of attrition if they can't get, not just munitions, but also warm bodies, from their allies.

So, I could see the concession, but Ukraine would have to plan on Russia coming back at them again as soon as they'd rested a bit. How does that work out?

The only way I see this as stable is if Ukraine gets some solid guarantee this is the last bite, like NATO membership.

[tylertusta]

If a cease fire is declared, Russia has a time limit with which to resume offensive operations against Ukraine before their economy starts dragging down their ability to attack. My estimate is no more than 12 months from a cease fire.

After that, it'll be five years minimum before they can take another bite at the Ukraine apple, and maybe not ever. The Russian demographics are in a free fall and they simply will not have enough manpower 10-20 years from now.

[Brett Bellmore]

Forget 10-20 years from now, they might not 5 years from now.

[tylertusta]

The Russian population crisis peaks 15 years from now when the current "millennial" cohort starts retiring. That's also when they face the biggest potential population losses.

5 years from now the current "millennial" cohort that shouldered the fighting in Ukraine will still be present, albeit now in diminished form due to wartime losses that will only be partially mitigated by the "Gen Z" replacements that are aging into adulthood.

[Armchair]

"The problem is that Ukraine knows where giving up a piece to Russia leads: A few years peace, and then Russia comes back for the next bite."

You might have a point except....when Russia comes back they know they're looking at another 100,000+ casualties. That has a way of affecting one's internal calculations. If you think it's a quick easy war...then yeah, you come back. If you just fought a 4 year war of attrition....maybe it's not best.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The problem with security guarantees is that no one is willing to go to war to defend Ukraine. If they were, we wouldn’t be having the problem in the first place.

[Absaroka]

"The problem is...Ukraine is running out of troops. Conscription age is up to age 55, 60 for officers. There was an opportunity in 2023 and 2024, but the western powers were half-assed with their supplies and the "restrictions" on what could be used where. The young, well trained troops are gone."

That's true of Russia as well. Here's a deep dive for folks who are interested. I'm looking forward to the similar discussion of Ukraine's situation that's promised soon.

For people without the hour to invest, a tl;dr: the average age of Russian casualties is pushing 50. They kinda ran out of prisoners (although going to Ukraine is still a Get Out of Jail card for the newly arrested). The payments for new contracts enlistees are getting up to a US equiv of $300k. If you graph that number over time it's an exponential increase, indicating the pool is running dry. Ironically, there has been a surge since November - recruiters are telling prospective recruits 'Trump will abandon Ukraine, so you can grab the money and not risk dying'. Putin is still unwilling to risk unrest by drafting young men from Moscow and Leningrad.

To be clear, I think the Ukrainians are hurting as well. Which side can juuuust outlast the other is an open question.

(numbers from memory of watching it yesterday, corrections welcome)

[John F. Carr]

They say Russia has only a year left before its economy collapses and its Cold War equipment stockpiles run out.

[Absaroka]

I sure dunno. I wouldn't bet any money either way.

These things can happen fast. In Feb 1918 Russia was collapsing and the Germans were looking to pivot all their forces into France, yay! In March, April, and May they were advancing in France, they got to withing (long) artillery range of Paris, things are looking great!

In August the Allies started the Hundred Days offensive. On Oct 4 the Germans requested an armistice. On Oct 29 the German mutinies start. On Nov 9 the Kaiser abdicates.

None of that was predicted in Feb 1918.

[tylertusta]

The Germans knew that the spring offensive in 1918 was their last chance at winning the war outright. When their offensive finally halted with the Second Battle of the Marne, the German military knew they had exhausted their last reserve of manpower and that it was only a matter of time until Germany itself was invaded.

Despite propaganda saying otherwise, Germany's leaders knew that American troops on the Western Front would be the final piece that would grind down what remained of their army.

[Absaroka]

No disagreement. Germany's leaders had a fairly accurate picture of where they were, and hoped one final push would work. Russia's leaders may also have an accurate picture of where they stand (or not, Russia/the USSR seemed to have a fairly entrenched habit of lying up the chain of command).

My point was *we* don't have that accurate a picture.

And while, for example, it was obvious there was discontent before the French/American/Russian revolution happened, I don't think anyone could accurately predict them even a few months out. Or remember how accurately the Berlin Wall coming down was forecast?

[Armchair]

"In August the Allies started the Hundred Days offensive"

Of course what you're leaving out here is the US entering the war. It's hard to understate the effect that had, the literal millions of fresh, US troops flooding the front lines.

[Dr. Ed 2]

John, that's already happening -- they are getting ammo from DPRK.

[hobie]

with our supposed 'allies' (India, Turkey, Israel) still doing business with Moscow, Russia should continue to do fine

[tylertusta]

Russia isn't technically an enemy, and India isn't an ally (yet).

Demanding that other countries treat Russia as their own enemy is unrealistic.

[hobie]

They can do what they want. But it ultimately shows they don't share our same values. As foreign as the Japanese might be to us, they think the Ukrainians are heroes and would never betray them

[tylertusta]

You are correct, they don't share the same values or interests as we do. It's as if they're their own countries and peoples who have more pressing issues closer to home.

[Armchair]

"That's true of Russia as well."

Not...really. Russia's pushing, but they still haven't gone to broad based conscription (for the war). True, they have 1 year of mandatory military service, but they generally aren't throwing these people into the meat grinder. And as you mention, Putin is unwilling to risk unrest by drafting the young men in Moscow.

Ukraine is well past that point. The front lines in the Donbass have been shifting backwards, consistently, for the past 6 months. I think there's a sizable risk of the lines just dissolving soon.

[Absaroka]

"The front lines in the Donbass have been shifting backwards"

At a cost of almost 100 Russian casualties per sq kilometer. If you do the math, Russia doesn't have enough people to conquer all of Ukraine.

Question: you are a Ukrainian. What's your plan if Putin takes over? Live under Putin's boot? Accept the revenge he will take? Join the insurgency? If it's that latter one, there is no time that makes sense to surrender the conventional war.

[Armchair]

"At a cost of almost 100 Russian casualties per sq kilometer. If you do the math, Russia doesn't have enough people to conquer all of Ukraine."

And how many casualties has Ukraine taken per lost sq km? Even if you're optimistic and it's a 2:1 ratio in Ukraine's favor....Russia doesn't need to have enough people to "conquer all of Ukraine". Ukraine will run out of defenders first.

[Absaroka]

Quite true! But if you don't have an answer to how many casualties has Ukraine taken, then you can't make any accurate predictions about who will win.

Moreover, it's not a given that either party will fight to the last man. We had an enormous casualty difference with e.g. North Vietnam, and won all the battles and lost the war - because, simple put, they cared more about conquering South Vietnam than we did about preventing that.

Again, I'm not saying things look rosy; I am saying that confident predictions that Ukraine hasn't a chance are unwarranted.

[Armchair]

"if you don't have an answer to how many casualties has Ukraine taken"

There are a number of estimates out there. The lower end puts the casualties at north of 300,000 for Ukraine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_(2022%E2%80%93present)

"Moreover, it's not a given that either party will fight to the last man."
Indeed.

"Again, I'm not saying things look rosy; I am saying that confident predictions that Ukraine hasn't a chance are unwarranted."

It's looking increasingly bleak. I've been paying attention to the day by day maps from the Institute for the Study of War. Before, it was a stalemate on the Donbass. But for the last 6 months, it's been a pretty consistent push backwards. There's news of desertions....

[Absaroka]

" I've been paying attention to the day by day maps from the Institute for the Study of War."

Me too! I even posted a couple of them elsewhere on this thread, from last July to now.

If you look at a map of the lines in France from Jul 1944 to Feb 1945, you see the Germans being unequivocally defeated. The Ukraine maps for Jul 2024 to Feb 2025 don't look like that. You have to zoom in to see any difference at all.

Like the Western Front in WWI, or the Vietnam War, it's not a war where staring at maps tells you much.

[Armchair]

The US invasion of France isn't a reasonable comparison.

You want a war like WWI, or Vietnam, or WWII in the east (1943 and on) or the Spanish Civil war. One where staring at the map shows static (or static-ish) lines for a while. You want to look for a war of attrition, and what happens when one side starts to break down. The hints and warning signs that come before the ultimate collapse.

[bernard11]

Ukraine can certainly last with support, especially if the US participates.

So just as Russia is on the edge of collapse Trump decides to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by abandoning them and conceding all kinds of things to Putin.

[Commenter_XY]

You don't want support, you want an open checkbook, to write checks for money and human lives. You've been wrong for 3 years.

[David Nieporent]

We've been right for three years. Ukraine has successfully fended off Russia that whole time.

[Commenter_XY]

You might want to check the maps. David, if you call losing 20% of your country a victory, please don't ever become a general or admiral.

When you have a loser of a case, what do you tell your client?
Cop a plea, and cut your losses.

Why is this different, conceptually. This case (UKR) is a loser.

[David Nieporent]

You might want to check the maps. David, if you call losing 20% of your country a victory, please don't ever become a general or admiral.

That was at the beginning of the Russian invasion. Since then, since we've been assisting Ukraine, Russia has not gained diddlysquat.

[ReaderY]

Perhaps, in the current international relations system, it might be worth it to Mr. Trump to keep Ukraine propped up until Trump can work out a spheres-of-influence type deal with Mr. Putin to exchange it for Russia not objecting to the US moving in on Canada and Greenland.

Perhaps such a deal has already been made.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Perhaps a deal like Switzerland...

[bernard11]

Or perhaps keep Ukraine propped up until Russia is in even deeper trouble.

Or perhaps drive a very hard bargain with Russia now or soon, rather than rolling over.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your lack of concern for lost lives (on both sides), while Ukraine is propped up, is duly noted.

[David Nieporent]

I do not care how many Russian soldiers die in their war of aggression. I do care about how many Ukrainians die — but that decision is up to them, not us.

[Artifex]

Is it worth the risk of Ukraine just collapsing (and totally becoming a Russian puppet) to have it "keep fighting"? Or is a peace deal which gives up some land (but keeps Ukraine independent) preferable?

This depends on who you are. How about the implementation of general conscription in the EU to fight the Russians ? While it is certainly not worth it to me to send my sons and daughters to die on a foreign battlefield in the Ukraine, maybe Brussels feels differently. It would also be a wonderful "come to Jesus" moment for the EU member states to decide how they really feel about things.

[tylertusta]

I'd be thrilled if Brussels decided that they needed to send EU troops into their own backyard instead of demanding Americans do it for them.

It may be time that the EU realizes that the US will not subsidize their welfare states for much longer.

[Noscitur a sociis]

As JD Vance acccurately explained, Europeans are gleefully abandoning basic civilizational values like freedom of speech. Why exactly would it be good for those countries to wield greater military power?

[tylertusta]

The same reason why we arm and encourage the armament of our other less-democratic allies around the world: because it serves the interests of the United States.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Why does that serve our interests, though? Wouldn’t it be better for a civilized, free country (say, us) to have a monopoly on military force?

[tylertusta]

A Europe that isn't at war with itself has historically served US interests.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And you feel that illiberal European societies rearming, rather than the U.S. continuing to hold a monopoly on military force, makes peace more likely?

[tylertusta]

Compared to a Chinese hegemony (countering that is partly why we cannot afford to underwrite European defense)? Absolutely.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

He just made that up. No European country has ever had the equivalent of the First Amendment. There is a somewhat wishy washy article in the ECHR: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."

But, it continues: "The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

This has always been understood as allowing governments to restrict "harmful" and "offensive" speech, such as Nazi symbolism.

You'd have to be some kind of hillbilly to believe that Europe was "gleefully abandoning basic civilizational values" by restricting speech in the same way they have always restricted speech.

[Armchair]

The EU won't fight for Ukraine. They won't even properly fund and arm Ukraine.

[tylertusta]

Europe will gladly fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. And if needed, to the last American.

[Kazinski]

I just wonder why Europe hasn't shown some leadership and hasn't admitted Ukraine to the EU and Schengen already.

[Mr. Bumble]

When was the last time Europe showed leadership in anything?

[tylertusta]

The same reason why they sucked Russian gas for over a decade: because the German people feel really bad about WW2 and are willing to look the other way when Russia pulls a bunch of crap lest the Germans be accused of being Nazis.

[Armchair]

France, Germany and Spain won't sent their sons to die for Ukraine.

[Michael Ejercito]

Why would they?

they did not send their sons to Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion either.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No you don't.

Ukraine was on a path towards EU membership, and then it was invaded by Russia. Accordingly, now is not really a good time to admit Ukraine to the EU. Which you also know.

[ducksalad]

...is a peace deal which gives up some land (but keeps Ukraine independent) preferable?....give up its claims to Crimea to remain an independent state....

It's not clear that Russia is willing to accept such a deal or honor it long term. It seems that they'd at least want an asterisk on "independent".

[hobie]

The first thing on the negotiating table needs to be the immediate release of the thousands of Ukrainian children that were forcibly kidnapped, deported, adopted and, presumably, deprogrammed by the Russian state

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2024/12/06/yale-hrl-uncovers-russian-forced-deportation-and-adoption-of-ukrainian-children/

[David Nieporent]

Is it worth the risk of Ukraine just collapsing (and totally becoming a Russian puppet) to have it "keep fighting"? Or is a peace deal which gives up some land (but keeps Ukraine independent) preferable?

There is no such animal. Either we support Ukraine (in which case it has no reason not to keep fighting) or we don't, in which case Ukraine becomes a Russian puppet that runs the risk of being officially swallowed by Russia completely at any point. Any "peace deal" would just be a face saving surrender that would leave Ukraine untenable.

[Commenter_XY]

So your answer is....hey, let's keep doing the same thing we have been doing for three years and hope for a different result.

Well alright then. There is that definition of insanity.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Would you have told that to the Allied High Command in 1942? To the other Allied High Command in 1917? To George III in 1808?* To the Continental Congress in 1778? To George II in 1759?

…**

To the Roman Senate in 215? To the Roman Senate in 260?

…

The fortunes of war can change quickly, and predicting the victor after three years of fighting isn’t always easy. If Ukraine’s democratically elected government wants to keep fighting and weakening Russia for us, why on earth would we try to stop them?

*Okay, George III probably wouldn’t have had much to say back then. But starting the clock at 1805 is also pretty generous there!

**The tides of the Civil War started the change after more like 2 years, so I left it out. But you’ve been demanding that we force Ukraine to surrender for a while now, so I’m sure you would have been insisting that Honest Abe let the confederates go long before 1863.

[Mr. Bumble]

Name the last country that was successful in defeating Russia.
Short of a popular uprising and coup in Russia Ukraine has no chance of prevailing.

[David Nieporent]

Name the last country that was successful in defeating Russia.

Afghanistan.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The United States.

[Armchair]

And what about MacArthur in 1951? Or Vietnam in 1973?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t think that MacArthur should have surrendered to the communists in North Korea in 1951, no. (MacArthur was, of course, relieved of command less than one year into the war anyway.) And I’m not sure which side you’re suggesting should have surrender in 1973 (or why you chose that date as the relevant comparator), but I don’t see why either would have been a good idea.

[Armchair]

MacArthur was relieved in 1951. Notably because he wanted to march into China to "win the war". Would've been a disaster. But...gotta support the victory, right? No.

This concept that we "must" support total attack and can't do a peace deal (like the cease fire that was done in Korea in 1953)...perhaps it's not accurate.

[David Nieporent]

The cease fire that was done in Korea in 1953 — which, incidentally, was not a "peace deal" — involved a return to (in essence) the status quo ante, not giving North Korea a big chunk of South Korea.

[Armchair]

There was no "North Korea" or "South Korea" at the time. There was just "Korea". Returning to the "status quo" as you put it, in essence gave up 50% of Korea.

But sure, let's go with a "status quo" type peace deal in Ukraine, back to the borders as they were before the 2022 invasion.

[David Nieporent]

There was indeed a North Korea and South Korea at the time. The ROK and DPRK had each been established in 1948.

But sure, let's go with a "status quo" type peace deal in Ukraine, back to the borders as they were before the 2022 invasion.

While Ukraine is unlikely to ever formally agree to give up Crimea, I think that if Russia withdrew all its forces from Ukraine other than from the Crimean peninsula, the rest of the world would lose interest in assisting Ukraine in recovering it.

[Armchair]

"There was indeed a North Korea and South Korea at the time. The ROK and DPRK had each been established in 1948."

No...You need to pay attention to the actual names and claims.
The ROK (Or Republic of Korea...not the Republic of South Korea) was the only UN recognized government at the time. It claimed the entire Korean Peninsula as its proper country.

The DPRK was not recognized by the UN (although it also claimed the entire Peninsula). It was basically a Russian (sorry...Soviet) puppet state set up after Russia occupied the area, which then sought to invade the rest of the Peninsula. Not unlike what Russia is doing now in Ukraine with the local "governments" Russia set up.

[Commenter_XY]

You know Nas, maybe you can answer this one.

Are you willing to send NATO into UKR and push RUS out? Meaning, declare war, and defeat them on the field of battle. That is what it will take, RUS military defeat. And yes, we do have that conventional capability, and yes, in a conventional battle, NATO will utterly defeat RUS.

Absent a willingness to take up arms, what alternative do you offer? Like David, just more of the same and hope for a different result.

The difference between you and me is I never would have supported UKR at all b/c it isn't a vital US national interest, or even a particularly important interest, either.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose the alternative is to continue supplying Ukraine with munitions, and to lift the restrictions we place on their use, so that Ukraine can strike more effectively at Russia's supply lines, and bring the war home to them, instead of doing almost all the fighting on their own territory. And provide them the manufacturing capacity to vastly increase their drone forces. Something we should be doing, too.

One of the reasons, (Just one, but definitely one of them.) that we provide military support to Israel, is that we learn a lot from that support, because Israel is using the weapons, not just warehousing them. Ukraine is a lot like that, we're learning a lot from the Ukraine war. What works, and what doesn't.

[Commenter_XY]

Agree...our learning about drone warfare has increased exponentially b/c of UKR, ISR.

UKR don't have a reliable electrical grid for large scale drone manufacturing. I don't think incrementally climbing the escalation chain (enabling longer and longer distances) is going to help bring an end to the war. That is like waving a red flag to a bull. Not a good idea to me. It is just more of the same, and hoping for a different result.

And besides, the UKR leadership and military have diverted billions of dollars in weapons and sold them on the black market. They're corrupt AF, and they are fighting for their lives, and selling the weapons to win? What does that tell you? Let the Russians have them.

[David Nieporent]

Why are you making shit up? Are you really so fucking petty that you are holding the events of WWII against Ukraine now?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

That's his whole world-view, David. JFC how have you not noticed yet?

Remove the lying and the stupidity, and the only thing left under his skin is petty vindictiveness.

[Absaroka]

"UKR don't have a reliable electrical grid for large scale drone manufacturing."

Well, that's odd. World drone shipments: "Global drone shipments reached 2.4 million units in 2023, with expectations to surpass 3.1 million units annually by the end of 2025."

Ukraine drone production: "Ukraine has dramatically amped up domestic production of both attack and reconnaissance drones since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. This year, the Ukrainian government allocated $2 billion to produce at least 1 million first-person-view, or FPV, drones, which are equipped with cameras that transmit video to remote pilots. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told foreign arms manufacturers earlier this month that the country had already surpassed that, contracting 1.5 million drones in the first three quarters of this year. He added that Ukraine is now capable of producing 4 million drones annually."

[Absaroka]

"UKR leadership and military have diverted billions of dollars in weapons and sold them on the black market."

Do you have a source other than Tucker Carlson?

Here's a source that says "At this point, however, it does not appear that there is evidence of massive leakages of weapons out from the Ukraine conflict, nor of a black market."

[David Nieporent]

You've already been told how dumb this bumper sticker of an argument is. If the underlying conditions of a given situation, then doing the same thing does in fact lead to different results.

[Mr. Bumble]

? something missing?

[David Nieporent]

Yes, the word "change" after "situation." I'm pretty sure you could've figured that out with a bit of mental effort.

[Armchair]

"Either we support Ukraine (in which case it has no reason not to keep fighting) or we don't,"

That's a false dichotomy on two fronts.
1) There a different levels of support. To give an example, there's a difference between giving Ukraine one hundred 155 mm shells and giving it 100 million 155 mm shells. To say to Ukraine "we gave you 100 shells, there's no reason for you not to keep fighting"....is just backwards. But the truth is, we've been a lot closer to the 100 shells than the 100 million shells. And if you have just 100 shells...a hell of a lot more of your men die. And insisting Ukraine "fight" when half-assing the support may end up instead in Ukraine collapsing.

2. There are different levels of peace deals. You could have one where Ukraine totally surrenders. Or one where Russia unconditionally surrenders. But a modest peace deal that saves face for Russia (by conceding Ukraine, and bringing in third party peacekeepers), doesn't leave Ukraine untenable.

[David Nieporent]

But a modest peace deal that saves face for Russia (by conceding Ukraine, and bringing in third party peacekeepers), doesn't leave Ukraine untenable.

What possible incentive would Russia have to do any such thing, if the U.S. is abandoning Ukraine (so much so that Ukraine isn't even invited to the negotiations between Putin and Putin's asset)? There are only two ways Russia comes to the table: they are losing, or they're offered something too sweet to pass up.

[Armchair]

"What possible incentive would Russia have to do any such thing,"

Well, you know, if I was in Trump's shoes, the conversation might go something like this. "Putin, I want a peace deal. Or else I'm giving Ukraine a few thousand Tomahawk missile. And no restrictions on where they're being targeted. And if they happen to target them at the Kremlin...well, it's a war.."

That might be an incentive. Just a thought.

[David Nieporent]

The problem is that Trump is in Trump's shoes, and so the conversation would go something like this, "Vlad, what do you want, and how can I get it for you?"

[Armchair]

That's your TDS talking again. You asked for a possible incentive. I gave you one. So you need to promptly ignore it.

[SRG2]

It's not TDS when there is actual evidence - notably the absence of Ukraine from the peace discussion.

[not guilty]

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the government's unopposed motion to dismiss its appeal from the order dismissing the indictment of Waltine Nauta and Carlos DeOliveira. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822.113.2.pdf

That is disappointing. I was hopeful that the Court of Appeals would reverse Judge Loose Cannon's batshit crazy order.

Sometimes you're the windshield. Sometimes you're the bug. And sometimes you're Bobby Trippe.

[John F. Carr]

You're asking the court for an advisory opinion.

[not guilty]

No, not at all. Briefing was completed while the case was in a vigorously contested, adversarial posture. If the order of dismissal had been reversed and the matter remanded to the district court, the defendants would likely have been pardoned, but that would not have been the concern of the appellate court.

[tylertusta]

Given the delay, I wouldn't be surprised if the 11CA thought long and hard about making a stink but ultimately decided not to.

[John F. Carr]

It is routine for a Court of Appeals to spend a year sitting on a case.

[tylertusta]

Yes, but not for a two-sentence dismissal.

Appellant's "Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Appeal" is GRANTED. This appeal is DISMISSED.

[hobie]

At least it is a judicial order. Probably saves the prosecutors in Florida from committing harakiri to avoid another Thursday Night Massacre like we had last week

[hobie]

NYTimes has an article on the huge increase in US gun purchases by first time buyers. The major reasons given were a mix of liberal and conservative worries: acrimonious divorce, racism, J6 riots, being targeted as transgender, being targeted for conservative views, unstable society, mask mandates, white nationalism, church shootings.

Nothing about hunting or Mayberry...just fear. My question, are all these gun purchases a sign of a healthy society? Should we be happy all these people are buying guns?

[RedheadedPharoh]

I don't think trannies should be allowed guns. I heard a stat that claimed that all school shooting deaths the past 2 calendar years were at the hands of murderous trannies.

I don't think the tranny activists who rewrote the DSM 5 thought about some of the harmful side effects of trying to normalize a mental illness.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/new-details-bay-area-zizians-death-cult-20165754.php?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

[Brett Bellmore]

Not all of them. A disproportionate number, but, frankly, the universe of school shooters is so tiny it's possibly nothing but noise.

[tylertusta]

I think looking at them as copycats has far more possibilities at reduction than any statistical modeling could.

[ducksalad]

That seems about right. Don't know that it can be addressed, it's one of the costs of having freedom of the press.

[Ed Grinberg]

"healthy society"
No, not by a long shot.
"Should we be happy..."
There's an old saying: an armed society is a polite society. If nothing else, this will give would-be violent criminals something to think about...

[hobie]

But we're already awash with guns and none of us are near polite or happy

[Frank Drackman]

An armed society is a polite society

[bernard11]

Dumb slogan.

Think about the implications, Frank. If I'm rude to you you're going to shoot me? Even though standards of rudeness and politeness vary?

And why should rudeness merit a death penalty, instead of just a quick "fuck you?" You're handing over society to bullies and assholes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Assumes Frank is a crazed tranny or Muslim. Certainly not the case.

[hobie]

It's always the hayseed you least expect

[Commenter_XY]

You know bernard11, the uncertainty that Frank will blow your uber-lib ass away for being an obnoxious dickhead is exactly what reinforces polite behavior in society.

You won't say 'fuck you', you will say, 'my friend, I have a different view'. And a polite discussion ensues.

[hobie]

Way to go, bernard. Now he's armed...AND angry

[Commenter_XY]

You completely missed the point.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

A "shithole country" is a country where you need a gun to feel safe. If I lived in the US, I'd probably end up with a CCW permit, because I am comfortable with guns and just wouldn't feel safe without one.

[John F. Carr]

A Texas judge has approved a $100,000 fine against Dr. Margaret Daley Carpenter of New York for sending abortion pills to Texas. As this is a civil case no extradition was required, only notice and an opportunity to be heard. She is also subject to an injunction against practicing medicine without a license in general and prescribing abortion-inducing drugs in particular (both limited to the state of Texas). I don't think there will be any public policy exception to enforcing the money judgment in New York. Dr. Carpenter can raise jurisdictional defenses. Enforcing the injunction is Texas' problem.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Carpenter%20Final%20Judgment%20Signed.pdf

She is the same doctor who Louisiana wants on similar criminal charges. Governor Hochul says she won't extradite. In unrelated news, Governor Hochul is considering doing something Trump doesn't want: removing Mayor Adams. Trump has the power to make an example of her for refusing her constitutional duty to extradite. Trump can send in the FBI to destroy the abortion pill dispensing company. Maybe these two can make a deal. A corrupt deal, but who's going to stop them?

[Bored Lawyer]

"Dr. Carpenter can raise jurisdictional defenses."

Like what? She sent something into Texas. That routinely supports specific jurisdiction in thousands of cases. (I practice IP law, and we routinely assert jurisdiction where the defendant has shipped infringing goods to the forum state.)

[A Woman of No Importance]

She will simply shield her assets by transferring ownership, ignore the injunction, avoid travel to Texas, and keep prescribing. The New York courts certainly won't enforce the injunction.

In the meantime there will be years of litigation over whether Texas is preempted by federal law, though I expect the Trump FDA to moot the issue by banning all abortion pills nationwide. I'm a little surprised they haven't already.

[SimonP]

It takes a while to boil the frog. It will take time for Trump to move MAGA from his "state's rights" campaign approach to, "it's time for a national ban." I expect that conflicts like those being cued up by Texas and Louisiana will be re-framed as "forcing Trump's hand to act," which will provide the necessary political cover.

[hobie]

I welcome it. Trump quickly lost his House majority in 2018 by continuously trying to strip away Obamacare. So, yeah, keep after women and medicine. It's a winner

[Kazinski]

Could be that was the reason. The GOP did lose 40 seats in the House but did pick up 2 Senate seats.

But what's your diagnosis of why the GOP picked up 6 senate seats, and 60 seats in the House in 2010 after Obama and the Dems imposed Obamacare?

[hobie]

Fuck if I know. Eggs?

[SykesFive]

It has taken zero seconds for MAGA to pivot from states' rights to consolidation of power in the federal government. Actual voters aren't really interested in abstractions like states' rights, separation of powers, etc. They just want to win, get the preferred policies enacted, and watch their enemies suffer.

[Roger S]

MAGA was never about states' rights.

[hobie]

Ominous. Then we're talking the eventual dissolution of the United States

[Swede425]

Of course you're surprised.
And you'll get to stay surprised through the rest of his presidency.
Then you'll get to remain surprised throughout the Vance presidency, too.
I know folks really want to pretend that it's the Handmaid's Tale for realzies, but eventually it'll just be us laughing at you.

[A Woman of No Importance]

Doomsday predictions rarely happen, and that's a good thing. However, on occasion they do; the Third Reich really did happen. So it's best to err on the side of caution. Eternal vigilance is, after all, the price of liberty.

At this point it's still too early to say, but there are certainly enough parallels between Trump's America and Germany in the 1930s to make thoughtful people worried. They include:

A personality cult in which the dear leader can do no wrong
Scapegoating minorities and other unpopular groups
A rise in nationalistic fever among the masses
A rise in authoritarian religion that is in synch with an authoritarian political regime
Attacks on a free press, science, and education (I believe Hitler referred to universities as centers of Jewish indoctrination)
Attacks on an independent judiciary and the rule of law

There are others but those will do for a start.

Now, as I said, maybe all of that will blow over and you will be laughing at us in four or eight years. Or maybe not. The thing I find most worrisome, though, is the growing number of people who would be just fine with that doomsday scenario actually happening, as evidenced by the comments here.

[Swede425]

Madam, I'm laughing right now.
No need to wait.

[A Woman of No Importance]

Well, yeah, but then again you're a complete idiot so of course one would expect you to laugh right now. Let's see how things look in another four years, shall we?

[Swede425]

Hmm. A complete idiot?
Darn. My feelings bruised once again.
Of course we'll wait and see.
Is there some other option?
But, while we're waiting, I'll be watching with a lot more hope that the direction my country is taking is more in line with what I think is right.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your screen name says it all as regards your thinking.

[A Woman of No Importance]

Perhaps you should re-read the play. I notice you're not offering substantive disagreement with my analysis.

[Mr. Bumble]

Would it matter?

[A Woman of No Importance]

It would demonstrate that you actually have substantive disagreement with my analysis, as opposed to merely being offended that someone has criticized the dear leader.

[Michael Ejercito]

A personality cult in which the dear leader can do no wrong
We had that with Barack Obama.
capegoating minorities and other unpopular groups
So scapegoating Whites does not count?
A rise in nationalistic fever among the masses
And that is supposed to be a bad thing?
A rise in authoritarian religion that is in synch with an authoritarian political regime
What religion is that?

Mormonism?

Scientology?

Attacks on a free press, science, and education (I believe Hitler referred to universities as centers of Jewish indoctrination)
They all discredited themselves.

Attacks on an independent judiciary and the rule of law
Which side cheered the attacks on the Mark O. Hatfield courthouse in 2020, even going so far as to accuse the feds of kidnapping peaceful protesters and putting them in uNmArKeD vAnS?

[A Woman of No Importance]

But what about ................

In addition to which:

If you think Democrats weren't harshly critical of Obama you have a very bad memory and I don't recall a single of them being primaried.

Whites are far better able to take care of themselves than minorities.

When has nationalistic fervor ever resulted in anything other than bloodshed? The Austrians and Czechs might have something to say on the subject.

Google "Christian nationalism"

They discredited themselves in your mind because you don't like the results.

And finally, nobody who cheered what happened in Portland was working for the administration.

Other than that, great comment.

[RedheadedPharoh]

"Whites are far better able to take care of themselves than minorities."

Why do you think that is?

[A Woman of No Importance]

Because there are more of them, they control most of the wealth and power, and they've written the legal system with their own needs in mind. Any other dumb questions?

To hear the white grievance industry tell it, no one has ever suffered discrimination like white males. In reality, by far and away most wealth and power remains concentrated in white hands, whites have more legacy wealth and power to draw on, and on those occasions when bad things happen to white people it's for reasons other than their skin color. But that hasn't stopped Trump from tapping into resentments and stirring up anger at minorities. Going back to my list of parallels, it's not that different from Hitler stirring up resentment against the Jews, even though there was no factual basis for doing so. Different minority, same basic script.

[RedheadedPharoh]

So the politicians are racist and created a racist system to benefit their race?

And these get your vote?

[A Woman of No Importance]

I'm thinking of having a contest to see if anyone can figure out how you got from what I said to what you said. Even given your normal inability to logically go from A to B to C to D, that's a pretty remarkable missing of the point.

[Kazinski]

Then why is it that "White Americans" are 9th on the list of median household income by ethnicity, trailing

Indian Americans
Filipinos
Taiwanese
Sri Lankans
Japanese
Malaysians
Chinese
Pakistanis

That's according to US Census data.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Infographics/comments/1fz89yq/median_household_income_in_the_united_states_by/

[A Woman of No Importance]

Kazinski, because the people from those countries who emigrate to the United States, as well as their descendants, are statistically more likely to be engineers, physicians, physicists, and other highly paid professionals. Your local community college may have a course on how statistics works that you may want to look into.

Those nationalities all form a miniscule percentage of the US population. When a miniscule percentage of the population is disproportionately made up of over-achieving outliers, it will skew the results.

It does not follow from that, however, that white people suffer systematic discrimination. White people with degrees in engineering tend to do well too.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

They will continue to tick more of those boxes, because it's a proven gameplan (although there were vastly different economic conditions fueling the previous Reich).

They think they can't possibly be fascists, because they don't hate Jews...

[SRG2]

I would be more willing to believe you if it weren't so obvious that you'd actually welcome a Handmaid's Tale scenario.

[Swede425]

I hope that made you feel better about yourself, drama queen.

[A Woman of No Importance]

You're not even bothering to deny his claim that you'd welcome a handmaid's tale scenario. Based on your comments, I have no trouble understanding why he would think that. Is he wrong?

[John F. Carr]

In your cross-border IP cases, do you run into any effective resistance when you try to domesticate judgments?

[Bored Lawyer]

Nope. They are always brought in federal courts, and other courts will recognize those judgments.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Trump can send in the FBI to destroy the abortion pill dispensing company"

Can he legally do that?

I'm thinking more the insurrection act.

[A Woman of No Importance]

You think Trump cares what he can legally do?

[John F. Carr]

Comstock Act. Mailing of prescription drugs to a person other than a patient under the doctor's care. The Justice Department has lawyers to figure out a pretext for a search.

The next step depends on whether the expedition is punitive or routine. The social norm is agents can trash the house or business of a low status person and must be considerate when searching a high status person. Proportionality and consideration are not part of the law. Agents can tear the office apart looking for a pill. They can seize all the computers. And they can share prescription information with states where medication abortion is criminal.

[Krayt]

As such prescriptions are banned, it might be illegal, but only for a different reason.

[not guilty]

The operative provision of the Insurrection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 253, states:

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

How does that have anything to do with mailing abortion pills?

[SimonP]

I doubt that Hochul is savvy enough to wield her removal authority over Adams properly, in the disputes that Trump is inviting with the state.

As for "sending in the FBI to destroy the abortion pill dispensing company" - are we just calling for outright lawless violence by Trump, now? Or are we past the "pretend the Comstock Act won't be invoked by Trump to shut down abortion across the country" stage of the Trumpist takeover?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Oscar-winning actress Julianne Moore said Sunday it was “a great shock” that her 2007 children’s book “Freckleface Strawberry” wound up among those banned by the Trump administration while under “compliance review” at schools run by the U.S. Department of Defense.

In a post on Instagram, the stymied star wrote her book “is a semi-autobiographical story about a 7-year-old girl who dislikes her freckles but eventually learns to live with them when she realizes that she is different, ‘just like everybody else.’”

The nonprofit literature and writing advocacy group Pen America flagged the “Freckleface Strawberry” inclusion, along with “Becoming Nicole” — and “No Truth Without Ruth” about late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

https://www.nydailynews.com/2025/02/16/julianne-moore-shocked-childrens-book-freckleface-strawberry-trump-dei-ban/

"Becoming Nicole" is a 2016 book about Nicole Maines, a trans teen, including how her conservative father became a strong supporter. Maines wrote a personal account last year.

[SimonP]

What is MAGA's problem with freckles, I wonder?

[hobie]

Shhh! Don't give them ideas. They don't know what to hate unless someone tells them.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

On another thread, someone alleged I was being partisan by citing general history refuting their comment. A follow-up reply on the subthread referenced the "Democrat Party."

BTW, I know it's gauche to play word police around here, but I'm not a big fan of the use of "retard." It partially sounds like something a ten-year-old might say back in the day.

[SimonP]

Well, that's just it, Joe. These people haven't matured much beyond that point.

One of the minor shocks I had, growing up, was the realization that most adults were just overgrown children - taller, bigger, and usually rounder, but still kind of mulling about in the thought patterns developed in their adolescence.

[Mr. Bumble]

Except for you of course.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah. I don't think I actually became an adult inside my head until I got married and my wife became pregnant. Having people depend on you is what forces you to grow up.

[Michael Ejercito]

True.

I wonder if single people living alone have messier living spaces than parents raising children.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No.

[hobie]

True

[Dan Schiavetta]

It didn’t change me much because I was always the responsible type. One has to be, as the oldest of seven. And I had been a crisis center director for five years so I was used to having a lot of people depend on me.

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess you could say I was the responsible type, too; I was the one who dropped out of college in my senior year to nurse mom back to health after that accident, which is why I had to become an engineer by apprenticeship. Not my brother or sister. Also the oldest.

But it wasn't until marriage that I genuinely became focused on getting done what needed doing without anyone asking, which I think is a trait of actual adulthood.

[SykesFive]

When I was about 10 in the mid 1980s, my dad said not to use that word because for all you know one of the kids you're joking around with has a "retarded" brother that he loves and would stick up for normally. That kid's going to have to choose between being one of the guys who laughs at your joke and getting into a fight with you to stick up for his brother. Don't put your buddy in that position.

I can't say that sank in completely at the time, but it stuck with me.

He said the same thing about a lot of words people used as insults. When you're with the guys, you wouldn't insult their moms and sisters--but don't talk that way about girls and women in general. People have gay relatives so don't use that as an insult, either. Etc. Etc.

[John F. Carr]

I remember once I was about to tell a woman "you're being paranoid." I stopped because she was paranoid, having a diagnosis as such from people with lots of letters after their names. No need to remind her. But she really was being paranoid, or at least painting herself as a victim for dramatic effect.

[Dr. Ed 2]

John, you didn't do her any favors. I would have said:

[Her name], if someone I didn't know said that to me, I'd call it "paranoia." I know you are emotionally involved in this, but are you sure you are being completely objective here?

[Brett Bellmore]

Bad call. Actual paranoids need somebody they trust who will let them know when they're crossing the line, because they're bad at evaluating that themselves.

I mean, you need to be polite about it, of course, but they need that feedback in a way other people don't.

[Kazinski]

I prefer moron myself, but I don't worry too much about it since retarded came into use when they wanted to avoid the stigma of Idiot, Moron, etc.

When I was 10 retarded was the word used by the educated class, because moron carried a stigma, of course it wasn't too long after that many of us 10 year olds did shorten it to retard.

"With the introduction of the intelligence test, developed
by Binet in France, and brought to this country by Goddard, it
became an accepted practice to relate these three terms to specific I.Q. scores *—idiot for those scoring below 25, imbecile
25 to 50, and moron 50-70/75. Later on the terms "severe,"
"moderate," and "mild" replaced those terms, but conceptually
no change occurred."

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is a quote from Deborah Birx.

https://soc.culture.israel.narkive.com/43Bh3Qfy/i-didn-t-have-the-numbers-in-front-of-me-yet-to-make-the-case-for-extending-it-longer-but-i-had-two-

"No sooner had we convinced the Trump
administration to implement our version of a two-week shutdown than I
was trying to figure out how to extend it. Fifteen Days to Slow the
Spread was a start, but I knew it would be just that. I didn’t have the
numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but
I had two weeks to get them."

[ducksalad]

Just want to remind you that the Cossacks work for the Tsar.

[Kazinski]

Now all the Cossacks are getting fired, so that's changing.

But I am glad you are beginning to understand how the unitary executive should work: if the Cossacks work for the Tsar, he definitely has to have the power to fire them.

[Krayt]

Pre-gives away Ukraine, or large parts of it.

Pre-gives away no membership in Nato for u!

Odd statements for someone who'd have us believe Putin would never have originally invaded, much less held a round 2, because he'd have threatened to beat the ever loving shit out of the invading forces.

Toss out "saving lives", including those on the invading side. That can be cured by simple withdrawal by Putin. But isn't.

With the war over, no need for sanctions on the oligarchs anymore. Yay! Peace in our time!

[ThePublius]

Again, am I having a stroke or something? Why doesn't this comment seem like proper English to me?

What does "Pre-gives away" mean???

[Brett Bellmore]

I assume it means "gives away before it's asked for" or "gives away before negotiations begin".

Seemed clear enough to me.

[Krayt]

I do that sometimes. I also make up new words like "facete" and hyperbolate, just for the pure fun and rely on my readers being intelligent enough to figure it out.

[Jmaie]

Preponed is a word I've only heard used in India...

[Krayt]

I like prepwned.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There are some good online news sources about New York and New York City news. One provides an interesting summary of what can be done if the Mayor Adams prosecution is dropped.

https://www.thecity.nyc/2025/02/15/eric-adams-alvin-bragg-james-hochul-prosecution/

[Dr. Ed 2]

And when Bondi criminally Bragg, James & Co?
Could Adams' defense raise the prosecutor's Federal indictment?
Could an indicted prosecutor even prosecute?

[ThePublius]

Am I having a stroke or something? Why doesn't this comment seem like proper English to me?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Let me introduce you to Dr. Ed!

[Noscitur a sociis]

Could Adams' defense raise the prosecutor's Federal indictment?

No.

Could an indicted prosecutor even prosecute?

Yes.

Do you have any other dumb questions?

[David Nieporent]

And when Bondi criminally Bragg, James & Co?
Could Adams' defense raise the prosecutor's Federal indictment?
Could an indicted prosecutor even prosecute?

The first question, even if we fill in the missing word, is based on a bizarre dystopian fantasy. The second and third are both yet more episodes of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions: No. Yes.

[Frank Drackman]

A Man, a Plan, a Canal, Bill Clinton

[Dr. Ed 2]

Jimmy Carter....

[Dr. Ed 2]

Jimmy Carter...

[Michael Ejercito]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5148698-vance-rips-margaret-brennan-for-crazy-exchange-linking-holocaust-to-free-speech/

“Well, he was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct genocide, and he met with the head of a political party that has far-right views and some historic ties to extreme groups,” Brennan said. “The context of that was changing the tone of it. And you know that.”

[Bob from Ohio]

"free speech was weaponized"

Before or after the book burnings?

Like all talking heads on TV, she wasn't picked for her intellect.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You couldn't burn books today -- 90 years ago, burning books eliminated content and silenced authors. Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago (published in France and smuggled into the USSR) showed how modern transportation made book burning nonviable.

Today, it'd be on the internet.

[SRG2]

Not accurate. Free speech was not available to evetyone.

Of course, I was much more concerned at Vance preferring to meet neo-Nazis than the German chancellor, but I guess that's what you voted for.

[Michael Ejercito]

Who were these neo-Nazis?

[SRG2]

AfD

[Bob from Ohio]

Did you see the actual German neo-Nazis on 60 Minutes last night bragging how they arrest people for speech?

[ThePublius]

AfD are not neo-Nazis.

[Satchmo_Lives]

He knows this or he honestly believes anybody to the right of Obama is a neo-Nazi. Hard to tell which is true. He is either dumb or intellectually dishonest.

[SRG2]

Hey, fuckwit - :I do not think that conservatives, whether authoritarian or not, are ipso facto neo-Nazis. And you will never find a post of mine where I have expressed the opinion you so dishonestly ascribe to me. I do think that neo-Nazis are neo-Nazis however, even if the AfD name (Arier für Deutschland, perhaps) doesn't have "Nazi" in it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bad news for you then:
German schools are holding mock elections. The AfD are winning every single one by a massive majority.

https://x.com/Inevitablewest/status/1891443393684774979

[Noscitur a sociis]

I have to admit, I don’t know much about German politics. On the one hand, a lot of leftists accuse people of being fascists or the like way too readily; on the other hand, European conservatives do have an authoritarian (and, yes, fascist) wing that hasn’t been as much a factor in American politics (which, to be clear, is good). I’d be interested in a sober analysis making the case for or against AfD: at present, I genuinely don’t know what to think.

But I’m not sure that “they’re really popular!” is much of a rebuttal to the charge of being neo-Nazis. As I recall, the paleo-Nazis were pretty popular in Germany too!

[Commenter_XY]

I am very wary of AfD, and uneasy, Nas.

AfD are strongest in the east. Post-pandemic, AfD party had a leadership shift. Some of the original CDU founders of AfD departed, expressing that AfD was heading in a more extreme direction. The moderating influence within AfD is now less, and that is what makes me queasy, not just uneasy.

That said: AfD are dead-on with immigration and energy, and it resonates very strongly across Germany. This fuels their popularity.

My hope is that as more AfD members actually serve in elected positions, that experience will be moderating to AfD over time.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/02/10/german-election-who-are-the-top-candidates-and-what-are-their-policy-priorities

Nas, here is a little more about AfD, and the candidates in the upcoming elections in GER (Feb 23).

[Brett Bellmore]

"That said: AfD are dead-on with immigration and energy, and it resonates very strongly across Germany. This fuels their popularity."

I think that's a lot of what's fueling populist/nationalist movements across the world: That the dominant parties are just visibly ignoring the welfare of their own citizenry on multiple topics.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, AfD is about to win 20%-25% of the electorate. There is no way to tell 20%+ of the country to go pound sand. The longer they are shunned by 'political elites', the more popular they will become.

[Brett Bellmore]

"There is no way to tell 20%+ of the country to go pound sand."

The other German parties: "Hold my beer."

They will absolutely try to hold the line against the AfD. They think it's their moral duty to keep the people from getting their way on multiple topics. The people are bad, and can't be allowed to dictate government policy.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, your whole infinite tolerance populism thing here doesn't really take into account what if they are actual Nazis.

You just assume they're not.

You also approve of populist nationalism, so you gotta see the danger here.

[SRG2]

My hope is that as more AfD members actually serve in elected positions, that experience will be moderating to AfD over time.

How well-grounded is that hope? My view is that being elected will be regarded as a reward for extremism. "I got elected as this, so now I will become more moderate" doesn't strike me as a convincing argument.,

[Sarcastr0]

"After Hitler, Our Turn" is a historical thing that exists, and which Brett is essentially quoting.

[David Nieporent]

Brett, AfD is about to win 20%-25% of the electorate. There is no way to tell 20%+ of the country to go pound sand.

Trump/Musk are telling 50%+ of the U.S. electorate to go pound sand.

[David Nieporent]

Bad news for you: twitter is not a news source.

[SRG2]

Why not bad news for you as well?

[Satchmo_Lives]

You literally said a major German party, AfD, were neo-Nazis.

Yeah, me taking you at your word is the problem.

I can read in their mission statement the want to eliminate Joos. My bad.

[SRG2]

Don't take me at my word. First, it's easy enough to check whether I'd ever accused anyone to the right of Obama as being a neo-Nazi. Of course, we only have your word that I think that. No evidence.

As far as AfD is concerned, Just get a fucking clue.

[SRG2]

They are not neo-Nazis by name. They are neo-Nazis by avocation.

[ThePublius]

1. they are not neo-Nazis; if you think they are, show me where they state, in their charter or elsewhere, anything resembling Nazism;
2. I don't think you know what the word "avocation" means;
3. please don't use foul language.

[SRG2]

. they are not neo-Nazis; if you think they are, show me where they state, in their charter or elsewhere, anything resembling Nazism;

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/alternative-germany-afd-party-what-you-need-know
For example:

Björn Höcke, leader of the AfD party in the state of Thuringia, has twice been fined by a German court for using a banned Nazi slogan. The phrase, “Everything for Germany” (“Alles für Deutschland”) was a slogan of the Nazi stormtroopers and engraved on their daggers.

Alexander Gauland, an AfD co-founder, former party leader, and current Member of Parliament, has engaged in Holocaust trivialization on several occasions. In a 2018 speech to the AfD youth wing, he said, “Hitler and the Nazis are just a speck of bird poop in more than 1,000 years of successful German history.”

I know what avocation is. Being neo-Nazis is a serious hobby.

please don't use foul language

Please don't clutch your pearls.

You are defending AfD. I will grant you the benefit of the doubt here by your not seeing them as neo-Nazis. If you defend them again, well, that is a different matter.

"The bitch that bore him is in heat again"

[Brett Bellmore]

That is your proof they're neo-Nazis? That they think Hitler and the Nazis were only around for a tiny fraction of German history? That they dare to use a slogan Nazis also used?

What are their neo-Nazi policies?

Here's my prediction: Either the 'mainstream' German parties give up and embrace immigration restrictions, or the AfD will keep growing in popularity, because people in the West are fed up with parties that are out to erase the very nations they rule.

You can't effectively fight populist parties if you're determined to leave multiple popular policies on the table for them to advance.

[SRG2]

There will never be enough proof to satisfy you unless the AfD starts calling themselves actual Nazis and waving swastikas around, which they are not stupid enough to do.

Further, that some of their policies have wide appeal is not an argument that they're not neo-Nazis. The originals also had some popular politicies. If all the AfD wanted to do is tighten up immigration controls, ok. But that's not all.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Nationalist.
2. Populist
3. Have an outgroup of citizens they're targeting (Muslims)
4. Still keep slipping into antisemetic statements occasionally

Are you a fan, Brett? It sounds like your'e a fan.

Of course you also like Latin America dictators if they do some populist austerity, so we know where you're coming from.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Neo-Nazis are what the left defines as. Yeah, we get it already.

[SRG2]

FWIW I'm not on the left, fuckwit. Lean right economically, inclined to libertarian socially -but pragmatically so.

I know that the modern Trumpist GOP defines left and right wrt fealty to their God King, but that's mere Humpty-Dumptyism.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No, pretty much just the AfD at this stage.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I particularly liked the AfD's subtle "gosh, we're not Nazis" imaging: https://preview.redd.it/what-do-you-think-of-the-afd-v0-0tmrqa4pd6fe1.jpeg?auto=webp&s=63abb7c1785b81cf3d7dd3f6286b09e80e5ead6c

[TwelveInchPianist]

CBS News’ take that the problem with the Nazis is that they weren’t authoritarian enough is an interesting one.

[Satchmo_Lives]

That was an hilarious exchange. Rubio could have really made hay with it regarding CBS. I would have been all over the statement 1930s Germany allowed too much speech--with book burnings and expulsion of Jews in academia. She is an idiot and I would have said as much.

[Kazinski]

He didn't meet with Scholz for the same reason that Trudeau didn't meet with Biden when he went to Mar a Lago , while Biden was still president, but the lamest of ducks.

The German Election is in about a week, and Scholz should be busy packing his bags.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.thecollegefix.com/yale-jewish-students-kicked-out-of-own-center-during-pro-palestinian-protest/

No, we don't have antisemetic Jews in academia.

[M L]

A German diplomat once best known for laughing at Donald Trump’s warning that Germany’s dependence on Russian energy would become a problem was unable to finish his speech at the Munich Security Conference as he apparently found the implications of emissary JD Vance’s message from the Trump White House too upsetting.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/02/16/once-he-laughed-at-trump-now-he-cries-munich-conference-chair-breaks-down-in-tears-over-vance-speech/

[hobie]

In 2022 when were having a security meeting in Berlin trying to figure out how to get LNG to Germany after the invasion, the German Secretary of State got up and told us German intelligence uncovered an ongoing plot by Russia to sabotage the LNG transport lines not only in Germany but for all of Europe. This scheme predated the invasion and already included the installation of seemingly innocent Russian assets in control of the pipelines across Europe. Now knowing this, the Secretary declared that not only will Germany never buy LNG from Russia again, but will also never do any meaningful trade of any kind with Russia ever again. The capacity for treachery by the Russian state is just too great. Those are the people whose balls you are fondling, Vance

[Bob from Ohio]

"Secretary declared that not only will Germany never buy LNG from Russia again"

and you believed him?

:New west-east route keeps Europe hooked on Russian gas"
By America Hernandez, Marwa Rashad, Pietro Lombardi and Nerijus Adomaitis
April 3, 20241:56 PM EDTUpdated 10 months ago

[hobie]

You dingbats honestly believe we won't check your cites just because all the ones before were fraudulent. Read your own cite loser. 0% LNG to Germany

[ThePublius]

Germany has screwed itself, its citizens, with their retarded energy policies, starting with shutting their nuclear powerplants, and currently thinking they can rely on so-called renewable energy, solar and wind. So stupid.

[hobie]

Germany is already doing just fine. In 2022 they constructed TWO floating LNG terminals in SIX MONTHS! Unheard of in the annals of construction. Now they get their LNG from Norway and Qatar via ship. I know these nation states resisting your illiberal new order really chaps your ass, but I honestly wish them well.

[ThePublius]

Doing just fine? Energy costs in Germany are four times what they are here, and even middle class folks have to decide whether to heat or eat.

[hobie]

Gas is 4x in all European countries. Always has been. That's because they tax the shit out of it. It's an absolute drag on productivity

[Satchmo_Lives]

Yeah, Trump was massaging Russians balls by telling Germany they were relying on Russian LNG at their peril.

The hoops you guys jump through to show Trump was wrong is truly amazing. If mental gymnastics were a sport in the Olympics, you guys are guaranteed gold.

[Kazinski]

Doesn't seem a very effective boycott:

"While the EU’s imports of liquefied natural gas from around the world decreased by 20 percent, deliveries from Russia set a new record in 2024. An increasing amount of Russian LNG is now sold on the spot market. Traders prefer cheaper Russian LNG rather than buying from the U.S. or elsewhere."

https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/eu-imports-more-russian-lng-2024-ever-mostly-arctic

Of course you already know that most of the Russian gas Germany was getting was not LNG but piped natural gas.

And if say the Netherlands were taking LNG cargoes from Russia, its pretty fungible once its regassified and transported via pipeline all over europe.

[Commenter_XY]

Reagan warned the Germans back in the 80's about relying on the Soviets Russians for gas. His words were telling.

[John F. Carr]

John Eastman is facing criminal charges in Arizona over the 2020 election aftermath. He recently convinced a judge that the state's anti-SLAPP law applies to his case. (Most anti-SLAPP laws are aimed at civil cases.) The burden now shifts to the prosecution to prove that
1. The prosecution is clearly justified by existing law.
2. The prosecution was not brought in retaliation for Eastman's exercise of constitutional rights.

I have not followed the Arizona case closely enough to have an opinion on these factual issues.

[Roger S]

Good for Eastman. He is being prosecuted for being a Trump supporter.

[MoreCurious]

Not quite. He's being prosecuted for being a criminal.

[Estragon]

I expect the Eastman rehabilitation tour to begin around here any day now. Likely from JB, or perhaps a throwback appearance from Steve. However I cannot rule out his old AG campaign supporters, EV and DB from stepping up to the plate.

“And I said to him, are you out of your f’ing mind? Right? I said I only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth from now on, ‘orderly transition.’ […] Now I’m going to give you the best free legal advice you’re ever getting in your life: Get a great f’ing criminal defense lawyer. You’re gonna need it.”

[Michael Ejercito]

What was supposed to be wrong about his actions?

How was what he did worse than what Kevin Clinesmith did?

[Estragon]

“What was supposed to be wrong about his actions?”

Well… I mean you could read the complaint? There’s also a 128 page opinion in a disciplinary context out of California from March of last year. If it were me, I might start there.

I guess I’d also be mildly curious— in a morbid, self flagellating sort of way— what parallels you see between Mr Cline-smith’s conduct and Eastman’s?

As I said, I expect the attempted rehabilitation to begin anytime around here. I appreciate some of the commenters are out in front of the Conspirators here. Allow me to repeat a familiar refrain: you people get the heroes you deserve.

“What they were proposing, I thought was nuts […] The theory was also completely nuts, right? It was a combination of Italians, Germans — different things had been floating around as to who was involved —, Hugo Chavez, Venezuelans — he has an affidavit from somebody who says they wrote a software in, something with the Philippines, it was just all over the radar.”

[RedheadedPharoh]

It's weird to think that novel legal defenses are crimes to some people.

[tylertusta]

It's almost as if they think Trump is beneath the law.

[Noscitur a sociis]

How was what he did worse than what Kevin Clinesmith did?

Kevin Clinesmith, the guy who got prosecuted and convicted?

[hobie]

Speaking of Kenneth Chesebro, the guy who plead guilty to the crimes Eastman and Trump committed, and who was suspended from practicing law in NY in December, also in Wisconsin the same month had "10 additional felony charges alleg[ing]...he...lied to the Wisconsin Republicans who met at the state Capitol on Dec. 14, 2020 about how the certificate they signed would be used."

Is Chesebro gonna be the Jesus on the cross for all the others' sins?

[tylertusta]

Technically speaking, he's not wrong with his question.

Clinesmith was charged for false statements

John Eastman was charged with conspiracy, fraud, and forgery.

So... how is Eastman's conduct worse than Clinesmith's?

I personally think the answer to the question is a values judgement. Do you think it's worse to lie on a warrant to spy on a Presidential candidate's (late later a President's) communications? Or is it worse to lie to get a slate of electors certified?

[Estragon]

“warrant to spy on a Presidential candidate”

Carter Page?

[tylertusta]

By using Carter Page as the subject of a warrant, the government was almost certainly able to get access to Trump's communications.

I saw "almost certainly" because the Page FISA warrant's minimization procedures have not been declassified yet. The consensus is that under FISA they're able to vacuum up communications metadata out to three hops, which in the case of a Republican nominee's campaign we're talking a good chunk of the population of the United States had their information collected.

Additionally, it's also possible that the FISC ordered the FBI to deliberately exclude Trump's communications, but given whom was running things at the time I doubt that occurred.

It's also possible (albeit unlikely) that they didn't limit collections to just metadata against Trump and actually surveilled his calls/read his emails directly.

[Estragon]

“Presidential candidate”

When did Mr Clinesmith’s conduct take place?

[tylertusta]

His alleged conduct was during 2016, but the warrants listened to communications up until mid 2017.

Furthermore, the warrants would have allowed the FBI to glean communications prior to Carter Page's involvement with the Trump campaign. How far back has not been disclosed yet.

[Estragon]

I thought the charged Clinesmith conduct occurred in 2017.

As David points out below, Page had already been exiled from the campaign for at least months by October 2016.

Well, maybe officially so. On the other hand— Paul Manafort received an email on Dec. 8 2016 saying this:

“Carter Page is in Moscow today, sending messages he is authorized to talk to Russia on behalf of DJT on a range of issues of mutual interest including Ukraine.”

Do you believe what the Trumpers said earlier in 2016 or Carter Page in December?

[tylertusta]

My apologies, I was thinking of Carter Page when you asked about Clinesmith. Clinesmith's alteration of emails was in 2017.

Do you believe what the Trumpers said earlier in 2016 or Carter Page in December?

What specifically?

[Estragon]

Either the Trumpers told the truth when they said they had distanced themselves from Page pre-FISA warrants in summer 2016, or Page was telling the truth in Moscow in December 2016. Only one of these two options even kinda lends support to your theory that Clinesmith altered a FISA application in summer 2017 to “to spy on a Presidential candidate's (late later a President's) communications.”

Why would Clinesmith fudge a warrant on someone who had been publicly exiled for a year from Trump’s orbit to eavesdrop on Trump?

[tylertusta]

I did not limit my initial comment to just Clinesmith who lied by commission. The FBI deliberately misled the DOJ and the FISC by omitting information starting in the very first warrant application in October of 2016 and those lies-by-omission carried through to the three renewals.

Clinesmith's alteration of the email was just icing on the cake for the pile of lies that was the FBI's applications to the FISC.

The reason why the email was altered was because without it, they would be unable to get the warrant on Page per the statute.

[Estragon]

And frankly I still don’t quite understand how a fudged warrant application in summer 2017 could be used to “eavesdrop” on candidate Trump 9 months earlier.

It sounds like you are complaining more about other actors. And mainlining Durham’s insinuations— clearly.

[tylertusta]

FISA warrants are retrospective in the information that they gather. They current current and past communications. A renewal in 2017 also covers communications made in 2016- and before!

And mainlining Durham’s insinuations— clearly.

I'm not mainlaining Durham at all. I'm basing my statements off of Horowitz's report as the DOJ's IG and subsequent events at the FISC.

[Estragon]

Yes, I understand you are now just venting free floating grievance about Crossfire Hurricane. But this started with you asking this question:

“So... how is Eastman's conduct worse than Clinesmith's? […] Do you think it's worse to lie on a warrant to spy on a Presidential candidate's (late later a President's) communications? Or is it worse to lie to get a slate of electors certified?”

You are explicitly comparing Eastman and Clinesmith here.

I am not particularly interested in re-litigating Durham’s crap with you.

Besides. We were talking about friend-of-the-blog John Eastman. If there were any justice in this world he would be shunned by polite society forevermore. Instead he has folks like you coming here to minimize his conduct for free!

I expect the coming rehabilitation tour at the VC to be as painful as it will be pathetic and I look forward to seeing you, Ejectero, and all the rest on the front lines toiling away.

[Estragon]

“FISA warrants are retrospective in the information that they gather”

So they didn’t get around to looking retrospectively until the 4th renewal? Is it your sense that is what usually happens with FISA warrants?

[tylertusta]

As I said in my edit, I'm referring to Horowitz and the FISC.

Is he full of shit, too? Does the FISC not know what the fuck they're talking about?

So they didn’t get around to looking retrospectively until the 4th renewal? Is it your sense that is what usually happens with FISA warrants?

Any communications within the scope of the warrants are fair game. Including anything that they may have missed during Trump's candidacy.

Instead he has folks like you coming here to minimize his conduct for free!

Is this the part where I get to put words in your mouth to straw man you, too?

I expect the coming rehabilitation tour at the VC to be as painful as it will be pathetic and I look forward to seeing you, Ejectero, and all the rest on the front lines toiling away.

It wouldn't be a standard day here in the VC comments section if I wasn't speaking with another sophist.

[David Nieporent]

FISA warrants are retrospective in the information that they gather. They current current and past communications. A renewal in 2017 also covers communications made in 2016- and before!

Without a time machine, eavesdropping on past communications is rather difficult.

[Absaroka]

"Without a time machine, eavesdropping on past communications is rather difficult."

I think a lot of FISA stuff is about previously stored data.

One example.

(disclaimer ... not an expert by any means, but I think the gov does store some stuff - or have tech companies store it - for later searching)

[David Nieporent]

I think a lot of FISA stuff is about previously stored data.

Text material, sure. But the claim above was about "eavesdropping," which, of course, is about audio.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd trust the NSA to not record audio without a warrant about as far as I'd trust them to not record metadata illegally. Which is to say, not at all.

[tylertusta]

Without a time machine, eavesdropping on past communications is rather difficult.

Do you have anything that supports the notion that the FISA warrant was only limited to audio communications?

[David Nieporent]

Do you have anything that supports the notion that the FISA warrant was only limited to audio communications?

No, but then I was responding to a comment about "eavesdropping," not about every possible document a warrant might turn up.

[tylertusta]

Oh. So it's just a attempt to distract from the conversation and nothing substantive to say.

Got it.

[David Nieporent]

By using Carter Page as the subject of a warrant, the government was almost certainly able to get access to Trump's communications.

That is not how it works. Obviously if Trump sent Carter Page an email — but Trump doesn't use email! — then a search of Carter Page's emails would pick up Trump's emails to him. If Trump called Carter Page, then a wiretap of Page's phone would pick up Trump's conversations with him. But since Page wasn't even on the campaign by the time they got the first FISA warrant, it's unlikely Trump would've made such calls.

It's also possible (albeit unlikely) that they didn't limit collections to just metadata against Trump and actually surveilled his calls/read his emails directly.

I mean, if you posit a conspiracy with no evidence, then anything is possible.

[tylertusta]

That is not how it works. Obviously if Trump sent Carter Page an email — but Trump doesn't use email!

That's exactly how it works, since Page would have sent emails to Trump during the course of Page's involvement with the campaign.

But since Page wasn't even on the campaign by the time they got the first FISA warrant

And just whom did Page contact in the Trump campaign that was also in contact with Trump...?

But since Page wasn't even on the campaign by the time they got the first FISA warrant, it's unlikely Trump would've made such calls.

I mean, if you posit a conspiracy with no evidence, then anything is possible.

It helps that there actually was a conspiracy. It's not outside of the realm of possibility that they went even further while still hopped up on the "Trump is a Russian Agent!" hopium.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The question is clearly rhetorical, and is the equivalent of saying that Eastman isn’t any worse than Clinesmith.

Even if you accept that as correct, that wouldn’t mean that Eastman didn’t do anything wrong (as implied in the first question), or that he shouldn’t be prosecuted, since Clinesmith did do something wrong, and was (successfully) prosecuted.

[Michael Ejercito]

So how is Clinesmith's law license these days?

[Noscitur a sociis]

If you’re saying that John Eastman should be reinstated to the bar after he gets convicted of a felony, I don’t think that’s crazy.

[CountmontyC]

What was Clinesmith's punishment? Probation and a temporary loss of his law license which was actually returned early.

[tylertusta]

And he wouldn't have had his law license suspended at all had the DC bar not been embarrassed when they were caught keeping a felon convicted of lying to a court on the rolls.

[Michael Ejercito]

Almost as if the DC bar agreed with his actions.

I wonder why.

[Estragon]

I imagine the DC bar took the same view of Clinesmith’s actions that Judge Boasberg did at sentencing. But why speculate?

https://www.dcbar.org/ServeFile/GetDisciplinaryActionFile?fileName=HCKevinEClinesmith21ND004.pdf

[tylertusta]

A bar that felt truly that way wouldn't have waited to sanction him until the press caught wind of it nearly halfway through his probation.

And that the bar (and Boasberg) accepted his non-guilty guilty plea is laughable.

[Estragon]

Ok then

[Michael Ejercito]

How is his law license these days?

[hobie]

He tried to have the votes of millions in 7 states erased. Lots of evidence regarding that. Called a coup

[Mr. Bumble]

The difference between winning and losing in 2020 was less than 60,000 votes spread among three states.

[Purple Martin]

Your point being? Hobie's seven states included the three states' "60,000 votes" you reference.

[Mr. Bumble]

That he did not seek to have 7 million votes "erased". We don't elect president based on the popular vote.
The difference I mentioned would have given Trump an electoral college victory.

[Purple Martin]

Those 60,000 are a sub-set of the millions. As hobie understands and you seem not to, it's a lot easier to target millions of a population statistically known to contain a majority voting for your opponent, than identify the specific 6k spread among seven states, who will be the ones to make a difference.

Same principle as advertising experts acknowledging 50% of brand advertising dollars are completely wasted—but no one knows which 50%.

Again, your point is?

[hobie]

Actual good news from this administration

State Department Drops Opposition to Taiwan Independence from Website. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/state-department-drops-opposition-to-taiwan-independence-from-website/

This is probably Rubio's doing. He must have grown a pair since 2016. I jumped down to the comment section to see if all of that site's hayseeds are pulling out their hair in paroxysms of rage like they did when Biden said he'd back Taiwan. But I was pleasantly surprised to see they are now all for it.

Sometimes the MAGA whipsaw mind actually lands, unintentionally, on the right course

[tylertusta]

Trump's Taiwan policy in 2025 is a continuation of the policy from his first term where he's been nudging Taiwan toward independence while arming them to the teeth.

[ThePublius]

Isn't Taiwan already independent?

[CountmontyC]

Officially the USA does not recognize Taiwan as it's own independent nation ( goes back to Nixon iirc).

[Kazinski]

Not technically but it has only been under control of the central Chinese government for about 3 years since 1895 when the Qing Dynasty ceded control to the Japanese.

I actually knew a woman who lived in Arkansas who's father was the Japanese mayor of a Taiwanese city in prewar Taiwan.

Another fun fact: there was virtually no Han Chinese presence on the Island until the 1600's when it was a Dutch colony.

[Frank Drackman]

Worked pretty well for the US(and Off-Gone-E-Stan, and North Vietnam)

[hobie]

Did ol' Trump beef up the Afghan Army with choice weapons before winning 2020? That would account for all that kit I saw parading around.

[Purple Martin]

Don't recall ever clicking on an Open Thread post, but read a 'Persuasion' column today that—positing consideration of the Trump years as an aggressively meaner, history-rhyming version of the 1921-1933 Harding/Coolidge/Hoover years— might interest the historically-minded.

So, are you of a mind that this particular rhyme might progress to Smoot-Hawley-level tariffs, a global economic depression, and possibly WWIII prompted by a revanchist dictator trying to regain lost glories by invading Europe? Or would you rather present a 21st century American avatar of that period's The Good German" (believing that will end better in the 21st, than it did in the 20th Century—a seemingly more moderate long-standing position of several here). Or perhaps you consider aggressively meaner—also well-represented in the commentariat—a positive, productive, great idea!

All that's with Donald J. Trump in (of course) the Warren G. Harding role of a Who Cares! President with high approval ratings dying of a heart attack two years into his term (Harding's capture by would-be oligarchs and resulting scandals being not yet widely known).

Anyway, a knowledgeable, interesting, useful analysis of some of, as the author says, "...nerdier thickets of American history, [Rod Serling voice] Submitted for Your Consideration..."

TRUMP IS ACTUALLY WARRREN HARDING:
The administration is reversing the New Deal and sending us back to the 1920s.
Persuasion | Sam Kahn | Feb 17, 2025
...
The more I look at the entrail pattern spread out before me—the gist of Trump’s actions, his odd historical obsessions—the more convinced I am that I’m looking at the policies of the Harding/Coolidge/Hoover interregnum (a period of history that’s been largely mothballed and its three presidents deemed failures)...
...
I do not necessarily mean what I’m saying as an indictment. Like all faux-political scientists who are also faux-soothsayers, I am writing not in judgment but as a diagnostician...[of] an era in which the Depression and Hitler hadn’t yet happened, in which it was very possible to look at Wilsonian and progressive policies and see in them a stark deviation from the founding principles of the republic. And this was, let’s not forget, the consensus position for a dozen years—the GOP won three elections in landslides and seemed well on their way to creating a permanent Republican majority....

https://www.persuasion.community/p/trump-is-actually-warren-harding

[Dr. Ed 2]

Coolidge was one of our best Presidents with both Hoover and Roosevelt being equally terrible.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forgotten_Man%3A_A_New_History_of_the_Great_Depression

Franklin Roosevelt so screwed everything up that the only thing that ended the Depression was the war. People who lived through it openly state that it was the war that put the nation back on its feet.

[Purple Martin]

Now do Harding.

[Commenter_XY]

Like Harding, a return to normalcy. For example, we have a POTUS who has figured out what a woman is.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

To be fair, it is difficult to grab a man by the pussy.

[David Nieporent]

Another insane judge out there hoping to get a promotion from Donald Trump.

A man named John Anthony Castro, who said he was intending to run for president as a Republican, sued in federal court in New Mexico to keep Trump off the primary and general election ballots as an insurrectionist. (This was back in 2023.) The judge tossed the case on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked standing because there was no evidence he was a bona fide candidate for president. Castro appealed to the 10th circuit.

In the interim, Trump was actually elected, so the whole thing was moot. However, the 10th circuit noted that election challenges often surmount the mootness barrier on the "capable of repetition yet evading review" principle, so it analyzed that. It rejected it, however, on the grounds that Castro's case was not capable of repetition, because the 22nd amendment barred Trump from running again. All well and good.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111187673.pdf

But there's an insane concurrence from Alison Eid, in which she argues that the majority erred because "We should be reluctant to opine on a novel and complex constitutional question when doing so is not essential to resolve the case." What is the "novel and complex constitutional question" to which she refers? Whether the 22nd amendment bars Trump from running again. I would think that 3 > 2 is really more of an elementary arithmetic question than a complex constitutional one, but when one is trying to win Trump's approval, I guess there's no depths to which one won't debase oneself.

[hobie]

"when one is trying to win Trump's approval, I guess there's no depths to which one won't debase oneself."

Two words: Blackman

[tylertusta]

You're reading far too much into Judge Eid's concurrence.

The lawfare left is looking for anything to melt down about re: Trump, so it is no surprise that they are going Fukushima over a concurrence that specifically did not decide an issue.

[David Nieporent]

The lawfare left is looking for anything to melt down about re: Trump, so it is no surprise that they are going Fukushima over a concurrence that specifically did not decide an issue.

I have no idea what the phrase "lawfare left" even means, or why you're talking about it in response to something I posted. As for the rest of your comment: concurrences by definition don't decide issues. But the concurrence specifically did say that whether Trump was barred by the 22nd amendment from running for a 3rd term was a novel and complex constitutional question. Hint: it isn't.

[tylertusta]

I have no idea what the phrase "lawfare left" even means

It means you, numbnuts.

This is different from the lawfare right, which also cheers on the abuse of legal processes to hurt their political opposition, except for them their targets are on the left.

or why you're talking about it in response to something I posted

I was commenting on your meltdown; a meltdown that you posted in a publicly available comments section of a legal blog where you air your grievances in hope of getting some kind of response.

But the concurrence specifically did say that whether Trump was barred by the 22nd amendment from running for a 3rd term was a novel and complex constitutional question. Hint: it isn't

It's novel and complex. I don't think that Trump is eligible, but at least I recognize that the argument exists.

In Judge Eid's case, it's more likely that it's an desire for formalism than any malevolent aspiration for higher position. If Judge Eid wanted to do that, she could have handled things quite differently.

[David Nieporent]

Look, if you think that counting to 3 is novel and complex, I won't bother to burden you any further by forcing you to attempt to actually make logical arguments.

No, no argument exists that Trump is eligible. None. Zero. Anybody who thinks there is should be sterilized immediately for the good of the future of the species.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don't think that Trump is eligible, but at least I recognize that the argument exists.

Uh, it does? Can you sketch it out for me?

[tylertusta]

Certainly! I came across a law review article that discussed several ways in which someone might not be subject to the terms of the 22nd Amendment.

The Twice and Future President: Constitutional Interstices and the Twenty-Second Amendment

I think the easiest way of describing the argument is that the 22nd Amendment's text only makes someone ineligible to stand for election, but it doesn't actually prohibit someone from being in the office. If one uses one of the handful of ways to become President that don't involve being elected to Pres or Vice Pres, such as becoming the VP through a vote of Congress, then you don't run afoul of the terms of the 22nd amendment.

[David Nieporent]

But as I mentioned a bit ago, even if that weren't an obviously silly reading of the constitution, it would be irrelevant to this case, which was in fact about Trump being elected, not about him inheriting the office some other way. The case would be moot pursuant to the operation of the 22nd amendment even if he could do the latter.

[tylertusta]

An enterprising judge could take Trump's statements as being able to stand for election again as being sufficient.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The relevant part of the Tenth Circuit’s holding—the part that Judge Eid called a “novel and complex constitutional question”—is that Trump can’t be elected again. Not only does that article not provide argument for how he could be, it expressly concedes as much. It does argue (probably correctly) that there are ways Trump could become the president again without being elected. But none of those would mean that this plaintiff would have standing, since his complaint depended entirely on an election. (And if Judge Eid somehow thought it did, she probably should have said so!)

[tylertusta]

Sadly, we don't see the plaintiff's arguments, just the opinion.

[Sarcastr0]

That’s a remarkably weak rejoinder.

If it’s not in the opinion, the opinion is not well founded.

[ducksalad]

Let's say we spot you "novel" given that there probably haven't been a lot of cases.

How do you get to "complex"?

[tylertusta]

See my comment here.

[Sarcastr0]

That’s been doubly pointed out as irrelevant to the opinion at hand, albeit after this comment was posted.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024) says that a person who is barred by section 3 of the 14th Amendment from holding the office of President can run for President. There is (to the best of my knowledge) no precedent addressing the question of whether a person who is barred by the 22nd Amendment from being elected President can run for President.

A ruling that held that Trump couldn’t run for President in 2028 would have to distinguish Trump v. Anderson. Such a ruling would by definition be novel, and would likely be complex because the simple approach (saying you can’t run for President if you don’t meet the eligibility requirements specified in the Constitution) is precluded by Trump v. Anderson.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is there any law which says anyone else who is not qualified to hold the office of president can't "run for" president? Off-hand, I would think the ability to "run for", in the sense of campaigning for, any office would be a free speech matter.

Anything beyond the speech, however, could be barred if the person was not actually eligible to hold the office.

If Trump is still Trump in 2027-28, I have no problem with him "running for" president for a third term. If he wants to waste his supporters' money, that's actually a great use of un-needed funds. But I would not expect anyone in a position of authority over election matters in any State to pretend he was eligible to hold the office again.

[David Nieporent]

"Run for" here is being used as a metonym for "appear on the ballot." Nobody including the plaintiff in this case was/is suggesting that Trump not be allowed to travel around the country holding rallies if he wants.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Judge Eid filled Gorsuch's seat on the Court of Appeals and is a former Thomas clerk, so has two SCOTUS connections already.

She explains that her choice not to address the novel constitutional question is part of a general policy of hers. Now, I can understand being cynical about that. But, I'm not sure how bad this was.

I would agree, to be clear, that the possibility of Trump running for president again should not be a "novel and complex constitutional question." But, I have disagreed repeatedly on what that means with the current Supreme Court.

Also, it is more complicated if the argument is that there is no way for him to serve as president past January 20, 2029.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It would be reasonable to say that the claim is moot regardless of whether the challenged candidate can run again. But Judge Eid is smart enough to say that, in a way that would be understood to mean that. Instead, she chose to imply that it was an unsettled question whether Trump could run again. (She didn’t, of course, articulate why it’s a hard question, because of course she’s smart enough to know that it isn’t. But in a world filled with Hos and VanDykes, you’ve got to do something if you want to get ahead.)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It's a fair criticism.

[David Nieporent]

Also, it is more complicated if the argument is that there is no way for him to serve as president past January 20, 2029.

There are some cute-but-would-never-fly arguments that Trump could serve as president. But the issue here is about him being elected and there are no arguments that he could be elected again.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

What will "not fly" in 2029 remains to be seen.

[Brett Bellmore]

"What is the "novel and complex constitutional question" to which she refers? Whether the 22nd amendment bars Trump from running again. "

And it is indeed a novel and complex question. Whether the 22nd amendment bars Trump from being elected again, or serving again, would be an open and shut question. Running again is an entirely different and complex question.

[ThePublius]

NBC TDS:

NBC’s Tom Costello ties Donald Trump, @ElonMusk, and @DOGE
to the Delta Airlines crash in Toronto, Canada:

“[T]his is going yet again raised a concern about FAA staffing — air traffic control staffing. Now, this is a Canadian air traffic control tower and this is under Canadian authority once it crosses the border. And yet, as you know, there has been this talk about maybe staff cuts at the FAA as a part of President Trump's effort to trim down the federal workforce. And yet, as you also know, the FAA has been complaining for years that they are understaffed in critical job positions, especially air traffic control. I was having a conversation with somebody today about whether air traffic control and Americans being affected by the staff cuts so far not to their knowledge and yet other positions related to maintaining critical equipment appeared to have been cut, so this is going to feed into all of these recent incidents and the safety of — of the total air traffic system is going to be very much a part of the conversation as we go forward, at least on the side of the country of the border, I should say.”

How on friggin' earth do these people have the nerve to blame Trump for this accident? Wow.

[ThePublius]

Link:
https://x.com/CurtisHouck/status/1891593343068450885?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1891593343068450885%7Ctwgr%5E8dc915b159c1872363c02f888f09731098056947%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdisqus.com%2Fembed%2Fcomments%2F%3Fbase%3Ddefaultf%3Dpj-instapunditt_i%3D1-703305t_u%3Dhttps3A2F2Finstapundit.com2F7033052Ft_e%3DI27M20SURE20LEFTIES20ARE20ALREADY20TRYING20TO20BLAME20TRUMP20FOR20THIS20ACCIDENT2C20WHICH20HAPPENED20IN20CANADA.2020Delt_d%3DInstapundit20C2BB20Blog20Archive20C2BB20IE28099M20SURE20LEFTIES20ARE20ALREADY20TRYING20TO20BLAME20TRUMP20FOR20THIS20ACCIDENT2C20WHICH20HAPPENED20IN20CANADA.20Delt_t%3DI27M20SURE20LEFTIES20ARE20ALREADY20TRYING20TO20BLAME20TRUMP20FOR20THIS20ACCIDENT2C20WHICH20HAPPENED20IN20CANADA.2020Delt_cs_o%3Ddescversion%3Dee0ab69468759355b300526071ec669c

[Purple Martin]

T-Pub: "I just quoted a post on X." No you didn't just quote a post. The link you want for that (it works fine) is:

https://x.com/CurtisHouck/status/1891593343068450885

Everything after the "?" in your link is tracking logic, inserted by your browser, or Xitter, or the original source (which seems to be Instapundit) to either to target advertising to you, or to sell to data brokers who use it to improve the profile they maintain on you and everyone here who clicked on your link (sites visited, buying habits, ads clicked on, finances, voting record, political views, ect.) and sell that profile to others.

Don't do that.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's easy to do when you're in a hurry, or aren't html savvy, and can't recognize where the legit url ends and the tracking crap begins.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Your illiteracy indicates you were advanced through school as some kind of pity-party consolation prize.

[Frank Drackman]

You just described the plurality of HS Grad/jew/ma/ates from the last 25 yrs, they think Newton worked at Apple!

[ThePublius]

What are you talking about? I just quoted a post on X.

[Frank Drackman]

Well that's definitive! What did Howard Stern think?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Sure thing, and Tucker Carlson was really just asking questions.

[Dr. Ed 2]

CTV posted pictures.

Fact: Wind gusting to 40 mph with blowing snow. Hard to see where run and taxiways are.

Fact: Plane has scratch marks on right side and is on roof. Appears to have slid on right side and then rolled over onto roof. It was taxiing, not landing -- wing broken off, but not engine.

Suspicion -- plane fetched up in a ditch and wind caught it.

What no one says about rail is that it is superior in the snow. It has metal rails that it doesn't fall off of -- it doesn't slide off the highway, and it doesn't have to visibility or wind or snow on the runway.

[Dr. Ed 2]

CTV saying BOTH wings broken off.

Maximum crosswind gust for landing -- 35 knots. It was gusting to 34.75 knots. And a snowy runway is not "dry."

[hobie]

Fah-rizzle. I thought we tossed all the dwarfs and cripples from air traffic control last week. Unless we missed one!

[Don Nico]

Of course, IF (a big IF) the FAA had really been doing its job, it would have stopped the crazy routing of helicopter flights directly in the way of flight paths into Reagan Airport.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m not sure that’s avoidable given the forbidden airspace tangle in DC.

[Purple Martin]

T-Pub, here's one of "these people" specifically noting Trump wasn't to blame for this, while withholding judgement on future such events.

https://fallows.substack.com/p/from-defund-the-police-to-defund

(James Fallows "Breaking the News" substack is mostly media criticism, but with a strong leavening of well-sourced general aviation and aircraft accident columns. Yes, he comes with constant PoV advocacy but doesn't pretend not to, and shows his work (always linking to his typically non-partisan information sources for those who want more detail)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I appreciate the Secretary of Agriculture manages to list the price of eggs and the grave problem of virus-infected chickens fourth on her list here. DEIA, of course, is the top concern.

https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/02/14/secretary-rollins-takes-bold-action-day-one

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm more worried about bird flu in the milk supply than paying a dollar more for eggs.

[Frank Drackman]

you really keep up with this shit? What's a dozen eggs at your local Kroger? Publix? What was it a year ago?

[Dr. Ed 2]

$3.99 versus $2.50 -- although one week they were on sale for $2.99. Market Basket.

You do know (a) how close bird flu is to Covid and (b) humans have caught it...

Covid cost me a LOT more than $1.50/week...

[hobie]

That's because you lived at the time in a nation full of lunatics. In Portugal, because everyone follows the rules, we all went straight back to work as long as we masked up and washed hands. But you Americans couldn't even handle that

[Michael Ejercito]

Which rules would they be?

[Mr. Bumble]

You Americans?

[bernard11]

So the great genius Musk and his genius team don't understand a Social Security database, and claim it shows millions of people over 100 years old are getting Social Security.

And rather than bothering to check their wildly improbable conclusion they announced it with great pride.

A temporary embarrassment, maybe, but if this how these mighty brains do their work then I don't think we should let them muck around firing people, killing programs, etc.

This whole DOGE business is ridiculous and likely destructive.

[ThePublius]

What would be the correct understanding of that database?

[Josh R]

No. 98 percent of the dead who would be over 100 are not receiving benefits.

[Dr. Ed 2]

2 percent of those who are is a problem...

[Frank Drackman]

I hear there's a 120 year old "Welfare Queen" who's buying lottery tickets and cigarettes with her Food Stamps,
Ironic (dontcha think?) is that Ronaldus Maximus never-ever-ever (HT T Swift) mentioned any "Welfare Queen"(Have documentation to refute me? post it (Bitch!), you'll be the first)

[Magister]

This is the type of thing that we think there's much more of it than anyone realizes, as was evidenced in Chicago a couple of years ago with the -- or a few years ago -- with the welfare queen who went on trial. And it was found that in addition to collecting welfare under 123 different names, she also had 55 social security cards. So, this is where we were going to try and make some of the changes.

You're gonna need a new quibble; that's Reagan's comments to "Managing Editors" from the Reagan Library. Oh, you wanted a reference from the time he was campaigning, not after he was elected president? Here's one from a transcript of a Reagan radio commentary from the late 1970s (misspellings from the document):

Maybe it will brighten your day a little, however, to learn that the recently convicted "Welfare Queen of Chicago" served a useful prupose. Even government was shaken to find that an enterprising individual could collect welfare under 127 different names, hold 50 social security cards and get widow's benefits from a couple of non-existant husbands.

[Josh R]

It's not good, but it totals only $8.5 billion out of the over $1.5 trillion paid out. The theme is fraud, waste and abuse is not going to make much difference in the bottom line.

[Life of Brian]

Actually, the OIG report you linked discusses several potential fraud vectors beyond improperly paid SS benefits that can and do arise from SSA refusing to properly clean their data. Control-F "fraud" should catch most of them.

[bernard11]

Moved

[Commenter_XY]

The theme is: There is fraud everywhere you look, to varying degrees.

All the more reason to press on, regardless.

[Life of Brian]

98 percent of the dead who would be over 100 are not receiving benefits.

That's great (subject to my other comment), but how about dead people who would be (much) younger than 100? OIG drew the line there since it's a fairly easy case that the vast majority of people in the database of that age would in fact not actually be alive, but for the same reason that's a poor age band to pick if you're engineering fraudulent benefits.

70-85 would probably be the sweet spot -- max benefits; very plausibly still alive.

[Brett Bellmore]

To be fair, if you're listed in their database as well over 100 years old, and still collecting benefits, what probably happened is that somebody was doing data entry on old paper records, and when they came to yours, there was no good birthdate. Which used to often be the case, back when people would be born on snowed in farms, and you had a lot of orphans around. A fair number of people walking around who didn't know exactly when they were born!

It was a common practice when you came to a record like that to enter an utterly implausible birth date as a place holder. I ran into this years ago when the topic was voter registrations.

[Commenter_XY]

So why didn't the SSA, the IG, or GAO manage to a) catch it, and b) fix it?

[Brett Bellmore]

No incentive to, I assume. They just didn't care.

[Life of Brian]

and claim it shows millions of people over 100 years old are getting Social Security

I know that's the meme that is going around, but do you actually have a primary source where they said that part?

[bernard11]

Here you are.

[Life of Brian]

Well, that was pretty unhelpful since that's exactly what I had read and why I asked the question I did.

Since you seem allergic to quotation marks, I'll do the work for you and paste Elon's tweets from the thread you linked -- you can just grunt or similar when I get to the one you think "claims it shows millions of people over 100 years old are getting Social Security":

"Maybe Twilight is real and there are a lot of vampires collecting Social Security"

"Yes, there are FAR more “eligible” social security numbers than there are citizens in the USA."

"What’s super weird is that the @USGAO pointed out years ago that millions of dead people were tagged as alive by Social Security, but nothing was done!"

[Noscitur a sociis]

So… what do you think he’s saying in that tweet?

[Life of Brian]

That SSA's master database of SSNs is stupendously corrupted and thus a significant vector for fraud -- as further discussed in my other comments above and in the linked OIG report that he coincidentally mentions.

[bernard11]

LOB,

Scroll down a bit from the post I linked, and you find:

Yes, there are FAR more “eligible” social security numbers than there are citizens in the USA.

This might be the biggest fraud in history.”

[Life of Brian]

Indeed. I know you've read the rest of my posts here, and would hope that you've read the OIG report by now that discusses in detail the fraud vulnerabilities this improperly-maintained database enables. So what's your point?

[bernard11]

Only that Elon and his gang apparently misunderstood the data, and he began talking about "the biggest fraud in history."

Nor by the way has anyone asked why it's this way, preferring to blame lazy, incompetent SS workers, rather than the fact that they are working with antiquated systems - COBOL, for Pete's sake - that are hard to update and that the agency feels the cost would not be worthwhile (I disagree, based on issues the OIG report raised).

I mean, if Musk was actually interested in efficiency then, rather than prancing around shouting and firing random people he might suggest that modern systems be installed. I mean, if we are looking at the "greatest fraud in human history" then it's worth spending money to stop it.

[Life of Brian]

Only that Elon and his gang apparently misunderstood the data, and he began talking about "the biggest fraud in history."

It's a huge security hole -- once again, as observed for many years prior by people not named Elon Musk, including in the OIG report he explicitly mentioned. It seems like you're just dead set on putting the breathless-headline take in his mouth regardless of what he actually said. You do you, but it really doesn't seem like there's any further useful discussion to be had.

Nor by the way has anyone asked why it's this way

Saying something this ill-informed just confirms you haven't bothered to read the OIG report Josh linked above -- which, by the way, was their second effort after they recommended SSA clean up their mess and SSA flatly refused.

I mean, if Musk was actually interested in efficiency then, rather than prancing around shouting and firing random people he might suggest that modern systems be installed.

I mean, how do you know he hasn't? I do suspect it would be a bit lower on his priority list than the desperately-needed ATC revamp, but that certainly doesn't mean it's not on the radar.

And that's really a bit of a red herring anyway, since whether the data is in an old system or a new system, it still needs to be cleaned up or the vulnerabilities will remain.

[David Nieporent]

Continually repeating that it's a "security hole" does not make Musk's claims that billions of 150 year olds are fraudulently collecting social security checks any more accurate.

[Life of Brian]

billions of 150 year olds

Now there's a (grudgingly) honest person for a change -- you know good and well he didn't say the crap Bernard threw out at the top of this thread, so you're not even pretending to be serious.

[bernard11]

I mean, how do you know he hasn't?

I don't, but he and Trump brag about everything, justified or not, and they haven't said anything about that, probably because Musk and his teeny-boppers don't understand anything about it.

Also, last night,

Appearing on Fox News Monday night, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt picked up the baton to suggest massive fraud that Trump has directed Musk to investigate.

“They haven’t dug into the books yet, but they suspect that there are tens of millions of deceased people who are receiving fraudulent Social Security payments,” she said.

If you think Musk was just expressing (justified) concern over a sloppy database, and not suggesting that all those long-dead individuals were still collecting SS, you're a lot dumber than I thought.

Come on. They are making shit up right and left.

[Life of Brian]

“They haven’t dug into the books yet, but they suspect that there are tens of millions of deceased people who are receiving fraudulent Social Security payments,” she said.

Well, there's another swing and a miss -- nothing at all about them being 100 years and older. As I said last night, that's the last age bracket you'd target if you were actually looking to get away with fraudulent payments for any length of time.

Anything else you'd like to try to twist into the breathless headline you uncritically swallowed?

[Absaroka]

"tens of millions of deceased people who are receiving fraudulent Social Security payments"

Given that the total number of people getting any kind of Soc Sec benefit is 73M, having 'tens of million' that involve one particular kind of fraud (deceased but collecting) seems unlikely. That would be almost a third of beneficiaries.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, hopefully tens of millions is a rhetorical flourish. That said, given that these folks are apparently in some sort of half-baked state in the system I wonder if they would necessarily get rolled into those published totals. All the legacy COBOL that's limping this behemoth along is apparently fairly impenetrable.

[Absaroka]

"I wonder if they would necessarily get rolled into those published totals. "

If we take 'tens of millions' as circa 33 million, that is one in ten Americans. I think we'd all know someone in on the scam.

If I was the GovWaste Czar, I'd pick 500 cases and go investigate those to get a feel for what was going on before announcing numbers that might be way off. You could do it in a week and avoid the risk of looking like someone who leaps before looking.

[Life of Brian]

If I was the GovWaste Czar, I'd pick 500 cases and go investigate those to get a feel for what was going on before announcing numbers that might be way off.

I very much agree someone outside the system needs to do that sort of exercise so we can have an objective read on where we stand. Problematically, there's now at least one lawsuit seeking to prevent access to the taxpayer information that would be needed to do that (or, for that matter, to even be able to select the 500 specific cases to investigate in the first place).

So until we get through that cloud of chaff, for better or for worse it seems the only actionable choices right now are to try to feel out directional indicators based on currently accessible high-level data views (and by doing so hopefully build consensus that access to the bare-metal data is needed), or to do nothing.

[ducksalad]

The Telegraph has what it claims to be a "contract" sent by the Trump administration to the Ukraine. The terms:

1. US gets 50% of “economic value associated with resources of Ukraine”, including “mineral resources, oil and gas resources, ports, other infrastructure (as agreed)”
2. The US will take 50% of recurring revenues received by Ukraine from extraction of resources, and 50% of the financial value of “all new licenses issued to third parties” for the future monetization of resources.
3. “This agreement shall be governed by New York law, without regard to conflict of laws principles,”
4. “for all future licenses, the US will have a right of first refusal for the purchase of exportable minerals”.
5. "Washington will have sovereign immunity"

Apparently conditions (1) through (5) are considered repayment. There is no mention by the Telegraph of any security guarantee or other obligation on the part of the US.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/02/17/revealed-trump-confidential-plan-ukraine-stranglehold/

Of course it could be fake or it could another one of those negotiating ploys we keep hearing about.

[hobie]

So now Ukraine is being extorted by Putin AND Trump. Plus they have to fight Russia, North Korea, Chechnya and Iran all by themselves. After watching two of the world's biggest armies (Iraq, Afghanistan) turn tail and run when a few savages crested a butte in a land rover, I have so much admiration the Ukrainian people. I hope they eventually tear the shit out of Russia and America and take their resources.

[Brett Bellmore]

Assuming it's real, of course. Which strikes me as a pretty dangerous assumption.

[SRG2]

And if it is? And it's not as though the Telegraph is known for being left of centre.

[Mr. Bumble]

" I hope they eventually tear the shit out of Russia and America and take their resources."
...and what weapons would they use to do so?

[SRG2]

Assuming it's true - a reasonable assumption give that we're talking about the Torygraph - this is disgusting. .

Non-paywalled version: https://www.yahoo.com/news/revealed-trump-confidential-plan-put-160000461.html

The terms of the contract that landed at Volodymyr Zelensky’s office a week ago amount to the US economic colonisation of Ukraine, in legal perpetuity. It implies a burden of reparations that cannot possibly be achieved. The document has caused consternation and panic in Kyiv.

He probably did not expect to be confronted with terms normally imposed on aggressor states defeated in war. They are worse than the financial penalties imposed on Germany and Japan after their defeat in 1945.

If this draft were accepted, Trump’s demands would amount to a higher share of Ukrainian GDP than reparations imposed on Germany at the Versailles Treaty,

I'm not seeing any obligations on the part of Russia.

[David Nieporent]

I'm not seeing any obligations on the part of Russia.

Or the U.S.! This isn't "Ukraine has to pay us if they want us to keep supplying them with the weapons they need to defend themselves." This is, "We demand tribute for aiding them in the past."

[Frank Drackman]

Hey all you Fucks, (I'm talkin bout' you EV, umm, maybe not, you rule!, belay my past!)
All you Fucks who support You-Crane, how many have a family member fighting there? Have given more than a price of Hooters 10 piece Daytona Wings/Pitcher Beer to You-Crane Military, can speak more than 10 words of You-Crane?
Hedge-Sex's Faul-Paw??
He told the truth, you can have an Eastern You-Krane Occupied by Roosh-a right now with a million dead, or in 3 years, one occupted by Roosh-a with two million dead,

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Dammit! I mean "Belay my LAST" (sounds the same as "Past" on the 1MC)

[ThePublius]

You can't belay a rudder command.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm not disagreeing, but I am surprised that Putin is still alive -- and that the Soviet stockpile is still there.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm rather sad. The reasonable and thoughtful Sandy Levinson, whow wrote that famous essay, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment", is finally dead.

Oh, I don't mean the man himself. He lives and breathes, and still writes essays. But the reasonable and thoughtful Levinson is gone, replaced by this guy:

Who Is The Audience For This Book?

It's sad to see this happen to people you admired.

[David Nieporent]

What is the "this" that you think happened? What is unreasonable about anything he wrote?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't expect either of you to get it, actually, as you live in the rabbit hole Sandy is falling down. But there was a time when he was capable of, even known for, calmly and objectively evaluating constitutional positions he didn't like. And admitting when they were strong and would perhaps prevail.

But like many on the left, Trump broke him, broke something fundamental in him, and that Sandy Levinson is long gone. He's no longer capable of calmly and objectively evaluating views he disagrees with. If you're advancing a constitutional interpretation he doesn't like, there's no subtlety, no other side, you're just wrong, and you likely know it and don't care.

As I said, he's famous for his essay on the 2nd amendment, in which he concedes that, contrary to left wing legal dogma in the pre-Heller period, the individual rights interpretation of the 2nd amendment had a pretty strong basis, and stood a good chance of winning at the Supreme court, perhaps rightfully.

Now? It's "the remarkably obtuse decisions involving the alleged meaning of the Second Amendment in the 21st century." From the guy who wrote, "Thus my general tendency to regard as wholly untenable any approach to the Constitution that describes itself as obviously correct and condemns its opposition as simply wrong holds for the Second Amendment as well."

The Sandy who wrote that well considered and objective essay is dead now. I'll mourn him.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’m actually genuinely unsure what part of this upsets you: for the most part it actually seems to jibe pretty well with what you believe and repeatedly express. Is it that he thinks the EPA should do more about global warming? That he thinks Trump is “a pathological lying narcissistic grifter”? Not really tracking.

[Sarcastr0]

“Popular Information has obtained archived versions of most of the deleted publications. Almost all of them are not associated with DEIA topics but appear to have been targeted because they include a DEIA-related keyword used in a completely different context.

For example, one of the purged publications is "OSHA Best Practices for Protecting EMS Responders During Treatment and Transport of Victims of Hazardous Substance Releases." Popular Information was able to obtain an archived version of the publication through the Internet Archive. The 104-page document — a collaboration between dozens of government agencies and NGOs — was published in 2009 to detail the steps "employers need to take to protect their EMS responders from becoming additional victims while on the front line of medical response." DEIA issues are not discussed.

On page 94 of the publication, however, the words "diversity" and "diverse" are used in a context that has nothing to do with race or gender. The publication notes there is a "diversity of state-specific certification, training, and regulatory requirements" for "EMS agencies" and "diverse conditions under which EMS responders could work." Similarly, on page 96, the publication notes, "EMS responders are a diverse group" and "risks vary with their primary and secondary roles."

DOGE may be smart, but it’s too lazy for that to matter.

[hobie]

I prefer legitimate literature. When the snow clears from South Texas, I think I might mosey on down to the Gulf of Fragile Masculinity and read the latest nonfiction:

"How to Die Like a Medieval Peasant"
by R. Kennedy

[Hugh]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/01/hitler-germany-constitution-authoritarianism/681233/
Not directly parallel, but some of the similarities are scary.

[ThePublius]

Paywalled. But, yea, I get it, Trump is Hitler, like all of his Republican POTUS candidates and office holders going back to WWII. Duh!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It wasn't paywalled for me.

[SRG2]

I am reminded of the web censor software that reworded articles on an American sprinter so that his name appeared as "Tyson Homosexual".

[Dr. Ed 2]

If true, it's embarrassing.

It's like the word "niggardly", no one knows what it really means.

[ThePublius]

No, people do know what it means, it's just that idiotic, semi-literate fools conflate it with nigger that it's no longer used.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I very much doubt that many people know what it means, assuming you're referring to the word I think Mr Greybox was referring to.

I mean, do you know any "ordinary people"?

[ThePublius]

1. Who's Mr. Greybox?
2. The word is niggardly, obvioiusly;
3. Most of my friends, relatives, and associates know the word, and exactly what it means, as they are quite literate.

[apedad]

"Mr. Musk is an employee of the White House."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277463/gov.uscourts.dcd.277463.24.1.pdf

OK, this (officially) clears up some confusion of Musk's and Trump's relationship.

[Commenter_XY]

According to The Hairy Balls Bunch, we have approximate 9MM people, aged 130 or more, whose record flag is 'not dead'.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1891350795452654076

I understand a fat finger here and there....but 9 million times? 🙂

Why isn't the SSA doing this themselves?
Why didn't an IG notice this?
Or the GAO?

[Mr. Bumble]

Because that would require work?

[SRG2]

FFS by now you already know why, and yet you post this.

[Sarcastr0]

Literally right above.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/17/monday-open-thread-93/?comments=true#comment-10920865

Seriously how lazy are you?

[David Nieporent]

Not only that, but according to the actual published data, only 90,000 people aged 99 or more are getting social security checks. Musk is lying to those people, and they are just over and over and over proving how gullible they are.

[Absaroka]

That sanity checks. I checked Canada's over 100 numbers (so I wouldn't be checking numbers that might be based on SSA numbers). If you scale according to the relative total populations you get c. 95k as the expected number over 100.

=========
Just FWIW: suppose you think you have a fraud problem with dead centenarians collecting benefits. How should you proceed? How about picking 500 at random and have the nearest SSA person go over with a birthday card on their next birthday, and see whether everything looks legit. If 499 come back as legit, it's probably cheaper to ignore the odd one. Or not, but you'd have the numbers you need to optimize the process.

If 400 turn out to be fraudulent, great, go visit everyone over 100, and start sampling those over 90. Rinse and repeat until you are balancing enforcement costs against the fraud costs. That's the sane, efficient way to fight fraud.

[ThePublius]

"the actual published data"

Got a link to that?

[David Nieporent]

I'll have to go back to my twitter feed to find it. (But, to be clear, it was a link to actual data, not just a random claim by someone on Twitter.) (Come to think of it, it might've been Bluesky, so this could take a bit of time, but I'll find it.)

[ThePublius]

Thanks.

[Commenter_XY]

Another hostage thanks POTUS Trump for obtaining her freedom.

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-842599

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

A real hostage? Or some cop-torturer on J6?

I wonder if, had it been me, I would thank Trump for securing my freedom. I know without a doubt he wouldn't have done it for the "right reasons", but free I would be. Should I express gratitude for an act of insincerity? It would probably be best to simply ignore him. Shit happens, right?

[SRG2]

When you're a Trump supporter, it doesn't matter what you're accused of:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-romania-andrew-tate-b2699849.html

US President Donald Trump’s administration has pressured Romanian authorities to remove travel restrictions on Andrew Tate and his brother, according to a report [in the FT].

Controversial influencer Mr Tate and his brother Tristan have been accused of various allegations in Romania, including criminal charges of human trafficking, rape and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women.

[ThePublius]

"When you're pro-Trump, it doesn't matter what you're accused of"

You can say exactly the same of Joe Biden - but you won't, of course.

[David Nieporent]

You can say exactly the same of Joe Biden — if you're a liar.

[ThePublius]

David, you always throw the "liar" epithet. Cut it out.

Look at the awful people, including murders, who Biden has pardoned.

[apedad]

You can say exactly the same of Trump - but you won't, of course.

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardons-granted-president-donald-j-trump-2017-2021

Search for murder.

[ThePublius]

Tit, meet tat.

[David Nieporent]

What person accused of murder did Biden pardon?

(There was one guy in Connecticut who had been convicted of murder, had already served his sentence, and who was then pardoned by Biden for a drug crime; I hope that's not who you're talking about. If you're talking about Peltier, he was not pardoned; he merely had his sentence commuted to house arrest after spending 50 years in prison.)

[apedad]

Beverly Ann Ibn-Tamas, one to five years' incarceration, with credit for time served (December 31, 1976), Second degree murder while armed

Check the pardon page for Biden.

[ThePublius]

"So, I would like to discuss in a little more detail just two of the depraved savages that Joe Biden saved from death row.

The first is Anthony Battle, who broke into his ex-wife’s home and raped her, stabbed her to death with a butcher knife. She was heard screaming QUOTE “help me, help me, rape.” She was a United States Marine—and Anthony Battle raped and murdered her. Yet that murder wasn’t even the crime for which he was on federal death row.

He wasn’t done. While he was in prison, he beat a 31-year-old correctional officer to death with a hammer, hitting him in the back the head three times until he was soaked in the officer’s blood. The correctional officer hadn’t even done nothing to provoke or confront Battle—Battle beat him to death anyway. When he was given a chance to apologize for the killing, Battle said that the officer QUOTE “died like a dog.”

This is why we have the death penalty for correctional officers—so inhumane monsters who are stuck in prison for life have some reason not to start open-hunting season on correctional officers.

This is the man that Joe Biden decided deserved mercy two days before Christmas. A man who raped and murdered a U.S. Marine and bludgeoned a peace officer to death.

Joe Biden also saved the life of Marvin Gabrion, another rapist and serial killer. While facing trial for raping 19-year-old Rachel Timmerman, yes that is right, he was on trial for raping a 19-year-old girl, Gabrion kidnapped her, bound her body with duct tape, he chained her to a concrete block, and he threw her into a lake while she was still breathing. Her last moments filled with terror and agony.

In addition, he also killed her 11-month-old baby. 11 months old. He allegedly confessed in prison that he QUOTE “killed the baby because there was nowhere else to put it.”"

https://www.cotton.senate.gov/news/speeches/democrats-refuse-to-condemn-bidens-commutations-for-37-death-row-inmates

[David Nieporent]

So you've now desperately tried a bait-and-switch, changing the topic from pardons to commutations. Anthony Battle remains in prison for life. So does Marvin Gabrion. Neither received a pardon.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You've been proven to be a liar, so go fuck yourself with your whining about it.

[SRG2]

I assume that you're unable to defend Trump's actions, else you wouldn't have deflected and whatabouted.

[apedad]