Friday Open Thread

Comments

[Stephen Lathrop]

MSNBC showed polling information on approval ratings for Trump. Many specific issues were covered. Multiple respectable polling companies were included. It may have been a cherry-picked list of Trump's low points. Immigration and the border, for instance, went unmentioned.

Overall approval ratings, measured by about 5 big-name pollsters, including Gallop and Quinnipiac, were said to be the lowest in the history of polling since 1950, for this point early in a presidential term.

On other specifics, I should have taken notes, but did not realize so many were coming. All of those mentioned, including handling of the economy, foreign policy, government layoffs, cabinet appointments, and several others, showed Trump with negative approval ratings.

[AmosArch]

Wow thats awful. If only we had this special day where we could have a nonpartisan nationwide approval poll thats secured where everybody gives a rating so we could see whether Trump really should have the job.

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon Man! you know it was "rigged" and Sleepy Joe would have won 47 of Bright Clean Storybook Osama's 57 states!

[AmosArch]

Everytime I start to wonder whether I should listen to what a leftoid has to say I remember they shilled Joe to the hilt as the genius best suited to run this boat. And then after that his empty suit backup. And even after the election when they are free to admit they messed up they won't and continue to try to gaslight people into thinking the clowns they picked were the most qualified on the planet. C'mon did you even try? Its like they want people to reject them.

[santamonica811]

Respectfully, your post is bs (if less polite, I would say, "Full of shit."). Literally NO ONE I know on the left (friends, media) ***ever*** said that Biden was the best Democrat available. Again, literally every single person said that he clearly had lost a step. (A delicate way of saying that he had lost about 4 steps.)

Those on the left would go on to say that Trump was saying far more bizarre and incoherent things, but was saying them with more vigor and energy. And they would argue that on his worst day, Biden was measures better than Trump as a president. You are obviously one of the many who think Trump's first 3 weeks have been wonderful. Hell, maybe you agree that Ukraine was responsible for being invaded (like, I guess, the USA was responsible for AQ flying 2 planes into our buildings, under that logic). Maybe you think it was a great idea to fire a crapload of people responsible for our nuclear products. And you think that Kennedy is super-qualified for his job. I dunno.

But your gaslighting convinces no one. (No one who hasn't already whored him-/herself to the "MAGA always right" banner, that is.) The rest of us just wonder what you are seeing, and what you are smoking.

[AmosArch]

>Literally NO ONE I know on the left (friends, media) ***ever*** said that Biden was the best Democrat available.

O really?

https://x.com/MarkHamill/status/1782499294731485478?lang=en

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5FuZXZI2Ps

https://san.com/opinions/despite-his-age-joe-biden-is-the-best-pick-for-2024/

[Frank Drackman]

Shades of "How did Nixon/Reagan/Bush/W/Trump win? Nobody I know voted for him!"

[Michael P]

In 2022: https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/20/politics/2024-democratic-presidential-rankings-biden-harris/index.html

Even before they were stuck with him, https://www.vox.com/politics/23562688/joe-biden-2024-presidential-election-polls-democrats

After Harris lost: https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-election-winner-donald-trump-kamala-harris-1976870

sm811 is the one engaging in revisionism here.

[David Nieporent]

In 2022:

The first link ranks Biden as the most likely to be the nominee; it says nothing about him being the best candidate.

The second… says nothing whatsoever about Biden being the best candidate.

The third one speculates about whether Biden would've done better than Harris; it says absolutely nothing about Biden being the best candidate. (Unless you want to count the quote from July, before he dropped out, where Biden himself said that, which hardly seems like an objective source.)

[RedheadedPharoh]

Remember how they were claiming Obama to be the greatest orator we've ever had as president? And how they all swooned when he put on that stupid racist "preacher voice"?

Which of course Hillary tried to rip off with her infamous "I am in no ways tired" Selma speech.

[Brett Bellmore]

He was a great orator, if he was going off a script. Technically proficient at teleprompter reading, unlike Biden. To the extent that Obama teleprompter jokes were a serious genre while he was in office.

Off script, not so much. Even people who liked him admitted that.

[David Nieporent]

No, they did not. The "teleprompter jokes" came from… Republicans who refused to admit that a black Harvard Law graduate could speak.

[rloquitur]

Problem is that when he did speak he showed that glibness and erudition aren't one and the same.

[Mr. Bumble]

Without a script he was hardly eloquent.

[David Nieporent]

Without a script he was hardly eloquent.

Does "eloquent" mean giving soaring speeches that will go down in history as great oratory? If so, I doubt any president — any person — has ever satisfied that criterion. What great speeches weren't written in advance? Why on earth would that be a metric? The Great Communicator, Ronald Reagan, gave some great speeches — a Time for Choosing, the Challenger speech, his Tear Down This Wall speech, etc. — but they were all scripted.

Frankly, I doubt you have any idea what kind of speeches Obama gave without scripts; you're just reflexively repeating what Fox News told you to say about him.

To be clear, I don't think any of Obama's speeches were "great," with or without teleprompters, but he was a perfectly competent public speaker. A lot better than any other presidents of recent memory — W, Biden, Trump (!).

(To be sure, Trump doesn't use a teleprompter, and can talk for a long time without one, but they're utter gibberish.)

[Drewski]

"Does "eloquent" mean giving soaring speeches that will go down in history as great oratory? If so, I doubt any president — any person — has ever satisfied that criterion."

To MAGA, it means swaying silently to a music playlist for forty minutes.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Even people who liked him admitted that"

What's funny isn't how bogus this is, but the sad neediness that lay behind it. It was common in the W years to say the Decider wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. In a way this was unfair, since Bush's problem seemed to be more intellectual complacency than brain wattage. But when Obama took office, you could see the Right's hive mind attempt to reach balance with endless whinging sneers on Obama being secretly "dumb". The psychological phenomena of "compensation" was never so naked, desperate, and open.

Of course it was all horseshit. Want a quick indicator how much? Go back to Obama's six-hour continuous seminar on healthcare held at the Blair House on 25Feb2010. He faced a room full of surly Republicans and danced rings around them without breaking a sweat. Try and image - say - Trump trying that and you break out in gales of laughter. That clown couldn't lie fast enough to prevent his brain from melting down after the first hour (Note: The 25Feb seminar is available on YouTube if you want to watch).

But that's not the end! Having given us a president who leaves a slime trail of corruption behind him, the Right's hive mind went into compensation-mode the minute Trump left office. Thus years of fruitless search for one iota of evidence to support the "Biden crime family" meme. Having worshiped a crude criminal president, they were frantically desperate to find another one to oppose as balance. Alas, evidence is hard to come by when it doesn't exist.

(Of course the Right is just hunky-dory with corruption and sleaze now Trump's back in the Oval Office)

[Brett Bellmore]

The objection to him off script wasn't that he was incoherent or saying stupid stuff. I'll readily admit he was a better extemporaneous speaker than Trump, not that the bar for that is high. (I wince every time Trump opens his mouth.) Too many "ums", but I've known plenty of intelligent speakers who were guilty of that.

It was basically that he didn't know when he should just shut up, or what he might think but prudence dictated he shouldn't SAY.

[Stephen Lathrop]

grb — See below. Bellmore still doing it.

I watched Obama's healthcare performance live. You are right to cite it. It was beyond impressive.

Especially loved the moment at the end. Obama knew he had made monkeys out of a gang of political hacks on live television. He concluded with words in effect to say, "This has been fun. We should do it again soon."

The Rs could not get out of the room fast enough.

As a contemporaneous debater, Obama was not less than his public supporters suggested. That performance showed he was notably better than even his considerable reputation.

[Frank Drackman]

I think your Pharoh headdress might be blocking your ears, Hillary Rodman said
"I don't feel no waze tire-erd (so wrong, it's pronounced "Tard", yes, just like the perjorative) I cum (should be "cumz") too far from where I started from, nobody tole me that the road would be E-Z....."
She could have been reading the 23rd Psalm, it wasn't the words, but her horrible accent that mattered.

Frank

[hobie]

Ha! Mark Hamill

[David Nieporent]

O really?

Gotta love the department of googling-without-reading.

Setting aside that Mark Hamill is probably not someone santamonica knows, Luke Skywalker didn't make the claim at issue. (Setting aside that it was a quip, not a serious point.) He said that Joe Biden was the best president we've had — not that he was the best candidate for 2024.

I'm not looking at a video, but the third link doesn't say it either. To be sure, the headline does, but the text of the piece does not. In fact, it pretty much says the opposite:

if we were starting from scratch today, if Joe Biden weren’t already president, I would not be out there saying, hey, what about making Joe Biden the nominee? When we talk about the next generation of left-wing leaders, Joe Biden in his 80s is certainly not part of that. When we talk about who is the most vibrant, who is the most exciting, it is not Joe Biden. Who is at their peak cognitively? It is not Joe Biden.

What it actually says is that Biden has been a good president, and there's no real path to replacing him, so suck it up and support him.

[Armchair]

"Again, literally every single person said that he clearly had lost a step."

Chuck Schumer, February 2024: "Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters Tuesday morning that President Biden’s mental acuity is “great,” responding to concerns stirred by a special counsel’s report that said the president has a “poor memory.”

“I talk to President Biden regularly. Usually several times in a week. His mental acuity is great, it’s fine, it’s as good as it’s been over the years,” Schumer said in response to a question."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4465074-schumer-biden-mental-acuity-is-great/

Doesn't sound like saying Biden "lost a step".

[Commenter_XY]

Armchair, it wasn't just Senator Schumer who deliberated lied about the cauliflowers mental deficiency. Speaker Johnson admitted he became aware of the cauliflowers mental deficiency in early 2024 (like Jan, Feb), and said nothing.

It really makes one wonder about our combined leadership.

[David Nieporent]

Speaker Johnson admitted he became aware of the cauliflowers mental deficiency in early 2024 (like Jan, Feb), and said nothing.

I don't know what this is supposedly in reference to, but it's an obvious falsehood. Here he is expressly saying it in October… 2023.

https://nypost.com/2023/10/27/news/house-speaker-mike-johnson-says-biden-has-cognitive-decline-its-just-reality/

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Thursday evening that President Biden is showing obvious signs of cognitive decline — hours after meeting the commander-in-chief for the first time as leader of the lower chamber of Congress.

“Do you see in Joe Biden a cognitive decline, and if so, is that a danger to the country?” Fox News host Sean Hannity asked the newly installed House speaker.

“I do. I think most of us do,” Johnson said. “This is not a personal slight to him. It has to do with age and acumen, and everyone’s different. Everyone ages differently.”

“Clearly, if you look at a tape of Joe Biden making an argument in the Senate Judiciary Committee a few years ago and you see a speech that he delivers now, there’s a difference,” he added. “Again, it’s not a personal insult to him. It’s just reality.”

[Riva]

I encourage santamonica811 to continue this gaslighting BS and deny the public support of the president’s policies. At least until the midterms.

[santamonica811]

??? I haven't been denying the popularity of Trump's actions? Some are quite popular, and I cheerfully acknowledge those. (Usually, the ones re immigration, but NOT the one re birthright citizenship.) I'm also willing to acknowledge the ones that are not popular. Do you show that same integrity? Brett here has shown the backbone to say that he disapproves of Trump's pardoning of the violent J6 rioters. Give me a few examples of things Trump has done that you disagree with. Which confirmed nominees do you agree are thoroughly unqualified (if any)? Is Trump betraying Ukraine and sucking up to Putin something you think is a good idea, and something that is America's long-term interest? Do you think the best way to reduce our federal workforce is to fire people willy-nilly?

Give us some of your own examples...if there are any.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Literally NO ONE I know

Do you ever actually think before you type stuff like this?

[santamonica811]

Wuz,
I think you are having a logic fail or a reading fail. Yes, maybe if I change the emphasis, it will fall into place for you. "Literally no one [that] I KNOW..."

I think we all agree that, on the internet, we will always find someone who believes in X...no matter how stupid X is, or how unbelievable X is. I have about 100 friends--a handful of close friends, and a bunch of casual friends. I know about 200 more from work (judges, other lawyers, court staff, bailiffs, etc), and I know about 200 people from participating in various sports. Literally none of them--not one!!!!--expressed the sentiment that Joe Biden in 2024 (or a bit earlier) was as mentally fit as Joe Biden at age 60. Not one. Sorry if you don't believe that...but it's true.

{I'll note as an aside that I also know literally no person who believes in the Flat Earth theory. Not one person. That is not me saying that, out there in the wide world, no one believes in a flat earth. That's obviously not true. There are (sadly) a multitude of people who are eager to explain--at great length!!--[a] exactly why we know the Earth is really flat, and [b] exactly why the roundish-Earth theory is a huge conspiracy "...and here's how we know that." Hell, there are websites devoted to this dopey theory. There are people today, who insist that Trump didn't lose in 2020, despite the countless Republican-led investigations that show it. There will always be fucking morons who will believe the dumbest shit. That's a given.}

I don't know Chuck Schumer, of course. But the fact that a politician would lie to cover the President, who is in his own party, is shocking to the extent of a dog bites a man. It's why, when literally hundreds or thousands of Republican politicians lie while covering up Trump's latest inexcusable comments, it's not really news. They are lying; not because they really believe his bullshit, but because he's their president and he's in their party, and they are being loyal foot-soldiers. Trump has to basically punch a puppy on national TV before Republican's will go so far as to say, "Well, I would have taken a different approach to that adorable dog."

That's not so much different from Democrats looking at a much older, much more infirm, much slower, much less articulate, Joe Biden and lying about his current skills. Heck, Reagan had fucking Alzheimer's and was entering beginning senility, and his fellow Republicans were covering for him. Because, of course they would do that.

Trump today has a ton of vigor. But he seems certifiably delusional about a lot of things. And when he speaks off the cuff, much is incoherent and gibberish. And I don't see many Republicans rushing to microphones to point this out. Again, because, of course not.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I think you are having a logic fail or a reading fail. Yes, maybe if I change the emphasis, it will fall into place for you. "Literally no one [that] I KNOW..."

The reading (and comprehension) failure here is all yours. My response had nothing at all to do with the absence of the word "that". Try again.

[Frank Drackman]

and to make it even more sporting, we could assign each state a number of Votes, cast by, umm lets see, "Pickers"?? no, "Choosers", worse, I've got it! (HT Archimedes) "Electors", and we could let each state decide how to appoint their Electors, Legislature, or maybe even by a statewide "Popular" Vote, with a majority of the Electors needed to win, and if nobody gets a majority, maybe let the House pick the POTUS, and Senate pick the VPOTUS, man I'm a genius!
Nevermind, it could never happen.

[Mr. Bumble]

I suspect that you are among the unclean that Claptrap has muted.

[Frank Drackman]

Stephen Lathered-up? Reminds me of this fat fuck Surgeon, was always busting my balls about my MPB (Male Pattern Baldness), "Chromedome" this, "The reflection off your Head is blinding me!" "Hey Daddy Warbucks!"on and on, finally after one of his putdowns I said
"Hey, why do you make fun of my MPB? I don't make fun of your morbid obesity"
You'd have thought I dropped Scrubs and took a shit right on the OR Table, for weeks, I was the bad guy who joked about some ones medical condition (One that can be cured by cutting back on the Donuts and doing a modicum of exercise)
Of course you been to most hospitals lately? There are NFL Offensive lines lighter than your typical ward nurses.

Frank "That's "Doctor" Lex Luthor thank you"

[Dr. Ed 2]

The medical and education professions both have a bad feminazi problem.

[grb]

Ed, allow me to offer you a three-step program:

1. Acknowledgement : That you have a mental issue of seething frustration and rage towards all womankind is painfully obvious to all. You should be honest about this to yourself.

2. Self-Command : A good start would be to fight indulging this sickness openly. Stop celebrating your mental illness in public. Rule over your worst instincts to that degree at least.

3. Reform : Over time, you'll find strength to overcome your inner demons and achieve peace. As Hamlet says:

“Assume a virtue, if you have it not.
That monster, custom, who all sense doth eat,
Of habits devil, is angel yet in this,
That to the use of actions fair and good
He likewise gives a frock or livery
That aptly is put on. Refrain tonight,
And that shall lend a kind of easiness
To the next abstinence; the next more easy;
For use almost can change the stamp of nature.”

(Hamlet isn't the best go-to advice for many problems, but kills't here)

[Dr. Ed 2]

In other words, be a "good nigger" and sit in the back of the bus?

I think not.

It's a fact that the medical and education professions have a serious bias against men.

[David Nieporent]

I think not.

Then you should speak not.

[not guilty]

Touché

[David Nieporent]

Touché

I stole it from Charles Dodgson.

[SimonP]

It might be an early indication that voters are feeling duped, AssMunch.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, they felt duped by Basement Joe and corrected course.

[grb]

A snappy rejoinder, to be sure. But there will be new polls next week, and the week following that. Which way do you think they'll run? Will Trump will suddenly learn to rule without lies. empty tinhorn stunts, and pointless chaos? Will he'll suddenly whip inflation now, when his entire agenda is perversely pro-inflation? Will Trump suddenly develop ethics and a respect for the constitution? Will he do a mid-stream change and ditch his cabinet of freaks, flakes, whack-jobs, leeches & loons?

I don't think so. Which means your little snippy rejoinder will have to work for week after week of bad news. And it won't....

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Amos: "If only we had this special day..."

I wonder what happened to make Amos suddenly have confidence in the integrity of our elections. It's almost as if everything he says is in bad faith.

[Frank Drackman]

47's got plenty of time to improve (I'm humoring you like a retarded child slobbering over your bright shiny Polls) before running for a 3rd Term and becoming "48" (I know, the 22d Amendment only says you can't be "Elected" to POTUS more than twice, he'll have to run as JD's VP and then have JD resign)

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

"Overall approval ratings, measured by about 5 big-name pollsters, including Gallop and Quinnipiac, were said to be the lowest in the history of polling since 1950, for this point early in a presidential term."

It's funny: I'm looking at 538, (Not exactly a site that favors Trump!) and they've got him doing pretty well. And certainly better than at this point in his first term. So I don't see how that could possibly be true.

Trump's current number there, on their polling aggregate: Approve, 48.3. Disapprove, 47%.

In 2017: "Trump has a fairly poor 43 percent approval rating — and a 51 percent disapproval rating — among polls of all American adults, but he improves to a 47 percent approval rating and a 49 percent disapproval rating among polls that survey registered voters or the narrower group of likely voters."

Of course, you've explained it yourself: Cherry picking.

[santamonica811]

538 seems pretty down-the-middle, to me. Last year, the site spent most of the last 6 months saying that it looked like Trump was going to win, but that it was close enough so that a Trump loss would not be at all surprising. The site was correct about the Trump win, and was correct about how close it again was in those critical states.

In other words, while I agree with you that it's not Trump-friendly, in the way that Fox News has zero credibility in reporting on anything remotely related to Trump; 538 is certainly not a Trump "unfriendly" website either.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're not rabid about it, and they go to considerable effort to be objective about the numbers themselves, (If nothing else.) but they have never made a secret about having dog in the fight, and anybody on their staff who shows signs of being centrist, (Leah Librisco, for instance.) gets canned.

Which actually makes them more partisan than Fox, which while they, too, have a dog in the fight, makes a point of employing people across the political spectrum.

My point is that, by every objective measure I've seen, Trump is actually doing BETTER in public opinion polls than 8 years ago, and so, contra what Lathrop reported, his numbers now can't be the worst in history.

That would have been Trump 45.

[Stephen Lathrop]

My point is that, by every objective measure I've seen, Trump is actually doing BETTER in public opinion polls than 8 years ago, and so, contra what Lathrop reported, his numbers now can't be the worst in history.

Sure they could. If the polls relied upon were newly done, and the ones you reference were packed full of old news. Not saying that happened, but with 538's aggregating method, which I tend to respect, there is a kind of slow-footedness built in, which they openly acknowledge.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're right about 538 having some lag in their model, deliberately. The counter-argument is that by next week this could prove to have just been a momentary blip; They have lag in their model because they're modeling noisy data.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "The counter-argument is that by next week this could prove to have just been a momentary blip"

Four Points :

1. Big-picture-wise, the first polling had Trump-2 more popular than Trump-1. But that said, he still trailed every other president in modern history.

2. But recent polls suggest his position is deteriorating still more. That's to be expected. Trump's first weeks were full of huckster fireworks and cartoon pyrotechnics. There's a reason DOGE has made such a crudely stupid hash of its supposed job. There's a reason why they put-out numbers that might have been written on toilet paper for all their validity. There's a reason Trump issued reams of jokey executive orders and bellowed-out childish tough-guy threats against other countries. It's Potemkin-Village-goverence.

3. And - as we all know - Trump won't change. The pathological lying will continue. The empty stunts too. He'll give away every possible concession to Putin as he did with the Taliban, but people will notice his weakness & appeasement this time. He'll continue to rule with three-parts trolling for every considered act. He'll continue to scorn the Constitution, laws and all ethical standards.

4. But his problem is even more fundamental than general bungling and his personal loathsomeness. Trump was elected because of inflation, full-stop. That's why every ruling party in '24 elections lost around the world. And Trump's agenda is pro-inflation to a perverse & grotesque degree. Will he dump all his tariff threats? Maybe, but I think he's too ***king stupid to see he must. Which means your "momentary blip" is gonna continue a long, long time.

[David Nieporent]

Leah Libresco did not get canned; you just love making shit up to support your conspiracy theories.

[Kazinski]

But despite Foxnews editorialy being pro Trump, their polls actually skew a little Democratic, they did have Trump up by 2 in there final 2024 poll, and he won by 1.5%

And actually 538 had Harris as a very slight favorite in 1000 simulations:

Harris 503
Trump 495
No winner 2

And thats not even close because they were predicting Electoral College votes, not popular vote.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because I am really going to tell some random stranger that I approve of what Trump is doing...

[Frank Drackman]

Isn't that what you do here? Now who even answers phones anymore? Dialing/Answering calls is the weakest part of my I-phone skills

[Dr. Ed 2]

People here don't have my home phone number...

[Kazinski]

Well if you didn't take notes, here is the RCP list of approval polls and average. Pick the one you like and go with that, the spread is between -8 and +9, but even the worst of them is way better than the vast majority of presidential approval pollsover the last 8 years.

RCP Average 49.2 47.8 +1.4
YouGov 50 47 +3
Rasmussen 52 47 +5
Wash Post/Ipsos 48 51 -3
Emerson 48 42 +6
Quinnipiac 45 49 -4
CNN 46 54 -8
SUSA 51 45 +6
Gallup 45 51 -6
Trafalgar/InsiderAdv 54 45 +9
CBS News 53 47 +6

[Commenter_XY]

TIPP was +1.0 Trump (as an alternative to the RCP avg methodology)

[Frank Drackman]

So I guess "47" is running for a Third term? Only reason to worry about approval ratings

[Josh R]

Relax folks. These numbers don't mean much until the midterms are upon us. Trump's numbers are historically low, but that's because there is no honeymoon. He is still above water (approval > disapproval), although the trend is slightly down.

[Kazinski]

If past history is any guide then the GOP will lose at least the House in 2026, as did Clinton in 1994, Bush did in 2006 (2002 was middle of the WOT, and he was before it got bogged down), Obama in 2010, Trump in 2018, Biden in 2022.

Its not hard to see a pattern.

I am sure if the GOP loses the House in the midterms it will be seen as a decisive repudiation of Trump, but in reality it will be business as usual.

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course there is always the chance that he will once again upset the apple cart of history.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

MSNBC

That explains a lot.

[Mr. Bumble]

M(ostly)S(hit)N(othing)B(ut)C(rap)

[Noscitur a sociis]

This is a serious question: what is going through your head when you post something like this. Obviously it’s not going to change anyone’s mind about MSNBC. It’s not conveying any new information about what you think (I had no doubt previously that your opinion of MSNBC is as low as mine). And it’s certainly not funny or clever. So what’s the point?

[Bwaaah]

I could be mistaken, but it looks to me like he's shit-talking MSNBC, and merely offering an affirmative rejoinder to WuzYoungOnceToo.

[Mr. Bumble]

It evoked a response from you so it must mean something.
"(I had no doubt previously that your opinion of MSNBC is as low as mine). And it’s certainly not funny or clever. So what’s the point?"
How would you know that for a certainty?
Has anyone's mind been changed by these comments? Doesn't seem so either by the post of VC contributors or by the comments of the regular cast of characters.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and now "mostly shit nothing but crap" is going to cost them.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/02/msnbc-settles-defamation-case.php

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

IF you are foolish enough to believe it

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Such patent bullshit

Trump hits highest approval mark of either term as new poll finds America loves his policies
Josh Marcus
Sun, February 9, 2025

[David Nieporent]

Is it February 9?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Note also, the pardon of violent J6 convicts was by polling measures a catastrophic Trump blunder. If I remember correctly, fewer than 20% approved.

[Frank Drackman]

I think you're thinking about your wife's opinion of your (redacted)

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, I think he went too far there. Widespread but not universal commutations would have been in order, and a lot of pardons, but he just pardoned with too wide a brush. The other conservatives I know also think he was a bit free with those pardons.

We're not particularly irate about it, especially after Biden's parting raised finger in that area, but disapproval sums it up.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Carter managed to survive the Draft Dodger Amnesty -- equally broad brushed....

[tylertusta]

Did he? Carter would go on to (thankfully) lose to Reagan. Like most disastrous one-term Presidents, it wasn't just one poor decision of his that caused the public to boot him out.

[DixieTune]

I felt the way you did, until I did some more research, and am more convinced than ever that they were treated much more harshly than similarly situated violent criminals would have been.

I probably would have commuted the sentences of those convicted of assault on the grounds that they've already done 2 years, and pardoned everyone else.

And of course, the "seditious conspiracy" was complete bullshit from the getgo.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, like I said, Widespread, but not universal commutations. There were a handful of genuine wrongdoers in there that got swept up in the pardons. But not many.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, MOST of the windows had been replaced with blastproof unbreakable ones --- a few were still breakable. *I* wouldn't know which ones could be broken, would you?

The people breaking the windows knew which ones would break, and how did they know that? Who told them?

The FBI was dirty here, but I think it was more incompetence than malice, my guess is they had 20 different little stings that went into one big mess because they were too arrogant to talk to themselves.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

But legally , if J6 p;rosecution was in itself unconstituional, then widespread pardons are the way to go. To adjudicate the results of the kangarro court of Biden would be to say he had a point.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What possible argument is there that prosecuting a January 6 case is per se unconstitutional?

[Kazinski]

Perhaps, but 70% say Trump is doing what he promised, and thats one of the things he promised.

CBS News Finds Trump With RECORD Approval Rating – 70 Percent Say President Is ‘Doing What He Promised’

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/cbs-news-finds-trump-with-record-approval-rating-70-percent-say-president-is-doing-what-he-promised/ar-AA1yHNco

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that's actually why his disapproval has been creeping up: People who didn't like what he promised giving up on any hope he was lying.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

It is becoming my favorite all-time insight to explain why some voters vote hoping the promises are a lie

“The last act is the greatest treason. To do the right deed for the wrong reason.”
― T.S. Eliot

IF IT IS RIGHT TO DO , WHY CARE ABOUT THE REASON? THIS ISN"T STALINIST RUSSIA

[David Nieporent]

Perhaps, but 70% say Trump is doing what he promised, and thats one of the things he promised.

He did not promise to pardon violent J6ers.

CBS News Finds Trump With RECORD Approval Rating – 70 Percent Say President Is ‘Doing What He Promised’

That may be the most creative lie I've ever seen. It found him with a 53% approval. How is that a "record," you might ask? Isn't that pretty low, especially for a new president? Didn't other presidents have much higher approval ratings at times? Yes, yes, it is, and yes, yes, they did. It's just higher than he has ever gotten before.

[Kazinski]

Well it wasn't my headline, and it wasn't my point, it was the 70% figure on trying to keep promises.

Presidential approval is somewhat ephemeral anyway, the actual record was George W Bush's 90% in 1991, and he barely won re-election.

Bill Clinton was 42-49 at the beginning of '96 but won by 9% with 379 electoral votes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You're merging the Bushes.

[Kazinski]

Actually I meant 2001, but brain farted.

[TwelveInchPianist]

George H W Bush's approval rating was around 90% in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War, but as we know he was not reelected.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Okay but much of Trump's support is justified loathing of lazy stupid Biden and childish , poorly-spoken money-burning Kamala

“You pays your money and you takes your chances”

[Frank Drackman]

After Barry Osama and Sleepy Joe pardoning/commuting every Tomas, Ricardo, Mumi, Abu, Jabal, Muhammed, Ali, H Rap Brown out there, "47" could dig up Ted Bundy and pardon him and I wouldn't care.

[Riva]

Yeah you run with that. Because the Biden regime’s weaponization of federal law enforcement is a winning issue for your side. And won’t it be fun to see the upcoming disclosures. I’m a little curious about the identity of the non-bomber the FBI has been trying so hard not to disclose. How about you?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Trump's pledges to keep his hands off Medicare have turned out to be a lie. He evidently has decided he can promise to leave the program alone, but pick it apart piece by piece. While confirming an appointment for a telemedicine appointment next Monday, I was startled to learn Trump had announced a ban on Medicare reimbursement for telemedicine. I will be checking today to see if that is actually true, and whether my previously-scheduled appointment—made at the insistence of my doctor as a condition for continuing a years'-long treatment regimen—slips in under the wire.

[Frank Drackman]

Again, you're throwing more Feces than the Monkeys in DC, there's no ban on Medicare Telemedicine reimbursement (There should be, Telemedicines the biggest rip off since Rogaine) Your doctor probably just decided he doesn't want the measly few Shekels Medicare throws his way

[Frank Drackman]

Upon further review, it appears the "Ban" on Medicare Telemedicine reimbursement is merely letting the "Temporary" measure permitting Telemedicine to expire, you know, only 5 years after the China Virus shut down everything (leave it to us Doctors, we'll find a way to charge you over the phone, and if you don't answer a Telemedicine call, do you get charged for a missed appointment? Like Paulie Walnuts, I don't pay for missed appointments)
And of course there's so many exceptions, lets see, if you live in a "Rural" area you're good, same for Dialysis Patients (I want to see how they do Dialysis over the phone), Mental Health (Nuts), Diabetic Diet Counseling (Eat less, Exercise more) Substance Abuse (Just say no)

Frank

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
"a ban on Medicare reimbursement for telemedicine"
Where did you learn that? (serious question)

BUT a google search returned this:
As of today, there is no complete ban on Medicare reimbursement for telemedicine; however, many of the pandemic-era expansions of telehealth coverage under Medicare are set to expire at the end of 2024, meaning some telehealth services may no longer be eligible for reimbursement unless further legislation is passed to extend them.

Key points about Medicare and telemedicine:
Expiration of pandemic-era flexibilities: Most telehealth flexibilities implemented during the COVID-19 public health emergency are set to expire at the end of 2024, which could significantly reduce Medicare reimbursement for certain telehealth services.

Congressional action needed: To maintain current telehealth access under Medicare beyond 2024, Congress would need to pass legislation extending these flexibilities.

So much for blaming Mr Trump. Write to Ms Warren and Mr Markey and tell them to get off their ass and rant about this. I'll even support you

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, this is legislative.

But if Trump can stop the TikTok ban, he sure could have stopped this.

You put the executive on top of the legislative, then the buck stops with you.

[Don Nico]

Excuses, excuses.
SL and I need to write to Ms Warren and Mr Markey.

[Brett Bellmore]

But WHY would he stop it? We're talking about emergency measures instituted to deal with a pandemic that's over. What are you telling me here, that these were actually permanent policy changes smuggled in as 'emergency measures'?

Just like the radical expansion of mail in voting?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Nope. I am telling you these were policies already in use in eastern Massachusetts, before Covid.

Maybe that's why Trump wants to get rid of it. It's a useful, money saving policy, practiced in a blue state. Would it need any more explanation than that?

This is an administration which thinks it's smart to cut off from foreign service facilities abroad almost all reimbursements for periodical publication subscriptions, both foreign and American. It is not really possible to tell what wayward impulses contribute to actions that feckless.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But if Trump can stop the TikTok ban, he sure could have stopped this."

Perhaps he could have, but how does that square with Lathrop's criticism that Trump violated his pledge "to keep his hands off Medicare?"

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

I hate to sound like the Clintons
It all depends on the meaning of Borrow.

We know that Biden talked about protecting Social Security while he and Pelosi borrowed hundreds of millions from under a 'loan payback" arrrangement. So if we went like the Weimar Republic he could say 'Hey, we borrowed and we intended to pay it back"

Makes Trump look like a saint. At least he doesn't say those lying sophistical chunks of BS that Biden did for 50 years.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, just got off the phone with my health insurer. They confirm that for most people on medicare—except those far distant from hospitals—read red states—medicare reimbursement for telemedicine appointments will cease at the end of March. Unless something happens in the interim. They were kind enough to suggest that, as previously, exceptions might be granted on a per-patient basis, depending on patients' particularized medical needs.

[Don Nico]

SL,
Thank you for the information. It would be nice if our congresspeole would renew this coverage.
But I will contact my disabled son's provider to seek an exception.

But again this is far more than Trump's fault. Congress had all of last year with no pandemic in sight to do the right thing.

[Ed Grinberg]

Trump's pledges to keep his hands off Medicare have turned out to be a lie.

Ask me if I'm upset over this. Go ahead, ask me.
No, it is not the proper job of the federal government to pay for your health-care. Yes, it's a good thing the current administration is "picking [this program] apart." I suppose, if it's true that Trump promised not to, this is kind of underhanded of him. Oh well. It would've been worse the other way -- if he ran on getting rid of a program but then did a 180, like this guy:
https://www.npr.org/2017/07/27/539907467/senate-careens-toward-high-drama-midnight-health-care-vote

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No, that's the job of a different branch of government.

[Commenter_XY]

What actually happens when an Administration is held in contempt?

https://www.newsmax.com/world/globaltalk/trump-usaid-foreign-aid-freeze-judge/2025/02/20/id/1199901/

If a judge says, "Do this" - I was taught you do it, b/c they can toss your keyster in jail for contempt. So the Trump Admin may soon be found in contempt. Do they drag away the POTUS in handcuffs and leg irons to the nearest gallows and say, "Release the money, or else"? (ok, that was sarcasm, but truthfully many VC Conspirators would love to see that happen)

When found in contempt, what's the penalty in a case like this? It is coming very soon. What has happened in the past?

[Mr. Bumble]

Who knew we had so many co-presidents.

[A Japanese Student]

Criminal contempt usually requires prosecution by the DOJ - "usually". There was a recent case where the court prosecuted a person without executive approval. Donziger v. United States, 598 US __ (Gorsuch, J., dissenting from denial of cert.)

If it happens again, cert grant is almost certain - especially if they held the executive in criminal contempt. (Not sure what the standard is for civil contempt though.)

[not guilty]

Courts possess inherent authority to initiate contempt proceedings for disobedience to their orders, authority which necessarily encompasses a United States District Court's ability to appoint a private attorney to prosecute the contempt. Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S. A., 481 U.S. 787, 793 (1987).

[Brett Bellmore]

Now the most dangerous branch, apparently.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Not even close.

[Frank Drackman]

When Osama Bin Barry did the same things, nothing

[not guilty]

"What actually happens when an Administration is held in contempt?"

Equity acts in personam. As such, a presidential administration is not to be held in contempt. Per Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d)(2) an injunction binds the following who receive actual notice of it by personal service or otherwise:

(A) the parties;
(B) the parties’ officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and
(C) other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (B).

If a person is found to be in willful violation of a court order, the remedies can include a per diem fine until the contemnor comes into compliance or confinement in jail until the contemnor comes into compliance.

An injunction may not run against the President of the United States. See, Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475 (1866), and its progeny. The President's underlings, however, are fair game.

Criminal contempt is a crime in the ordinary sense, a public wrong which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 201 (1968).

[not guilty]

When I said that if a person is found to be in willful violation of a court order, the remedies can include a per diem fine until the contemnor comes into compliance or confinement in jail until the contemnor comes into compliance, I should have qualified that by saying that I was referring to civil contempt sanctions.

An unconditional penalty is criminal in nature because it is solely and exclusively punitive in character. A conditional penalty, by contrast, is civil because it is specifically designed to compel the doing of some act. "One who is fined, unless by a day certain he does the act ordered, has it in his power to avoid any penalty. And those who are imprisoned until they obey the order, `carry the keys of their prison in their own pockets.'" Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624. 633 (1988), quoting Penfield Co. v. SEC, 330 U.S. 585, 590 (1947), and In re Nevitt, 117 F. 448, 461 (CA8 1902).

[Commenter_XY]

NG, who does the judge imprison? It isn't POTUS Trump (thx for cites!). Is it AG Pam Bondi who gets lead away in handcuffs and leg irons? (Ok, ok...I will let it go now)

See, the arguments in the USAID case could apply to many, many agencies where non-essential bureaucrats were RIF'ed. Lots of potential for contempt rulings. This is why I am asking, b/c I can envision many contempt rulings over the next four years.

It sounds like this kind of thing is rare = find an Admin in contempt, and then fine or incarcerate exec branch officials.

[not guilty]

Typically the party who benefits from the order alleged to have been violated will file a petition for civil contempt sanctions which specifically identifies the alleged contemnor. An order to show cause may issue, and the court will take testimony or other proof on the issue of whether its order has been violated and, if so, whether the alleged contemnor had the ability to comply but nevertheless willfully violated the order.

The court must be satisfied that the contemnor was aware of the court order they allegedly violated. This involves proving that the individual had actual knowledge of the order and understood its implications. "Willful disobedience" refers to the intentional and deliberate violation of a court order, showing a clear intent to defy the court’s authority -- it involves a conscious choice to disregard the authority of the court.

Civil contempt "should not be resorted to where there is a fair ground of doubt as to the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct." Taggart v. Lorenzen, 587 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 1795, 1801 (2019).

[Commenter_XY]

This could get really spicy if a Trump Admin official (the comtemnor) pleads a legal and polite version of, "Go ahead, make my day, imprison me. Imprisonment won't make the review process go any faster."

That could not happen, right?
Has there ever been a Fed Employee found in criminal contempt and imprisoned (over what amounts to a policy dispute)?

[not guilty]

That of course could happen. If that is the only defense, the contemnor would be well advised to bring his toothbrush with him to court.

[John F. Carr]

While I forget the citation, somebody in one of these threads posted an old precedential case holding that the President does have the authority to pardon criminal contempt. There is more recent non-binding precedent in the case of Sheriff Joe.

If the official were imprisoned for civil contempt the President could reassign or fire him so he no longer has the ability to comply with the judge's order.

[hobie]

Should be no consequences at all. President is immune for any crimes...remember? I suppose if they have to, they'll just pull another mid-level lawyer from the Dixie Cup dispenser of expendables and under the bus they go.

[Kazinski]

Well, I don't think we are going to find out because the administration is not in contempt:

"Judge Amir H. Ali declined a request by nonprofit groups doing business with the U.S. Agency for International Development to find Trump administration officials in contempt of his order, however."

As I understand it the judges order specifically did not alter the terms of any of the contracts.
And the administration is claiming the only contracts they are ending have language in the contract allowing them to unilaterally terminate the contract. Thus there is no violation of the judges order.

"Marocco and other administration officials defended the nonpayment in written arguments to the judge this week. They contended that they could lawfully stop or terminate payments under thousands of contracts without violating the judge’s order

from the Judges order:
"Finally, at the hearing, Defendants noted that some contracts at issue may include terms that allow them to be modified or terminated in certain circumstances. The Court finds on this record that it would be overbroad to enjoin Defendants from taking action to enforce the terms of particular contracts, including with respect to expirations, modifications, or terminations pursuant to contractual provisions."

[SimonP]

This is a bit like saying that Biden could have sought to effect student loan relief in compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling, not by issuing a broad-based order picking up whole groups of debtors, but rather by exercising individualized discretion over the specific terms of their several loans. It would just so happen that, in almost all such cases, Biden chose to forgive the debt.

[Riva]

This is a precarious situation and the federal judges are acting in a grossly irresponsible manner by causing what could be a serious constitutional crisis by so blatantly infringing executive authority. Removal of some of these judicial politicians should be examined by Congress when this is resolved.

[David Nieporent]

There is no such "executive authority." Other than as expressly specified in the constitution, the only executive authority the president has is to carry out the laws. Congress writes the laws, and the courts say what the laws mean. The president's obligation is to do what he's told.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullbleep.

[David Nieporent]

Again, if you can cheer on rape and mass murder, you can say "Bullshit."

Also: no.

[Riva]

I muted the obnoxious troll a while ago. No worth pointing out his bullshit is bullshit. The troll already knows it's bullshit. And that's also how you can tell a comment is effective. When the a-hole troll responds.

[David Nieporent]

Nothing says, "I'm lying about having muted someone" by repeatedly responding to the person and then saying, "I muted him."

[Riva]

I see the shithead troll has posted another shithead comment. Just so you know, because the shithead troll doesn't (being a shithead) when one mutes a shithead troll, you can still see that the shithead troll has posted a comment, you just don't have to subject yourself to his/her/its bullshit. I encourage you to mute him out.

[David Nieporent]

Nothing says, "I'm lying about having muted someone" by repeatedly responding to the person and then saying, "I muted him."

[Mr. Bumble]

Apparently "muting" isn't always forever.

[Riva]

I know there are a-holes and just plain idiots in most if not all comment sections but it's strange that this site has such an over abundance. Maybe it can be explained away by the presence of legal professionals, or more likely wannabe legal professionals?

[Sarcastr0]

If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.

[Mr. Bumble]

So says the "all day asshole".

[Sarcastr0]

You spend more time writing posts that are nothing other than grade-school name calling than any 3 other shitposters on here.

Get a better hobby.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hahahahahahaha!!!

[tylertusta]

Judges can't hold the President in contempt unless he's a party to the lawsuit. None of these lawsuits are against the President.

[not guilty]

I don't think anyone is talking about holding President Trump himself in contempt.

He is however bound by the various injunctions against his underlings. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d)(2) states:

(2) Persons Bound. The order binds only the following who receive actual notice of it by personal service or otherwise:

(A) the parties;

(B) the parties’ officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and

(C) other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (B). [Emphasis added.]

[PaulS]

"He is however bound by the various injunctions against his underlings. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d)(2) states:"

I'm not clear why this applies - this is a law not the constitution. Isn't the question really The court which has constitutional authority orders (say) USAID which is under Rubio to do X. The president who has constitutional authority orders Rubio to do Y. Who has more authority? At a minimum who gets to say what happens until the supreme court rules?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The Y that the President is ordering Rubio to do cannot violate the Congressional statutes that established USAID, or the appropriations that fund it. The question of whether or not Y is in compliance with Congressional directives falls to the courts. It has nothing to do with who has more authority. No one has more authority than the courts over the question of whether or not laws have been broken.

[PaulS]

I live in the consulting/project management world so it may be different here but every contract I have ever seen written with the Federal Government has a cancellation for convenience clause. Ordering the president not to exercise that clause pending a decision seems like an infringement on his constitutional authority. The issue to me is not the final judgement but the interim lower court judgement pending a decision

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That would perhaps apply to a very minute fraction of the money President Trump is trying not to spend.

Regardless of yours or the President's opinion about the lower court judgments, they still must be followed. If those judges are overstepping, then hopefully their actions are overturned in higher courts.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Trump is a named defendant in several of these cases, including the one in the story that Commenter_XY linked in the first comment.

[Commenter_XY]

What do you think, Nas. Do you agree with NG on process?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think not guilty’s description of the process is largely accurate. I think it’s fairly unlikely that Trump or any other high-level government officials will be held in contempt. I hope that is because they will not disobey the courts in the first place.

[Kazinski]

On a different USAID lawsuit, the judge has dissolved his TRO and allowed Trump, Rubio and DOGE to continue dismembering USAID.

"WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday cleared the way for one of the Trump administration's remaining steps in its dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development, allowing it to move forward with pulling thousands of USAID staffers off the job in the United States and around the world.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols rejected pleas to keep his temporary stay on the government's plan to remove all but a small fraction of USAID staffers from their posts. His ruling also allows the administration to start the clock ticking on its planned 30-day deadline for USAID workers abroad to move back to the U.S. at government expense.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/politics/government/judge-clears-way-for-trump-administration-to-pull-thousands-of-usaid-staffers-off-the-job/ar-AA1zwW8z

[Commenter_XY]

deleted

[Commenter_XY]

Recently (this week), Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Lindsey Graham, Richard Blumenthal, and Joni Ernst were in Israel, and made a very revealing comment regarding a regional peace deal.

One important component was a permanent security treaty with KSA, ratified by the US Senate. It has been a long time since the Senate has ratified a treaty like that. That made me wonder...

How does the process actually work of ratifying a treaty?
How much debate is allowed?

Who 'executes' (signs) the treaty on behalf of the US Congress (or do they at all, and if not, should they)?

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm
The United States Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). Treaties are binding agreements between nations and become part of international law. Treaties to which the United States is a party also have the force of federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ''the supreme Law of the Land.''

The Senate does not ratify treaties. Following consideration by the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Senate either approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s).

[Longtobefree]

" . . . Treaties to which the United States is a party also have the force of federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ''the supreme Law of the Land.''

Cherokee nation on line two - - - - - -

[John F. Carr]

Under U.S. constitutional law treaties are law to the extent they are (1) self-executing, and (2) not superceded by statute. The Spanish constitution makes treaties more important than domestic law. The United States constitution does not.

That's internal law, not international law. International law does not generally consider internal law an excuse for non-compliance. If Congress passes a law making compliance with a treaty impossible diplomats have the right to complain.

[AmosArch]

Its an interesting experiment. Whereas in his first term Trump bore the brunt alone this time Musk and Trump tag teaming to divide the media furor between themselves. Halves the negative coverage in theory, (They went all out last time so Its hard to imagine being able to top the neverending torrent of abuse last time but who knows)

Wonder how its going to work out.

[Krayt]

Is he pushing so far so fast to take advantage of his win, perhaps a little shock and awe? Or on so many fronts to distract from one particular one?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think he's definitely trying to keep his foes off balance, and throwing out enough outrage bait to keep them distracted from focusing on what's important.

He's aware that everything he's going to do, bar nothing, is going to be challenged in court. The sooner the court battles start, the sooner they're done.

[santamonica811]

I think your summary was pretty accurate.

[Kazinski]

I saw someone on X comparing him to the Count of Monte Cristo spending his 4 years in exile plotting out his revenge.

Perhaps its more like an Offense Coordinator having a script for his first 15-20 plays.

[Frank Drackman]

I was thinking more Khan Noonien Singh, put in Exile on Ceti Alpha V, can't wait for "47" to bring out the Ceti Eels (Ceti Alpha V's only remaining indigenous life form)
any "WOK" Nerds out there? anyone remember Khan's light reading material on his desk?

[Krayt]

Ironic the symbology of ear worms controlling your behavior.

Memes, deliberately likened to genes, a second stream of evolving information guiding human behavior, "reproducing" via ear.

All trigger little positive strokes as they are adopted. Many include riders like "...and you're a good person for agreeing!"

[Commenter_XY]

Up to ~70 court battles, and counting. That has to be a record, that is like 2+ lawsuits filed per day for month 1.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump is determined to flout the rule of law. Fortunately, his targets are fighting back to hold him accountable in the courts.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's determined to get all the legal fights done and behind him while he still has time to get things accomplished. And, yes, he's pushing the envelope, in the hope that the Supreme court will relocate the legal lines a bit.

[Sarcastr0]

This is a wild characterization of ignoring the law. You yelled to high heaven about the student loan thing, IIRC. This is vastly deeper and broader.

But we know that you'll cover for whatever Trump does, despite saying you don't.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I don't know that Brett is necessarily defending Trump's actions, rather than just describing his strategy. His description seems pretty accurate to me.

[Brett Bellmore]

In some cases I'd defend his actions, in some cases, (Such as birthright citizenship.) his cause may be good, but still legally meritless. And in some cases I wouldn't even go so far as to say his cause might be good...

Much of it is in the middle ground where things are a lot more unsettled than Sarcastr0 would like to think.

[bernard11]

In some cases I'd defend his actions, in some cases, (Such as birthright citizenship.) his cause may be good, but still legally meritless. And in some cases I wouldn't even go so far as to say his cause might be good...

Come on, Brett.

You defend Trump and make excuses, ridiculous ones, often, whatever he does.

[David Nieporent]

You defend Trump and make excuses, ridiculous ones, often, whatever he does.

Look, just because Trump has expressly and repeatedly blamed Ukraine for starting the war doesn't mean that Brett would posit the existence of a transcript somewhere (that not even Fox or Breitbart or the like have identified) that would provide context that would allow Brett to claim that Trump had said the opposite of what he actually said.

[Sarcastr0]

Remember when Brett said Trump had nothing to do with Project 2025, and got real mad when we called him on it?

Being wrong, being mocked, nothing matters.

[Brett Bellmore]

Remember when I said it wasn't his project, but that in no way obligated him to reject everything in it?

[Sarcastr0]

You STILL don't think it was his project? When he adopted it and those who wrote it from the first day of his Admin?

You really do auto-hypnotize yourself to be a moron.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You STILL don't think it was his project?"

His project in what sense? You're claiming he wrote it? Another evidence free claim by Gaslightro!

(And note that Sarcastro is still claiming that Robert Hur's description of Biden's mental state was politically motivated BS.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Do you see where SarcastrO wrote "...those who wrote it...?" Pretty much the opposite of claiming Trump wrote it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, what is his claim?

Brett has agreed that Trump might agree with some of the ideas, or hire some of the people that wrote it.

So when he claims that it's "his project" in a way that's inconsistent with what Trump is saying, what is his claim? Seems like he's just spewing bullshit to be argumentative with Brett.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It's "his project" to the extent that he has put the people who wrote it into positions to enact it, and a good deal of what he has done in the first month in office conforms to the project.

[Sarcastr0]

Breaking the laws you don't like is not generally seen as a strategy to get them changed, it's seen as not caring about the law.

I think it's absolutely excising Trump's lawlessness to say it's actually a plan.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sarcastro condemning Rosa Parks. I didn’t have that on my bingo card.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Technically, she didn't really violate the Montgomery city ordinance, but just the bus company's policy about where the segregation line on the bus gets drawn, and the discretion the company gave the drivers about the middle 10 rows. Where she sat was in the colored section when she sat down.

Nice try, though.

[Kazinski]

Well I definitely agreed with Nancy Pelosi:

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested on Wednesday that people who believe President Joe Biden can forgive student debt on his own are misinformed.

“The president can’t do it,” Pelosi said, at a press briefing. “That’s not even a discussion.”"
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/28/pelosi-says-biden-doesnt-have-authority-to-cancel-student-debt-.html

On the other hand the Supreme Court, or appellate courts are very likely to confirm Trumps firings of the IGs, and FTC commissioners.

You've got a solid body of law confirming the President's powers there, Myers, Selia, and the pretty recent Spicer v Biden:

"The Board of Visitors to the U.S. Naval Academy was created by Congress to advise the President on the “state of morale and discipline” at the academy as well as its “curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, [and] academic methods.” U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich also noted that Congress specified that the “six persons designated by the President” would serve on the Board “for three years each” in staggered terms.

But based on the U.S. Code governing the Board of Visitors, Friedrich ruled that executive officials were not insulated from presidential removal."

[not guilty]

"He's determined to get all the legal fights done and behind him while he still has time to get things accomplished. And, yes, he's pushing the envelope, in the hope that the Supreme court will relocate the legal lines a bit."

Disregarding the constitutional separation of powers is not a prudent way to do that. The Supreme Court pretty jealously guards its prerogatives, foremost among them that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803); Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 18 (1958).

The observation in Cooper, 358 U.S. at 18, that "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it" applies equally to the President who is tasked to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. U.S. Const. Art. II. § 3.

By challenging birthright citizenship, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (and purporting to unilaterally order conditions on federal spending which Congress has not imposed, South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)), Donald Trump has chosen the wrong hill to die upon.

[John F. Carr]

Is he going to die on a hill? If his orders are undone by the courts he is back where he started. Compare Disney, which picked a fight with DeSantis and ended up worse off.

[Commenter_XY]

We'll soon find out how good the remaining DOJ attys actually are, meaning can they win their cases on the merits, NG.

I think a much harder look has to be given to injunction bonds, by the judiciary. That seems to be honored mostly in the breach.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You mean we shall soon see which team is better at lawfare?

[Krayt]

Flout the law also describes innumerable attempts to investigate and prosecute a political opponent, kicked out, jailed, heavily fined on a level that, applied to a giant corporation would make one go whoa!

And a ludicrous faceting about claiming it was not that, but disinterested concern for rule of law. Their underpants are showing, and there are many stains in those underpants, starting with the sheer number and pettiness of overcharges.

In short, ironic concern for "rule of law".

[Ska]

The move fast break things theory of private enterprise applied to the public sector.

[Commenter_XY]

Exactly correct.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is the public sector more comparable to the private sector...or to a china shop?

[tylertusta]

Trump thrives in chaos. Media shitstorms tend to energize him.

[Krayt]

Media shitstorms tend to energize him.

It takes two to tango. There are those around here who stand with a straight face and claim button pushing has nothing to do with it.

"Gulf of America"? Come on!

[Dr. Ed 2]

"South China Sea"....

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Trump thrives in psychosis.

The rest of us, not so well.

[mggaviles]

I think that at this time the SCOTUS may be wary of pushing the unitary executive theory beyond its current shape.

[hobie]

Even Harlan Thomas?

[Kazinski]

I think its much more likely they are going to put the lower courts on notice that nationwide TRO's are not found in the text, tradition, or history of US Courts, and aren't going to be sustained.

There is one case before the SC now.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's about time.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not exactly part of the "unitary executive theory", is it?

[Stephen Lathrop]

I see that even this early in the morning, each of my comments has been graphically underlined by a thick grayed-out band of comments, presumably from the usual MAGA trolls. Thanks guys. I appreciate the graphic emphasis, and enjoy it doubly for not having to engage to get it.

If other sensible commenters want to enjoy this benefit for themselves, I recommend a liberal muting policy. I resisted doing that for years, while comment-quality on the VC plunged continuously. I finally decided it was mute or leave, and have been surprised and gratified by how nicely it is playing out.

[Mr. Bumble]

That's what happens when you put your fingers in your ears.
Maybe grow a pair and stop with the muting.
The fact that you're seeing grey bands says more about you than the other commentors.

[Stephen Lathrop]

This is terrific! Another thick band of five consecutive grey mutes, all accumulated in less than an hour before 6 AM. Keep it up guys. It gets my day off to a cheerful start.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, might be a little late with the rent money, done lost my job, ain't got no money to pay no rent, I'll have it for you tomorrow, next week, I don't know.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I see one reply, not five.

Perhaps there is something wrong with your computer?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Stephen: I agree.

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course you would since you follow the same practice.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Example #5343781 of why us Normals don't like your kind. Especially around our kids.

[Brett Bellmore]

You'd probably enjoy this.

I wouldn't brag about having muted everyone who disagrees with you.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, I haven't done that. You are exhibit A. But there are a lot more I still pay attention to.

I have been muting trolls, and enjoying it. You are not a troll. You are cognitively afflicted, in a particular way which actually adds value to this blog. Keep it up. If I were editing this blog for profit, yours would be nearly the last name on my list for exclusion.

[Armchair]

You've been muting people who have posted facts and arguments that contradict what you claim.

It's a good way to put yourself into a bubble.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you saying that everyone who disagrees with SL is an unserious shitposter?

[Armchair]

Learn to read accurately.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I mute only the mental children among us: Those who have proven (to my sole satisfaction) that their comments have had (and will be expected to have) utterly zero benefit to me, either in agreement or disagreement (or amusement).

FYI, I believe I have muted two persons on the nominal "left", and an unknown number of persons on the nominal "right".

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair, as you can see, I have not muted you.

I write on this blog mostly in the hope that well-supported critiques will sharpen my insights, or turn me around completely when I am in error. But to do that, a rejoinder must show the kind of provenance an alleged fact needs to earn world-wide publication.

So my default remains, no provenance, no influence. I am old-fashioned that way. It is how ink-on-paper publishing used to work. As a means to keep out of bubbles, it proved superior to today's typical internet alternatives.

I do not think you get that, but on the other hand you seem neither too venomous, nor dangerously insane. I am unlikely to find reason to mute you.

[hobie]

Here. I'll give you a recap of the sage discourse you're missing:

Bumble: "Maybe grow a pair and stop with the muting."
Drackman: ....[does anyone really care?]...
RedheadedPharoh: "Example #5343781 of why us Normals don't like your kind"

[Mr. Bumble]

With regard to the Gazainians return of the bodies of murdered infants:
"What we saw today in Gaza is a disgrace to Islam, an act of blasphemy against Allah."
The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia.

https://x.com/NiohBerg/status/1892601464285012011

[Commenter_XY]

We cannot find 10 good men in Sodom gaza.

[Don Nico]

Indeed, Hamas even tries to pass off an arbitrary corpse as a murdered hostage.

[Commenter_XY]

The ceasefire is about to end, Don Nico. There will be an ultimatum, which will be ignored, and the war will resume.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace."

And that doesn't sound like it was nuked?

[Don Nico]

My guess is that the war cabinet will wait at at least past March 6 after which Herzi Halevi is replaced.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Gazainians are savages and need to be executed like the rabid dogs they are.

[Frank Drackman]

But only after crushing them, seeing them driven before me, and hearing the lamentations of their women!
Scratch that last one, if there's one thing A-rab women can do, it's lamentate, you go to any A-rab country, you'll hear women lamentating everywhere, they even have rooms called "Lamentation Rooms" where they can lamentate in private, and even with that, you'll often see some A-rab (redacted) just whip out her (Redacted) and lamentate right out in public.

[hobie]

Afghanistan: Trump negotiates withdrawal. Excludes Afghan government from negotiations in Doha. Releses 5,000 Taliban prisoners. Biden completes clusterfuck. Terrorists retake entire country.

AfGAZAstan: Trump negotiates ceasefire. Terrorists retake entire country.

Ukraine:...well...

[Krayt]

Ukraine differs. The two previous fails were sloppy abandonemt. Ukraine is being served to the other side on a silver platter, with a little mint chocky on the side.

[Riva]

Now he speaks up?? Where the f was he on Oct. 7? Or pretty much anytime before then?

[A Japanese Student]

On Monday, Tokyo District Court awarded a woman 330,000 yen (around $2,200) for unlawful arrest. During a Terry-like stop in a parking lot, police officers found a bottle with "leaves" that smelled like marijuana. They ran a test on the scene, and a simple possession arrest (without warrant) followed. Her urine tested negative, yet she was detained for 2 weeks before they dropped the charges.

It turned out, however, that the test actually revealed that the leaves were not weed. Purple indicated positive; the test result was blue. Although they could smell marijuana, this meant that the commission of crime was not clearly found - a requirement for arresting someone in flagrante delicto, without warrants. (i.e. not just probable cause - though I'm not sure what US equivalent would be). Adopting stricter standards is not limited to arrests; although the standard for indictment is not clearly established in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutorial practice is to not indict unless they know they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Good in theory, very bad in practice to both defendants (who are subjected to extended interrogation necessary to secure confessions) and victims (who cannot test theories of criminal liabilities that have a reasonable chance of failing).

[Mr. Bumble]

So Japanese police also behave badly. Do they have qualified immunity?

[Frank Drackman]

Those epicanthic folds heighten their sense of smell, they're like Yellow Bloodhounds, I remember this Jap landlady I had, had to tell her I done lost my job, didn't have no rent money, and all of a sudden she ain't got nothing nice to say about me, but for 5 years, she'd been so nice, I mean Lovey-Dovey, but now she could tell I'd smoked a joint 3 months ago, good smellers, those Japs.

[Michael P]

You've clearly been enjoying one Bourbon, one Scotch and one beer, followed by another and another.

[Frank Drackman]

Everybody funny, now you funny too

[Krayt]

Something something Old Grand-Dad...

[A Japanese Student]

Not the one used by the US. To start, Japan's constitution expressly rejects sovereign immunity, and there is no "immunity" as the courts usually try the whole case (including merits and damages) before they dismiss on legal grounds.

Liability under State Redress Act requires unlawful exercise of authority through negligence or willfulness. There are cases (in admin-law context) holding that, when two competing and reasonable interpretations of law exist, adopting one of them (which is ultimately rejected by courts) is not "negligent". (See the illegal immigrant health insurance case of January 15, 2004.) I haven't seen a case where this is used in police context, though.

[John F. Carr]

The common law rule in America allowed a citizen's arrest of a person who had in fact committed a serious crime. This dates back to the time when there were few serious crimes and it was usually obvious when one was being committed. In some cases the law distinguished crimes witnessed by the person making the arrest. Like, you can arrest a person who committed a felony anywhere or a misdemeanor in your presence.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Realistically speaking, what is the difference between a BS and a BA?

Linda McMahon graduated from East Carolina State, essentially then still a normal school (teacher's college) in 1969. At the time it offered two degrees, a BS in Education or a BA in Liberal Arts -- 21 years earlier, it had only offered the BS in Education.

What I suspect happened -- and have seen elsewhere -- was that those planning to teach in the elementary grades continued to major in Education while those planning to teach grades 7-12 majored in the subject they planned to teach. Both would do their student teaching and be otherwise qualified to teach, the only difference is that those teaching would have a Baccalaureate if Arts rather than a Baccalaureate of Sciences.

That's why I consider the fact that her degree is in French to be a giant nothingburger. She did the semester of student teaching, I presume she was fully qualified to teach High School French upon graduation, and hence as far as I am concerned, she has a degree in Education.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2024/11/20/linda-mcmahon-education-secretary-degree-discrepancy/76451271007/

[David Nieporent]

as far as I am concerned, she has a degree in Education.

You can consider her to have a degree in Astrophysics if you want; it will be equally correct.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Which shows how very much you do not know about higher education.

[David Nieporent]

It's true that I don't know the best brand of floor polish, but I do know that Education is a different department than French.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" Education is a different department than French."

It's "college/school", not department.
And at what was still essentially a normal school, they'd all be education degrees.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Then how is it that she ended up with a French degree instead?

Is it discussed in your dissertation, perhaps?

[David Nieporent]

It was not, in fact, still essentially a normal school, and it wasn't an education degree. Even for you, this is a weird hill to die on.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If you spend a semester -- 1/8th of your time -- student teaching you have an education degree.

[David Nieporent]

If you spend 8 semesters student teaching and then 40 years actually teaching, but your diploma says French, then you do not have an education degree.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Saying you got a degree in Education when you really have a degree in French and an Education certificate is equally correct to saying you have a degree in Astrophysics? Not so much.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The other thing is that her upper level French classes would have been methods classes i.e. how to teach French as opposed to advanced literature and cultural studies.

[David Nieporent]

The other thing is that her upper level French classes would have been methods classes i.e. how to teach French as opposed to advanced literature and cultural studies.

Do you really find that simply making facts up convinces anyone of anything besides the fact that you simply make things up?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Is there any evidence that he's making that up?

It seems right to me.

I don't know of many French Literature programs that include a student teaching component.

[David Nieporent]

My wife did not major in education. She got a regular A.B. degree in an academic field. She also did the teacher prep program (because at the time that's what she thought she wanted to do as a career; that didn't last too long), did a semester of student teaching, and got a teaching certificate. I need to reiterate: her major was not education. In fact, our school didn't even have an education department or degree.

[Frank Drackman]

I like "BS", it totally describes the value of most degrees, with MS (more of the same) and PhD (Piled Higher) right behind, and I'd call her "Secretary" McMahon, or whatever you call a Cabinet Secretary before they're sworn in. Vince may be almost 80 but I hear he can still play a mean Drum solo upside someone's Haid'.

[Brett Bellmore]

Isn't that "piled higher and deeper"?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Realistically speaking, what is the difference between a BS and a BA?"

I thought it was math.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Honest answer? It's whatever the institution says it is.
Technically it is if it is more an arts or a science, but Smith College offers a BA in engineering.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"Linda McMahon graduated from East Carolina State, essentially then still a normal school (teacher's college) in 1969."

Except that East Carolina changed from a teacher's college to having a complete liberal arts curricula in 1951, and became East Carolina University in 1967. I guess putting "essentially" in front of any statement can make it essentially correct.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Except that North Carolina was (a) instituting High Schools at the same time, and (b) extending certification requirements to high schools, and (c) rapidly expanding its school system because of the baby boom.

Prior to WWII, in most places, the public schooling ended at Grade 8, the elementary school was Grades 1-8. High School was private academies and at parental expense, much like colleges are today, and much like college today, the academies hired people on the basis of degrees in the subject being taught, not teaching per se.

[David Nieporent]

I don't have information about NC specifically — and I'm sure that other than your dissertation, you don't either — but as a general statement about the U.S., your claims are both wrong¹ and irrelevant to a discussion of Linda McMahon.
​
​
¹If interpreted reasonably. I mean "prior to WWII" technically could refer to the 15th century, so yes, at some point prior to WWII those claims would be correct. But if "prior to WWII" means "immediately prior to WWII" — which is how most people use the term — then no.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

None of which has anything to do with your statement about East Carolina University in 1969, which was demonstrably false.

[Frank Drackman]

Over under on when Volodymyr flees from You-Crane?, oh I know, the people are "Rallying around him" Just like they did with the Shah, President Thieu of South Vietnam, Idi Amin in Uganda, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm,
and he won't be fleeing the Roosh-uns, but his own people, pissed that he's been lining his pockets with their blood and treasure, He's sort of like Ceausescu without the Eugenics and not as funny (Ever see that Video of Ceausescu defending himself at his trial? Hilarious, Probably not a good idea to question the authority of the panel who has the power to execute you)
I'm guessing June 1, he'll get a cozy condo on the Riviera

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

Has the US ever done the following:

This: UKR, we gave you 200B in weaponry over 3 years
for
That: Now you give us 50% ownership of your mineral reserves worth 500B, and btw, the war will end soon (like it or not).

This is essentially the deal (if you want to call it that) The Donald has offered to UKR. Is it illegal for a POTUS to make that kind of deal? Is there actually a crime? If not...then,

Is there a moral or ethical qualm making a deal like this?

It looks like The Donald is holding the proverbial gun to the temple (no mas support) of UKR and telling them the war is over, and here is the bill, pay up. I am especially concerned since POTUS Trump just publicly stated UKR is now in danger of losing their entire country. That is a pretty extraordinary statement from POTUS Trump (or any POTUS, for that matter), and rachets up the pressure. It is geopolitical hardball. I am reminded of the adage, nations do not have friends, nations have interests.

What if UKR agrees to this deal? Do we follow through? If the deal is not illegal, do we 'take the proverbial money'?

[Mr. Bumble]

Geez, you're full of questions this morning.

[Commenter_XY]

Legal questions, yes. The moral/ethical dimension, somewhat less so. There is much truth in that adage. And this is a legal blog, so I have to ask about the law. 🙂

[Frank Drackman]

It's called the "Vig"

[RedheadedPharoh]

Apparently, these were never grants to Ukraine, but loans. And only the European loans were guaranteed. It was another classic America Last/ Stupid Uncle Sugar arrangement made by the previous ruling class.

He's just securing collateral for the loans.

[David Nieporent]

"Apparently!"

[Dr. Ed 2]

England gave us a lot of bases as their part of the "Lend Lease" deal. Biden gave Ukraine an unGodly amount of money, and Trump wants some of it back. I don't have a problem with that.

[apedad]

"England gave us a lot of bases as their part of the "Lend Lease" deal. Congress authorized giving Ukraine an unGodly amount of money, and Trump wants some of it back. I don't have a problem with that."

FTFY

[apedad]

"It looks like The Donald is holding the proverbial gun to the temple (no mas support) of UKR and telling them the war is over, and here is the bill, pay up."

That's called extortion in legal, technical terms.

[Frank Drackman]

You using my police, my sanitation people, and my Oldsmobiles free of charge. So, if you mention extortion again, I'll have your legs broken

[apedad]

Good one.

[Armchair]

Is it extortion to want to be paid for the vast amount of goods that get shipped over?

[apedad]

Not if that was the original deal but Congress authorized the military assistance - not military sales.

[Krayt]

No. That's what the seized oligarch money is for. Make the assholes who started it pay.

And no, minding your own effing business is not starting anything. Quit simping on this asinine rhetorical bridge too far.

[Armchair]

They've done similar deals. Lend lease (WWII), or the sale of weapons to the allies in WWI.

[hobie]

Give up 50% of your patrimony for a deal where Russia gets everything it wants and the kidnapped children are not even mentioned...much less freed?

[Brett Bellmore]

A lot of things weren't mentioned. That's pretty common in documents that aren't the length of an unabridged English dictionary.

[SRG2]

Ok, what according to your sources, is Russia having to give up in this peace deal?

[David Nieporent]

Nothing in anything you described is a deal.

[ReaderY]

Why aren’t Republicans at least embarassed by Trump’s change in American foreign policy from an alliance of mutual interest and respect to an empire that acquires territory and seeks tribute and control in exchange for protection in exactly the same way other authoritarian empires do - empires that Republicans said were opposed to the American way as recently as a decade ago?

Are they at least embarassed that their candidate has gotten America not only to embrace its former enemies, but to behave exactly like them?

Using Ukraine’s weakness to try to extort its minerals from it is exactly the behavior that Republicans would have recognized and loudly denounced as the sort of evil empire thing a Russia or a China would do only a decade ago.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It would be interesting to see how Republicans react when Trump orders the assassination of a troublesome Democrat (which the Supreme Court now says he can get away with). It hasn’t happened yet, because thus far no Democrat has had the power to get in his way, but that may change.

[RedheadedPharoh]

The SCOTUS did not rule that you deranged dipshit.

[SRG2]

It's implicit in the judgment. If the assassination is in the furtherance of a core executive function, the president is absolutely immune.

[Michael Ejercito]

Which core executive function would that be?

[SRG2]

You tell me: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

[Krayt]

What is a Democrat doing that's so awful, his or her assassination might be considered legitimate in pursuance of a core function?

[David Nieporent]

Opposing the whim of the Führer.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

One of them called Elon Musk a dick.

[Brett Bellmore]

Alternatively, it hasn't happened yet, because the real world Trump isn't nearly as horrible as the one who lives in your head.

[Sarcastr0]

I also don't think that's likely to happen.

Just like the sweeping gun confiscation and putting conservatives into camps that the Democrats in your head were planning.

Or the violence as Trump was inaugurated.

Or the voter fraud election theft the Dems were planning in 2024.

Or the Great Replacement Dems are planning for native Americans.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sweeping gun confiscation was something Democrats were openly talking about doing not so many years ago. Not so much recently, because even a political flatworm can learn to avoid pain. But I'm not going to agree to memory hole the threats/promises of doing it.

The camps? That might be a long term consequence if the gun confiscation actually happened, it might not.

"Or the violence as Trump was inaugurated."

Credit where credit is due: Turns out the Democrats are actually capable of shutting off the riot machine if they decide using it is hurting them. Which, of course, tells us that when the riots were happening, it was because they hadn't decided to flip that switch to the off position yet.

[Sarcastr0]

The Democrats and their riot machine living in your head are more real than the Republicans living in Dan Schiavetta's head.

Do you realize how dumb this makes you sound?

[Brett Bellmore]

Dozens of people dead and multiple billions in property damage say the riot machine is not just in my head.

[Sarcastr0]

Riots != riot machine.

I suppose paranoid delusions come with double standards baked in, but good lord this is a stark example.

[Ed Grinberg]

Riots != riot machine.

I live in a suburb of Minneapolis. I have no idea whether the 2020 riots were organized by some Democrat-affiliated "machine." What I do know though is that our local (city / state) Democratic leadership allowed the riots to get out of hand, and even then did nothing until a good chunk of Minneapolis (including a fucking police station!) was burning.

[Michael Ejercito]

I wonder why they did that.

[David Nieporent]

I reiterate that at the time of those events Donald Trump praised the state's Democratic governor — someone you might have heard of — for his tough response to the violence.

[Bwaaah]

So what? There was no "tough response to the violence" in Minneapolis in 2020, no matter what anybody said, unless you consider mere words to constitute a "tough response." (TDS drives you off point, David.)

[Sarcastr0]

"I know Governor Walz is on the phone, and we spoke, and I fully agree with the way he handled it the last couple of days."

"He's an excellent guy. You've got a big National Guard out there that's ready to come in and fight like hell. I tell you, the best — what they did in Minneapolis was incredible. They went in and dominated, and it happened immediately."

[David Nieporent]

So what?

Hey, you may wish to disloyally call Donald Trump a liar and a bullshit artist, but as for me, if he said it I believe him.

[Bwaaah]

DMN: "but as for me, if [Trump] said it I believe him."

No you don't. With TDS, you back yourself into stupid corners like that, unable to stop yourself from making such a facially false declaration. And that you pretend that I should or do feel loyalty to him (or any politician) is more of the same.

Get real.

[Krayt]

Well, there is some power in ordering talking heads to like or hate an idea, this is a useful on-off switch.

Or maybe it was sheer electoral fear pandering to a powerful, if temporary, movement.

Do we have any current examples of rank and file politicians cowering in fear, head-talking glowingly on stupid mass movements people will scratch their heads at a few years down the road?

Can anyone think of some?

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, you came onto this website denying NYC crime data and instead appealing to the vibe you got.

So I suppose ignoring Trump's actual quotes and attacking DMN for pointing them out isn't too much of a stretch.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Lest not forget Operation ChokePoint where they were using "soft power" to attack our gun rights.

[bernard11]

All in bad faith, right , Brett.

Never just because nobody wanted to riot.

That shit is really tiresome, especially since you occasionally, laughably, complain about others doing the same thing.

What do you think? That some order went out from HQ not to riot because it would hurt the party?

[Krayt]

Who's gonna shove people into camps? Most of the police and military are Trump supporters, and most of the rest won't sit well with full scale second amendment violation.

[Swede425]

I'd tell you that it's too early to be drinking, but it's not.
But still.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've actually had a chance to look at (reportage concerning) the minerals proposal now, and It's not terribly unreasonable.

Trump officials pitch Zelenskyy on U.S. owning 50% of Ukraine's rare earth minerals

Ukraine is about $200B in hock to us at the moment. Trump is proposing a way they could simultaneously clear the slate, AND have US troops on their territory to dissuade Putin from attacking again. That last part would be darned valuable to Ukraine! Essentially they'd become a US protectorate, and we'd have an ongoing incentive to not abandon them.

Yes, this probably looks unreasonable if you're inclined to think that a country running a $1.8T deficit should be playing Santa Claus. But getting paid for it is probably the only way the US can actually continue being the world's policeman, we're about tapped out at this point.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Conversely, Trump teaming up with Putin, to force Ukrainian surrender, with resulting pillage of Ukrainian assets by the U.S., looks a lot like the crime of international aggression punishable in the Hague.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, people routinely aggress against other nations by giving them $200B in aid, and then threatening to stop if they don't get something in return.

Putin is definitely the aggressor here. We're just an ally who can't afford to keep it up without getting something in return. But the worst we're going to do if Ukraine says "no" is walk away and let countries that have more on the line carry the load, instead.

[SRG2]

If you provide X in aid and then insist in 2xX in repayment, you did not give aid, you lent it, and you're extorting the country you lent it to, like a mobster.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not extortion if the "threat" is that you just walk away. That's basic. You extort people by threatening to do something TO them, not by threatening to stop doing something FOR them.

This is like claiming that Netflix is committing extortion if they demand you pay for the service after the free trial period is over.

[SRG2]

This is like claiming that Netflix is committing extortion if they demand you pay for the service after the free trial period is over.

More like, Netflix will let your neighbour remove your TV if you don't pay.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Netflix will prevent my neighbor from removing my TV if I subscribe?

[Brett Bellmore]

The point is, Netflix has no obligation to protect you from your neighbor, and refusing to provide a service unless paid is never "extortion", rather it's perfectly ordinary.

[SRG2]

In this situation, Netflix is aligned with your neighbour

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sorry, Bellmore, but Trump himself did nothing to defend Ukraine. More the opposite. He now threatens action to force Ukraine to subjugate itself to both Russia, and to the U.S.

There will not be any U.S. Supreme Court immunity-from-heaven doctrine if Trump finds himself on trial in the Hague, whether in person, or in absentia. How do you suppose it would play out?

Of course, Trump would always reserve to himself a prerogative to go to war, using the U.S. military, against any nation which played a part in getting him charged or tried. Maybe occupy the Hague.

You on board for all that? Tired of owning the libs figuratively? Maybe more entertained by a prospect to own Europe militarily, in a joint U.S.– Russian alliance? Doesn't that sound Trumpish?

A pretend coronation here on the U.S. internet looks tawdry. Like putting a McMansion in Levittown. Wouldn't it be better for MAGA if Trump went for the real thing, and got himself coronated in Versailles?

Bet you can't even imagine a Republican Congress putting a stop to any of it.

[Michael Ejercito]

Why does the Ukraine matter to you so much?

[SRG2]

Why does it matter so much to Trump that Ukraine surrenders to Putin?

[Michael Ejercito]

Well, who was it that cut off aid to South Vietnam in the 1970's?

[SRG2]

Deflect much?

But suppose Nixon had threatened South Vietnam if they didn't surrender? And never criticised Ho Chi Minh?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Of course, Trump would always reserve to himself a prerogative to go to war, using the U.S. military, against any nation which played a part in getting him charged or tried. Maybe occupy the Hague.

He would not need to reserve a prerogative, if any US persons or allies including Trump himself are detained. Congress has already authorized him use military force to free them.

[ReaderY]

I suspect, in all candor, that Trump is probably about as concerned about the consequences of violating any orders of The Hague court as he is of about the consequences of violating the Kellogg-Briand Pact.

[Krayt]

Use the oligarch money, which was reported at $350 billion. I can't confirm, but the plan seems good.

[Brett Bellmore]

At this point, given what's going on with Russia's economy, giving them that money might be a way to give them the 'win' they need to have an excuse to give up on the territory they've captured.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, people routinely aggress against other nations by giving them $200B in aid, and then threatening to stop if they don't get something in return.

"People"? Trump didn't give them $200B in aid. Biden and Congress did. Trump gave them nothing he wasn't forced to, and is now saying he won't give more. He's not "threatening to stop if." He's just saying he's stopping.

[Krayt]

And may I point out, this was reasonable panic at dictator tanks. There wasn't much opposition and massive support from the people of all free countries. The politicians just responded.

It wasn't something weaseled through.

[ThePublius]

"with resulting pillage of Ukrainian assets by the U.S."

the U.S. is not going to, nor has threatened to do any pillaging.

You use a term in an obviously hyperbolic way, and then draw a conclusion as if that was to be taken literally.

[David Nieporent]

"Give me half of your wealth or my boss friend Vlad will take your whole country."

[ThePublius]

You put that in quotes. Did Trump actually say that? (Or are you making that up?)

[Mr. Bumble]

David makes a lot of stuff up.

[Krayt]

"Zelensky is a dictator!"

"Ukraine pulled this on itself!"

These are hairbrained Russian talking points.

I'm shocked the Rooskie media hasn't honored Trump with a "Thanks, Gramps!"

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Most other people have to pretend to be as ignorant and stupid as you naturally are.

[Riva]

Smart. Now go back to the Russian collusion hoax.

[hobie]

Most of the mineral wealth is in occupied territories. Why not ask Putin to give it up for the deal?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That seems to be an important detail...

[ReaderY]

The money we gave Ukraine to support the war was intended as gifts, not loans. When given, the strings attached were on their use - to use them for the war, sustaining the economy, etc.

Creating after-the-fact strings and claiming gifts are debts after the fact is slimy.

[SRG2]

Creating after-the-fact strings and claiming gifts are debts after the fact is slimy

But that's Trump for you, and his Putin-loving cultists approve.

[Ed Grinberg]

re: "Putin-loving cultists"
No, I don't love Putin. Quite the contrary. I very much want Russia to lose the unjust war it started. However, I am not willing to go fight for Ukraine. And I don't want other Americans to be sent there. And I agree with Trump that there's a limit on how much aid we can afford to give them (however just their cause).

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The US has never even contemplated sending US troops to fight Russia in Ukraine.

Sure, $200bn isn't down-the-sofa money, but it's hardly "unaffordable" for the US--especially if it is a more cost-effective way of clipping Putin's ears than any of the alternatives.

[Krayt]

No, I don't love Putin

One guy around here said, "I like Putin." While that's lesser than love, it certainly suggest he's on Tucker's writing staff.

[Voize of Reazon]

The money we gave Ukraine [...]

Did the US give Ukraine money? It gave weapons, but I thought the money was all spent in the US defense industry.

There's a similar though not as complete effect with the USAID cutbacks harming US farmers, leaving silos in Kansas full of sorghum and no buyers.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes.

[tylertusta]

From Ukraine's perspective, having US troops on Ukrainian soil is worth far more than $200 billion or even $500 billion, especially because it'll deter Russia from going for Round 3 in a couple of years.

[bernard11]

Ukraine is about $200B in hock to us at the moment

Oh really? Where are the loan documents?

And how much do we owe them for seriously degrading Russia's military capability? Or maybe Trump thinks Ukraine should reimburse Russia for that.

But hey, you're not a Trump cultist, right?

[bernard11]

Brett,

I'll make a prediction.

In the fairly near future Congress is going to take up the tax cuts Trump wants. Their cost will dwarf what we spend or might spend on Ukraine.

And despite your high-minded concerns about the deficit, you will support them. And the Congressional Republicans will, too. So stop this "tapped out" BS.

[Kazinski]

Zelensky has agreed to Trump's Ukraine mineral proposal.

I was quite negative about it and it seemed predatory, that is until I saw where the deposits are on the map. They are for the most part directly adjacent to the areas Russia has occupied, and thus will act as a tripwire that Russia will be very unlikely to cross.

It will provide jobs for Ukrainians, put a permanent American commercial interest on the ground and virtually guarantees Putin won't use the peace settlement just to regroup.

Putin will not be happy about it at all.

It looks like a win, win, draw agreement to me and it will probably make Trump a little bit more aggressive about getting Trump to insist on Putin withdrawing or demilitarizing the current line of control.

Map here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14423219/volodymyr-zelensky-surrenders-donald-trump-sign-mineral-deal-hours.html

[David Nieporent]

First, it's the Daily Fail. Second, it's telling that even they use the term "surrendering." illustrating Trump's hostility towards Ukraine. Third, they have no facts to back up their claim. They are working towards a deal. If it's like most Trump deals with foreign countries, he's surrendering in exchange for being allowed to pretend that he won. (See his Mexico/Canada tariffs, or his Colombian deportation flights, from the first days of his second term.)

[ThePublius]

"...like most Trump deals with foreign countries, he's surrendering in exchange for being allowed to pretend that he won. (See his Mexico/Canada tariffs, or his Colombian deportation flights, from the first days of his second term.)"

That's B.S. It was a threat that worked, with Mexico, Canada, and Colombia.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, yeah those deals have truly changed things.

[ThePublius]

They did. Mexico deployed troops to the southern border. Canada committed to beefing up the northern border. Colombia not only accepted the deportees it had rejected, but the president offered his personal plane to fly them back.

That's nothing?

[Sarcastr0]

No policies have changed, no upshot related to extra troops or evidence they've arrived even. No new 'commitments' have lead to anything. No repatriation flights that wouldn't already have been accepted.

Look around you. Nothing has changed.

[ThePublius]

The initial repatriation flight was refused! Geez!

No wonder some call you Gaslight0.

[Sarcastr0]

It was refused because of the conditions of the people being repatriated.

The US was the one that backed down on that.

"Colombia accepted 475 deportation flights from the U.S. from 2020 to 2024"

"“A migrant is not a criminal and must be treated with the dignity that a human being deserves,” Petro said. “That is why I returned the U.S. military planes that were carrying Colombian migrants… In civilian planes, without being treated like criminals, we will receive our fellow citizens.”

"Petro’s government in a statement later announced that the South American country’s presidential aircraft had been made available to facilitate the return of migrants who were to arrive hours earlier on the U.S. military airplanes and guarantee them “dignified conditions.”"
https://time.com/7210168/us-colombia-trump-petro-deportations-tariffs-explainer/

A good show! You fell for it.

[David Nieporent]

Let's start with this one:

Colombia not only accepted the deportees it had rejected, but the president offered his personal plane to fly them back.

That's nothing?

It's less than nothing! It's exactly what Colombia's position was all along! Colombia had always been accepting deportations — hundreds of such flights during the Biden administration — and had always offered to use its own planes. What Colombia rejected was Trump's use of American military planes — and guess what didn't happen?

Mexico deployed troops to the southern border. Canada committed to beefing up the northern border.

Mexico already had troops at the southern border, and Canada "committed to" that before Trump was ever in office! Seriously, you people are so gullible. Trump declares victory when he loses, and you people have an orgasm.

[ThePublius]

NYTimes:

"President Trump and the leaders of Mexico and Canada struck last-minute deals on Monday to postpone the imposition of hefty tariffs on goods exported to the United States, averting at least temporarily a damaging trade war that would roil North America and the global economy.

Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, after speaking twice by telephone with Mr. Trump, said U.S. tariffs on his country’s goods would be postponed by 30 days as negotiations on a border deal took place. That announcement came hours after Mexico negotiated a similar delay, agreeing to send thousands of troops to the U.S.-Mexico border.

The frenzy of last-minute maneuvering demonstrated Mr. Trump’s willingness to use tariffs as a source of leverage against the most important U.S. trading partners, in what he called an effort to curb drug smuggling and illegal immigration. Imports from Mexico, Canada and China — a target of tariffs still set to take effect just after midnight — account for more than a third of the products brought into the United States each year.

After his call with Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Trump wrote in a social media post that he had agreed to the pause “to see whether or not a final Economic deal with Canada can be structured.” Mr. Trudeau, in his own social media post, described measures that were already being enacted under its $1.3 billion border plan, including the deployment of additional technology and personnel to “ensure 24/7 eyes on the border." He said the two countries would also establish a joint strike force to combat organized crime, fentanyl and money laundering."

[ThePublius]

NYTimes:

"Colombia Agrees to Accept Deportation Flights After Trump Threatens Tariffs"

[Sarcastr0]

Same shit as Mussolini making the trains run on time.

Again, and this is the important part:
"Colombia accepted 475 deportation flights from the U.S. from 2020 to 2024."

Nothing has changed.

You're just a natural born sucker when it comes to Trump declaring victory.

[Commenter_XY]

Rephrase the adage "Nations have interests, not friends" to "Nations have interests, not morals".

Is it illegal?

[Brett Bellmore]

Seems to me to be perfectly ordinary “bourgeois morality": Pay for what you get, and give what you're paid for.

I suppose that you'd, like Somin, prefer universalist utilitarianism, but "The Constitution does not enact Rawls' "A Theory of Justice".", as I occasionally remind him.

[Commenter_XY]

I can only go by millennia of historical behavior across continents and cultures. The adage remains true, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

Protectorates have been a real thing across those millennia, and being one isn't a terrible deal if you're a weak country with a powerful hostile neighbor.

The deal as described features US troops being stationed in Ukraine, which would be a rather sizeable deterrent against Russia resuming taking bites of Ukrainian territory. It probably IS the best deal they can reasonably expect, given that, as I've pointed out, the US is about tapped out at this point, and needs to either scale back its international commitments, or start getting paid for them.

[ReaderY]

Yes they’ve been a thing, just like emperors. And slavery. But the whole point of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Civil War Amendments, etc., was the United States was supposed to be based on a different kind of relationship between rulers and ruled - government of, by, and for the people. Once upon a time, the Republican Party said it believed in that concept.

Imperial protectorates that levy homage and tribute on serfs in exchange for protection is inconsistent with that concept.

Primo Nocte also has a long history. Suppose Trump imposed a condition that he gets to sleep with any Ukrainian woman who catches his fancy in exchange for protecting Ukraine from Russia. That, too has been done. And such a condition would be completely constitutional. The constitution does not require morals in conducting foreign policy. Moreover, even that deal might be the best deal they can reasonably expect given the morals, temperament, and appetites of the current American President.

But no problem?

[Commenter_XY]

The concern seems somewhat late to the party, ReaderY...aren't PR, Guam, and a few other pacific territories US protectorates? And have been for some time?

The Phillippines were a protectorate that the US 'freed' post WW2, no? At that time, it was virtually unheard of to voluntarily cede a protectorate like that (unlike being defeated in war, and being forced to give up territory).

Relative to UKR, any arrangement with US troops in UKR is a non-starter, to me. That is like getting NATO protection without being in NATO. I don't see a huge appetite in the American electorate to station troops in yet another dysfunctional country.

[Brett Bellmore]

In this proposal, it would be in return for some fairly valuable considerations.

It looks like Trump wants to switch the US from playing world police man for free, to doing it only if we get paid. Which does not strike me as unreasonable, I've actually thought for several decades we should do something like that.

[Commenter_XY]

Not anxious for America to become modern Ghurkas to the highest bidder, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

Just because we only do it if paid doesn't mean we do it for anybody willing to pay. It just means we don't go broke doing it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Primo Nocte also has a long history."

A probably mythical history, yes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

*Prima. That's literal violence. If you erase the existence of the night, the planet will get hot rather quickly.

[ReaderY]

It’s like working in a brothel. Yes, you get the money. But having to constantly surpress your feelings and constantly flatter the man and pretend he’s is turning you on while he’s reaming your ass must make you feel really sick inside - if you still have the ability to feel at all.

[Frank Drackman]

You just described most marriages (not mine though! umm, well OK, sort of like mine, at least the surpressing feelings, flattering, pretending to be turned on, man I hate doing those things!)

[Bob from Ohio]

"It’s like working in a brothel. "

Enough about your personal life!

[hobie]

Just tell Ukraine to give up no bid infrastructure contracts to American companies only. Ukraine's gonna need power facilities and LNG midstream and upstream plants. And I know just the American company that can make them.

Hell yeah! Hobie the profiteer!

[Bob from Ohio]

You joke but that would be a good idea for Ukraine if it wants US support.

[Sarcastr0]

He jokes because he doesn't think of the US as a global mobster.

I see you have a much lower standard for America.

[Bob from Ohio]

Grow up. Tying support to other things is utterly normal in international relations.

[hobie]

I don't joke. We already have our bids prepared. It's just that in my scenario we aren't extorting them. They can choose or not choose to have more infrastructure. Let's just say it is a 'sop'.

[Don Nico]

I think that the basis of the Trump complaint is that the EU countries are not so much allies as they are client states.
The UK used to be a true ally, but with the present wreckage of the UK economy, that may be questionable. That idea was fine in the age of empires, but the time has come for the EU to have a respectable army (many Europeans now say that).
One problem is that doing so would cost ~5% of the annual GDP. And that is not affordable given the large size of social welfare programs AND the sub-replacement fertility rates. ) In the UK don't expect the 300,000 immigrants from Asia to make up the economic shortfall).

[Stephen Lathrop]

Why not? Our tech bros expect that of Asians here.

[Don Nico]

Check out the demographics of UK immigration. These added folks are not driving the industrial capacity of the UK and they are not counteracting the disastrous UK energy policy.

[Josh R]

Why aren’t Republicans at least embarrassed by Trump’s [whatever]

Electoral consequences.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes.

[bernard11]

Electoral consequences.

Which really means cowardice and vanity. Look, I'm tired of that damn excuse.

"Oh, I might not get re-elected if I behave with integrity. That would be terrible."

Big fucking deal. None of these assholes is going to be hungry and homeless if they lose their seat. They need to do their damn job.

They mIght even get re-elected.

[Artifex]

Using Ukraine’s weakness to try to extort its minerals from it is exactly the behavior that Republicans would have recognized and loudly denounced as the sort of evil empire thing a Russia or a China would do only a decade ago.

The thing that is being deliberately blurred in the narrative rewrite is that this isn't Trump coming out of nowhere to demand Ukrainian resources. This is Trump responding to an offer of Ukrainian resource by Zelenskiy who was attempting to keep the US aid spigot flowing as reported by Reuters earlier in the month.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ukraine hands US reworked rare earths deal

Apparently the current sticking point is the difference between 'access' and 'ownership'; Sounds like a normal back and forth during negotiations to me.

[apedad]

Democrats Flip GOP Seat in Crucial Win

Democrats have flipped Iowa Senate District 35, a seat where former President Donald Trump won by 21 points in 2024. The special election followed the resignation of Republican Chris Cournoyer, who became Iowa’s lieutenant governor. Democrat Mike Zimmer had capitalized on strong voter enthusiasm and lower Republican turnout.

Senate District 35 includes Clinton County and parts of Scott and Jackson Counties, covering cities like Clinton, DeWitt, and Maquoketa. The seat was long considered a GOP stronghold.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/elections/democrats-flip-gop-seat-in-crucial-win/ar-AA1zs89t

Take the small wins as they come - and keep pushing.

[Frank Drackman]

Well Cums-a-lot did win Iowa by 18% didn't she? Bueller? Bueller? And this DemoKKKrat guy won by 339 votes, hardly a "Man-date"

Frank

[Michael P]

Huh, so a Democrat can occasionally be elected as dogcatcher. Now the Iowa Senate only has twice as many, plus one, Republicans as it does Democrats.

[John F. Carr]

"Crucial" win? It's like a British by-election years away from the next general election. Reporters obsess over the message sent by a few thousand voters. Nothing important has changed.

[Bob from Ohio]

Two thirds GOP majorities in both houses plus a GOP governor. A Dem senator there is just a sinecure.

[Michael P]

So, Kfir and Ariel Bibas were murdered by Palestinians, rather than dying in an airstrike like so many pro-Hamas propagandists said.

When are the people who care so much about the laws of war and decent behavior going to decry that kind of behavior, or even returning some random body with those two children's bodies and claiming the random body was their mother?

[Frank Drackman]

"Kfir" such a cool name, Israeli version of the French Mirage V (just like the Frogs to name a fighter after an imaginary object, but most objects related to the French Military are imaginary) replaced by the Eagle and Viper (for some reason the Israelis call the F-15 the "Falcon" and the F-16 the "Hawk") US Marine Corpse used them for their "Adversary" Squadron for a while, heard that a skilled "Stick" could "Stick" it to an FA-18.

[hobie]

I decry it. An American middle school student can win a goldfish at the fair and keep it alive for years. But these 21st century savages cannot keep four people alive? This was murder. The AfGAZAstan deal should be void

[Brett Bellmore]

Did anyone think anything different was going to happen? The Palestinians have a long track record, after all, and it's not a pretty one.

This should not change the mind of anybody who wasn't living in a cave until now.

[Don Nico]

Amen, hobie.

[bernard11]

This was murder.

Absolutely.

Look, Hamas is a gang of thugs. Those who support them might as well be supporting the Mafia.

[Kazinski]

The problem is Hamas most fervent supporters are the people of Gaza.

They are reaping what they sowed.

[Sarcastr0]

The people of Gaza are not Hamas.

Don't make genocidal generalizations.

[Mr. Bumble]

Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia:

"What we saw today in Gaza is a disgrace to Islam, an act of blasphemy against Allah."
https://x.com/NiohBerg/status/1892601464285012011

[Gasman]

Even without a war going on, the US has struggled to reunite families when all parties are alive and able to participate in the process.
Harvard has had some recent troubles managing bodies too.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is something gristly that hasn't yet been released about the murder of those two kids.

[David Nieporent]

So, Kfir and Ariel Bibas were murdered by Palestinians, rather than dying in an airstrike like so many pro-Hamas propagandists said.

I don't think it really matters much, though, given the obscenity of kidnapping two small children in the first place. Even if they had been killed in an airstrike, it would still be Hamas's fault, for taking and holding them.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's obscenely obvious that murdering kidnapped civilians is a war crime.

As is the State of Israel committing war crimes itself.

Do you not see that?

[Armchair]

Read an interesting article about the political realignment. Has an interesting chart

It basically shows the 2 party presidential vote (going back to Clinton/Dole), split between 4 quadrants. High education/High Income, High education/low income, Low education/Low income and Low Education/High income.

Anyway, back in 1996, the GOP had a substantial advantage in the high income/high education quadrant, while the Democrats had the advantage in the low education/low income quadrant. Then they took a path where the Dems journeyed into the high ed/low income quadrant, and the GOP into the Low Ed/High income. And now, they've switched, where the the GOP has the advantage with Low Ed/Low income voters, and the Dems with high ed/high income voters.

In essence, Trump/the current GOP is more like the Democrats of 1996 than the GOP of 1996...

https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/one-simple-question-for-democrats

[Frank Drackman]

If the rule you DemoKKKrats followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule? OK, I love that quote, blow me.

[hobie]

Yeah. You just killed any progress you had made

[Brett Bellmore]

If you look at the two parties as clusters in a high dimension "issue space", they remain distinct clusters, but the axis between them is continually shifting and rotating in that space. This tends to confuse people who expect that axis to stay put.

You'd more reasonably expect parties to remain ideologically static in a multi-party democracy, where the shifting coalitions are between parties, not within them.

[Armchair]

The GOP really is the party of the working class is what's coming out of all this. The Democrats have in essence given it up.

[tylertusta]

Yup. They've been bleeding support for the past 30 years. All Trump did was accelerate the change.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

God I love when you guys encourage each other to greater heights of ridiculousness!

[Kazinski]

You are absolutely right: the only reason Dems lost the Whitehouse and the Senate, and kept their narrow deficit in the House was because they didn't do a good enough job communicating their message.

Give Kamala more time and a bigger budget and she will destroy JD Vance in 4 years.

Stay the course, you are that close.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I'm not sure who that is addressed to. I am not a Democrat. But the notion that Republicans in general or MAGA in particular is looking out for the working class in this country is laughable. Neither party is at this point.

[hobie]

A major difference is that no party in 1996 would have bowed down to the Russian state

[Armchair]

No party is doing that now....

[hobie]

You gotta be fucking kidding me...

[ThePublius]

Negotiating with, talking with Putin is not bowing down to the Russian state. How do you expect to end the war without diplomacy?

[tylertusta]

You see, what he means to say is that if Democrats negotiate a deal with Russia, it's high-minded statesmanship. If Republicans were to negotiate the exact same deal with Russia, it's a sign that they're corrupt Russian toadies who owe allegiance to Putin.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yeah, negotiating a deal with Russia about Ukraine with Ukraine not present, and giving away negotiating points before negotiations even start. Pretty high-minded statesmanship going on there.

[Bob from Ohio]

"expect to end the war"

Hobie doesn't want that, he wants to fight to the last Ukrainian.

[bernard11]

So here the cultists are, defending betrayal of allies, insulting Europe, kowtowing to an aggressive dictator, and generally dishonorable behavior, just because it's Trump.

It's disgusting.

[Krayt]

Speaking of the 16 dimensional axis of party sentiments rotating around slowly (like the precession of the Earth changing what is the "north star" every 20,000 years), I never expected Republicans to be mouthing "Better Red than dead!"

Thanks for your concern, 1960s communist youths!

[hobie]

It's partly why I call Trump's recently released militia of cop-beaters the "Red Hats". If any are wearing brown shirts, it's a plus

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ummm... Ted Kennedy offered to spin Soviet Propaganda in 1984.

[Dr. Ed 2]

MAGA -- not GOP -- is working class and Dems are now the Robber Barons (i.e. tech).

[bernard11]

Dems are now the Robber Barons (i.e. tech).

Like Elon Musk, for example?

[apedad]

Defense stocks tumble after Trump proposes military spending cuts, while European defense firms surge

- U.S. defense stocks plunged after President Trump proposed cutting the military budget by half, causing major contractors like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman to lose significant value.

- European defense stocks surged as leaders discussed increasing military spending, with companies like Rheinmetall and BAE Systems seeing double-digit gains.

Yaaaaaay USA!

[Brett Bellmore]

Indeed, yay. It is seriously about time Europe defended themselves; Their economy is nearly as large as ours, after all.

As it is, with one friendly border, and one hostile border with a much poorer country, our inherent need for national defense properly should be quite low.

[Sarcastr0]

Now do Israel.

History shows us that withdrawing into a nationalist defensive crouch doesn't actually keep us secure. Nor is it good for the world.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Oh noes! Will someone please think of Israel!

After all, that's what America's prime directive is: support and defend Israel.

Fuck her citizen's. Jews first! No amount of America's treasure and sons and daughters can be spared to protect Israel!

WE MUST PROTECT ISRAEL AT ALL COSTS!!!

[RedheadedPharoh]

Hey everyone, look how good the World is Doing with America protecting it!

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

[Brett Bellmore]

"Now do Israel."

Israel has hostile borders, and insanely hostile borders. They have no friendly borders. It's not remotely the situation we face bordering only on Canada, (Friendly if a bit prickly.) and Mexico. (Absolutely hostile, but usually capable of being intimidated.)

[Sarcastr0]

Why are we involved with Israel?

By your logic above, it's seriously time for Israel to defend itself.

[Note that I do not agree with your logic, and think that maintaining Israel, even as awful is it is acting these days, is one of the good things we have done and continue to do in this world.]

[Don Nico]

If you think Israel is acting awfully your moral compass is seriously broken or you are an anti-Semite to the core.

[Mr. Bumble]

More likely just a dumb shit who likes to shit post while accusing others of doing so.

[Ed Grinberg]

If you think Israel is acting awfully your moral compass is seriously broken

Well, he's a leftist, isn't he? You don't need antisemitism (or, as he'd probably put it, "antizionism") to figure out that "[his] moral compass is seriously broken"...

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

yawn

[Sarcastr0]

Criticizing the Netanyahu government shouldn't draw out a knee-jerk accusation of antisemitism like that from you.

Plenty of American Jews agree with me, as you well know.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Plenty of American Jews agree with me"

Stop Jew-washing your opinions.

You also didn't say "Netanyahu government" but Israel.

[Sarcastr0]

When accused of antisemitism, pointing out that you're also calling a ton of Jews antisemetic seems a pretty good point to make.

I fail to see the difference other than connotation between Israel's actions and the Netanyahu admin's policies.

[Bob from Ohio]

"seems a pretty good point "

In fact its not. We are calling those Jews collaborators, though some like Peter Beinart are Jew haters.

[Sarcastr0]

I think this is when I call you antisemetic, based on the standards as I understand them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

This is coming from someone who thinks that saying "All lives matter" is racist.

[Don Nico]

You did not say anything about Mr Netanhayu, but against the actions of Israel and the IDF. We can all see through your smokescreen.

[Sarcastr0]

Criticizing the actions of Israel is not antisemetic.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, if you ignore the war crimes, they're acting wonderfully.

[Bob from Ohio]

"awful is it is acting these days"

Oh, did they murder two infants and probably their mom and parade the bodies before a cheering crowd? Did they say they were returning the mom but substitute a random woman, probably Arab? Did they plant bombs in multiple buses timed to explode at rush hour, during a "cease fire"?

[Sarcastr0]

It's a pretty damming statement that your defense is 'they're better than Hamas.'

[Bob from Ohio]

whatever.

I said on 10/8/2023 that you couldn't "both side" this but you persist. Though you've been tilting the Hamas way recently.

[Sarcastr0]

'you can't criticize Israel without supporting Hamas' is stupid and harmful to the interests of Israel.

It alo is a logical and moral shambles. But that's Bob all over.

[Bob from Ohio]

"moral shambles"

Right back at you.

They strangled two infants and you'd rather attack Israel.

[Sarcastr0]

Again, why do you think it's gotta be either or?

[TwelveInchPianist]

What either or? Did I miss the part where you criticized Hamas for strangling the children?

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, I stayed out of this mudfight. All I can say is that you do it to yourself. I wish you wouldn't.

[Don Nico]

Sure,
Israel has a real army and air force which is commanded by leaders with years of combat experience.
Tell me one EU cuontry that could fight successfully on several fronts even with weapons from the US.

Now for the usual IDF joke: The IDF is an Air Force that has an Army that has a Country.

[Gasman]

Definitely Europe needs more conventional forces.
Because I hope like hell that exactly zero US war plans involve sacrificing US cities to nukes while quibbling over European cities the Ruskies might set their sights on.
It should be clearly known to all other NATO members that the US will protect itself first and that the US nuclear umbrella over them is not real.

[Krayt]

Fail. That's the whole point in an alliance. I'm fine with the US shouldering the burden and Euro states being underperformers. Let us be the only real superpower, outdistancing everyone else put together.

Which is why wanting to make things easier for China and Russia under some guise as you've glowingly described seems oddly for some other purpose.

You know what? Strike that response. I note in what you said the US should not become involved if Russia nukes Europe.

This is the 4th time in as many days I've read things along this concept, on different fora.

Someone out there is pushing this mass murderous trial balloon, as if the end game was to get the US out of Europe so Russia could nuclear extort things with free reign. Which may also precipitate a dictatorial collapse in some of the threatened nations.

Whoever this benefits, it sure as hell isn't a free world.

[David Nieporent]

At the very least, it'll prompt more European countries to go nuclear, which is not in our interest either.

[Don Nico]

They don't need more. You forget about France and the UK.
Germany is not going to go nuclear even if the AfD were to win. As for Sweden, that is possible.

Also, why is a Eurobomb not in the interest of the US. Please explain in detail.

[David Nieporent]

If you don't understand why nuclear proliferation is undesirable for the U.S., I do not think I am going to be able to explain it to you in a Volokh comment.

[David Nieporent]

They don't need more. You forget about France and the UK

Why do you think that a country on Russia's front lines, already having been abandoned by the US, is going to trust that other countries not on said front lines will have its back?

France, in particular, has always made clear that its nuclear arsenal is independent of NATO.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Gee, that's a difficult question. Who could it be?

[Don Nico]

Mr K.,
If they do, the UK and France have 500 nukes between the two of them. Quit the silly comments

[bernard11]

We do not have a hostile border. That's just dumb.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, I don't see why Pentagon reductions can't be done. Everything is on the table for spending reductions. It is about time.

My total US stock market index fund didn't register a blip over it. My total international stock market index fund is doing just fine (and outperforming US YTD, which is rare).

I don't think 8% year for 5 years quite adds up to half. That would whack ~35% over 5 years (from present level), net. I am good with that, provided we can significantly increase lethality.

[hobie]

Will have to see if they scale back on satellite launch contracts

[RedheadedPharoh]

This dude's actually weeping for the Military Industrial Complex.

lmao good lord, Trump has broken you people.

[tylertusta]

Remember the time they were actually against war and called people warmongers?

[ThePublius]

What's your point? You just hate the U.S.?

What did you expect with cutting of military spending?

[Michael P]

Speaking from inside the belly of the beast, there is inefficiency that probably could be cut. My boss wanted to buy (eye-bleedingly expensive) Brand X computers because they're the recognized name and we use them for big projects with a different customer. We eventually settled on computers that cost 35-40% as much (depending on the configuration details) and have given us no problems to date. Other "overhead" processes (like CM and QA) can be much less effective than they should be for various reasons that often boil down to people being dumb and they get held to low standards.

It used to be that nobody got fired for buying IBM, but anyone who has to deal with IBM nowadays knows where that led the company in terms of innovation and support quality. Incumbents need a healthy fear of losing the farm in order to stay agile and performant.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not a headline to say that the Pentagon has some inefficiencies.

But nothing the Trump admin has done bespeaks any appetite to actually address inefficiencies.
They're just destroying stuff and posting lies on twitter.

If you want to address inefficiencies there's a ton of GAO recommendations going back decades you can go through.

[SRG2]

I am reminded of Apple's response to that IBM slogan. They placed the IBM ad inside their own ad and said, "yes, but did they get promoted?" Clever, but ineffectual because people are more concerned about being fired...

[John F. Carr]

We need to spend less money on Bond gadgets and more money on logistics, people, and cheap weapons.

I am surprised that Musk took Warren's advice. When DOGE was founded she said she wanted higher taxes and lower defense spending. She got half her wish.

[SRG2]

The problem with spending money on logistics, people and cheap weapons is that it's money not being spent on expensive items from major donors with factories cleverly distributed all around the country...

[Commenter_XY]

In the not so distant future, John F Carr, the 'people' component will be less and less, with far more emphasis on AI-enabled autonomous weaponry (drones -- maritime, air, space).

[John F. Carr]

America should be buying lots of cheap drones. Not the RQ-9 class that costs as much as a manned aircraft.

[Brett Bellmore]

America should relearn how to mass produce cheap drones from domestic parts. It's not a good idea to be dependent for munitions on your likely foe, or even sources he could disrupt shipping from.

[David Nieporent]

AI-enabled autonomous weaponry

https://youtu.be/4DQsG3TKQ0I?t=24

[Commenter_XY]

We're not at SkyNet level. Yet. 😉

[Krayt]

True autonymous war robots should bring the death penalty for leaders that use them.

[Swede425]

LOL!
Now all the Europeans have to do is to do it.
Maybe they're so mad at Trump/Vance that they'll find the political will (and the money) to defend their own sorry asses.
Of course, they'll also have to actually get along with each other, too.
Ok, that made me larff.

[tylertusta]

It's not like my stock in Boeing was going to recover anyways.

[Michael P]

Man who called for planes to crash, and previously described non-Muslims as "animals", shocked that people saw him as calling for violence.

https://nypost.com/2025/02/18/media/mehdi-hassan-host-deletes-poorly-worded-x-post-after-plane-crash/

[Sarcastr0]

FFS the NY Post *link* calls it poorly worded.

I thought the animals thing was kind of a showstopper. But here we are:
"“Like a lot of journos (humans?) I’ve said things years ago that I now deeply regret. Chief among them for me is, more than a decade ago, in my 20s, when I wasn’t a public figure, I gave a bunch of speeches to students on Islam/extremism. And I said dumb offensive ranty stuff,” he said in a Twitter thread on Monday."

I don't know this guy, but your trying to make him something he doesn't seem to be.
Are you one of the 'expel American Muslims before they outbreed and take over' guys?

[Michael P]

I encourage you to read him, or at least about him, before you jump to defend him. He regularly puts his foot in his mouth like that.

And he's more British than American, so your attempted personal attack at the end fails to land. Hasan is a good example of why Vance warned that the UK might become the first fully Shariah nuclear state.

[Sarcastr0]

So you want the *UK* to expel Muslims before they take over.

The US you're silent about.

Yeah, Trump winning has really lead plenty on this website to show what they are.

[Michael P]

Your perpetual outrage at imagined positions of other commenters is tedious, especially when you apply it in defense of illiberal jerks under a mistaken -- and mistakenly applied -- theory that the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, you're attacking a guy based on calling him a Muslim radical.

When I ask about it, you say the UK might go Sharia.

And then you're like 'I'm not for expelling Muslims, why do you strawman?'

Then what do those comments add up to, Michael?

[Michael P]

No, you're just making shit up and hoping not to get called on it. As usual. I criticized Hasan for what he said; you were the one who relied on labels. I pointed out why our VP warned that the UK might go to Sharia, and you strawmanned the hell out of that. You are progressing from bore to boor.

[Sarcastr0]

Quit with your angry weasel act for once.

What should the UK do to prevent these dastardly people like Hassan making them go Sharia?

[Ed Grinberg]

"angry weasel act"
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pot_calling_the_kettle_black

[Sarcastr0]

I see Michael chose not to discuss what he has in mind to prevent the UK from going Sharia.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Yet another MAGA field mark: misuse of "pointed out."

[Armchair]

Had an interesting discussion Monday about the war in Ukraine, and why I'm worried.

So, here are a series of maps from the Institute for the Study of War. The area I'm particularly interested in are the front lines in the Donbass/Donetsk region. The reason is, these are the heavily fortified, fought over area. It's not a war of surprise or maneuver there. And what you see is from 2023 to 2024 the war lines remained largely static. The defenders were well dug in. But into 2024....some of those dug in points started to be eroded (especially around avdiivka). That's not necessarily a big problem...as long as the defenders can reset and have enough troops to.

But...if they don't, what you see is a continuous advance. And that's what it looks like, a slow, but continuous advance to 2025...where before Ukraine could hold the line, now it looks like they can't necessarily.

Worth clicking through the maps....

February, 2023
https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Donetsk%20Battle%20Map%20Draft%20February%2019%2C2023_0.png

February 2024
https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Donetsk%20Battle%20Map%20Draft%20February%2020%2C%202024.png

August 2024
https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Donetsk%20Battle%20Map%20Draft%20August%2020%2C%202024.png

February 2025
https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Luhansk%20Oblast%20February%2020%2C%202025.png

[Michael P]

(How many depressing similarities to the trenches of WWI?)

[Armchair]

More than a fair number.

[Commenter_XY]

It is a human meat grinder, Armchair. It also demonstrates that RUS have the will (and capacity) to grind out an advance, paid in UKR/RUS blood.

Hopefully the war ends very soon on terms everyone can live with.

[bernard11]

Apparently, in Trump's mind, the "everyone" you refer to does not include Ukraine itself.

[Commenter_XY]

It especially includes UKR. Zelenskyy is making some horrible mistakes, right now, vis a vis The Donald.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why are you "worried", exactly?

[Armchair]

A continuous advance against a well defended front...one where the defender can't reset...often forecasts a complete collapse of the defensive front.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

...which "worries" you because?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I wonder if anyone held up military aid in 2024 and contributed to Ukraine losing some of their most heavily fortified locations because they had to ration ammo so severely?

Mike Johnson, I think was his name.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Dear Covidiots and other Covidian Cultists:

That Big Pharma company you got tattoo'd on your arm gave you VAIDS.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.02.18.25322379v1.full.pdf

You don't have "Long COVID", you got vaccine induced AIDS. Congrats morons.

[Brett Bellmore]

This jumped out at me: " Further, individuals with PVS exhibited elevated levels of circulating spike protein compared to healthy controls."

The way the mRNA vaccine is supposed to work, you should only have circulating spike proteins for a relatively short while. NOT on an ongoing basis. The mRNA drives spike protein production only until it degrades, and then it stops. Simulating an actual infection; That's what vaccines are supposed to do, simulate actual infections, only without the health risk of BEING infected.

I suspect that what we're going to find is that if an mRNA vaccine hits a cell with an active retro-virus infection, the vaccine can get permanently transcribed into the cell's DNA along with the retro-virus. Resulting in what amounts to a perpetual production of spike proteins, like being continually revaccinated for the rest of your life. This probably WOULD eventually have bad effects on your immune system.

That requires a relatively rare combination of events, but not so rare that you wouldn't see it happening.

If that's what is going on, then the mRNA vaccine concept is not as promising as I thought. Though I can think of ways to work around this, they'd negate a lot of the advantages of bothering with mRNA vaccines in the first place.

[Commenter_XY]

Red, I believe the term is: Branch Covidians. 😉

[Frank Drackman]

Call me a Dirty Old Man (OK conspirators, on 3, "Drackman, You're a Dirty Old Man!")
But I find AOC, umm, what's that medical term for "Makes me get a Boner"??
"Tumescent", that's the $5 word I was looking for, she makes me get "Tumescent" Especially when she gets all hot and bothered by smart rich guys,
I think she's auditioning for the lead in a Hallmark Rom-Com, probably with Brad Pitt (I know he's 30 yrs older, thats how it works) or Matthew McConaughey (25 yrs, see above) She'd be the loud mouthed Liberal Congresswoman, He'd be the Roguish MAGA guy from Oklahoma or Texas (and you have to have an Adam Schiff Dork who's also trying to date her), she can't stand the MAGA guy, but eventually falls for him, Sexual Congress ensues,
Mrs. Drackman loves those Hallmark Rom-Coms, which means I have to pretend to love them too.

Frank "I'm not jerking off, I'm Tumescing"

[Satchmo_Lives]

Frank maximizing the meaning of "open thread" after receiving dictionary.com's word of the day.

[Archibald Tuttle]

The operative sentence in Article II, Section 1 says "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." It could hardly be simpler
and more direct.

How the hell could Congress and the Judicial interpret that to mean that the Constitution authorizes independent agencies?

[Sarcastr0]

You seem to be assuming a definition of executive power, and one of legislative power, that is unwritten but you're very very sure of.

That's nice and all, but insisting everyone share what's in your head isn't how this republic works.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

What exactly is the 'executive Power?' Did you by chance look further down in Article II to see if any Powers are listed to answer that question?

[Armchair]

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but no one is entitled to their own facts"

I had the misfortune to read an article that said this as it's intro. The problem with the statement is that people groups opinions, generalizations and policy decisions into a category called "facts" then use the statement to justify shutting down conversations questions and debates. Let's look at one of the author's "Anti-science myths"

"3. Organic and non-GMO crops are healthier and more nutritious for human beings than their non-organic or GMO counterparts. "

For the record, I'm generally pro GMO and could care less about organic versus non-organic. But that doesn't mean it's an unabashed "fact" that there's "no" health differences between organic/non organic. There may be examples where it does actually make a difference. There may be new GMO strains which could be problematic. There is a lot that we may just not know.

Again...I'm generally pro-GMO. But to call the statement a "fact" that there are no differences, totally, absolutely, and use it to shut down debate. That's a problem.

If you're going to use the "fact" label...keep it to actual facts. This particular GMO rice strain provides these benefits, in comparison to this non-GMO strain. Don't overgeneralize the "facts" to a general statement (often along your policy views). And...this is key...because if you do that, and later are proven wrong in an example, it calls into question every other time you called something a "fact" that couldn't be questioned.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/7-anti-science-myths/

[Brett Bellmore]

Indeed. I'm reminded of an experimental GMO version of celery, which increased the amount of some chemicals native to celery that effectively repelled insects. It worked great, the celery was unbothered by insect pests, and tasted about the same.

And people who ate it got chemically induced photosensitivity, they'd sunburn extremely easily for a while afterwards. So it never got marketed.

Genetic modification of plants is just as capable of having bad effects as plant breeding is.

[apedad]

Treasury sets March 21 deadline for millions of businesses to report ownership information or risk fines of $10,000 or more

The Treasury Department has set a new deadline of March 21 for millions of businesses to fulfill a new reporting requirement on "beneficial ownership information," after a court order allowed the federal agency to start enforcing the measure.

The Corporate Transparency Act, which Congress enacted in 2021, requires small businesses to disclose the identity of people who directly or indirectly own or control the company. The measure aims to prevent criminals from hiding illicit activity conducted through shell companies or opaque ownership structures, according to the Treasury.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on Feb. 18 lifted a nationwide injunction that had prevented the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, known as FinCEN, which is part of the Treasury, from enforcing the Corporate Transparency Act.

The BOI reporting measure applies to about 32.6 million businesses, including certain corporations, limited liability companies and others, according to federal estimates.

https://www.fincen.gov/boi

This seems to be 100% in opposite of Trump's current actions so am not sure why Treasury is still pushing this.

[Riva]

Does that include all the leftist NGOs getting millions in gov’t grants?

[Ska]

Not if they're tax exempt.

[SRG2]

For those who need to file - I did - herewith: https://boiefiling.fincen.gov/

You'll need an image of your passport ID page or driving licence

[Ska]

That's the part that really drives me nuts. The reporting itself? Stupid and redundant - like many registrations. Without the ID requirement it would just be an ordinary waste of time and minor drain on resources - bad, yet typical BS. The ID part of it? Adds another layer of intrusiveness and risk on the overwhelming majority of normal small business owners who are not running companies with fake people listed as owners.

Honestly, how many companies that file tax returns including partner/shareholder information are listing fake owners on the tax returns? This program is going to get to the bottom of that miniscule group?

[Dr. Ed 2]

So you need a photo ID to file your taxes but not to vote?

And as neither a passport nor driver's license is mandatory, what about the mythical hordes of people who have neither?

[David Nieporent]

So you need a photo ID to file your taxes but not to vote?

No. This has nothing to do with filing taxes.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Now do FATCA...

I will never understand what valuable information the government gleans from forcing me to report, at the point of a sword, that I've transferred the same $100k between three foreign bank accounts, all of which now indicate a "high" annual balance of $100k.

Before the Muskateers came along, I was hopeful that Treasury would not therefore assume I had $300k to report/account for in my tax returns. Now, I'm pretty sure they'll calculate it as $300m...

[Commenter_XY]

How much time did it take to complete? An hour, 30 minutes, 2 days? The amount of time you spend on compliance matters, also.

Did you have everything ready, did the website tell you what docs you needed?

New deadline is March 21.

[SRG2]

Less than 5 minutes. Would have been even quicker if I hadn't had to scramble to find my EIN, and there hadn't been a battle between drop-downs and autofills.

FWIW earlier this week I renewed my US passport online, and that took longer - 15m or so, but was a fairly smooth process.

[Commenter_XY]

So for you, CTA was a nothingburger in terms of compliance difficulty and compliance cost. That is good, actually.

Who will really have difficulty, then?

[SRG2]

LLCs owned by LLCs, I think...

[bernard11]

It took me a few minutes, easily less than 30.

As I recall, there were some sections I could skip, because my business is a very small LLC.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, so compliance is quick and easy for your LLC, similar to SRG2, it is a nothingburger for you. Which again, I think is very good. It should not be onerous at all.

More complicated structures will take more time, especially the ones that employ complicated tax set-ups.

[David Nieporent]

People who have "more complicated structures" with "complicated tax set-ups" probably have accountants and/or lawyers to handle this.

[Commenter_XY]

Who bill by the hour, no doubt, for completing those forms. 😉

[John F. Carr]

The information could solve the jurisdictional problem LLCs face in federal court. You can't sue an LLC without knowing where the owners live. Now the government knows. But the ownership information is for government eyes only. Foreign governments too. Not domestic litigants.

One could form a secret front company that is still exempt from reporting. It can't have a single person acting as CEO or owning more than a 25% interest. Five drug lords form a company with equal shares requiring a majority vote for all actions. Nobody is in charge. Or if you like, five investors in a totally legitimate import-export business. I remember coworker telling me about the VC company he used to work for. The investors would vote on other investors' distributions. No one person could make the decision. It only worked if the investors trusted each other.

[Ska]

Let's say I have five members in an LLC. It's a partnership for federal taxation. Somebody has to be listed as partner representative, so you have someone, somewhere, being reported as an "important decision-maker" (FinCEN's term). Corporation? List of officers, and someone has to be President, and likely a Secretary or Treasurer (or both) for incorporation in whichever state they incorporate. Even your five member VC company could have all five members be tagged as important decision-makers - assuming that none of them direct how the business operates, they are deciding on equity structuring (partner distributions) or finances (compensation schemes for senior officers). I think it would be tough to argue through the built-in catch-all reporting requirements. They even have a category in their substantial control list called catch-all.

Of course if the entity is being noncompliant in its corporate/organization filings and tax filings, there's little reason to believe they'd be compliant with this reporting requirement.

[Magister]

FinCEN expects that every reporting company will be substantially controlled by one or more individuals, and therefore that every reporting company will be able to identify and report at least one beneficial owner to FinCEN.

No beneficial owners would probably be a signal to investigate the company, though.

[David Nieporent]

This seems to be 100% in opposite of Trump's current actions so am not sure why Treasury is still pushing this.

Maybe Trump accidentally picked a Treasury secretary who has quaint notions that government officials should obey the law?

[A Woman of No Importance]

Quotation of the Day:

"Many people would be willing to sell their souls to the devil if they could only find a devil willing to buy. In the person of Donald Trump, the Republican Party and the evangelical church have both finally found a devil willing to buy."

[Riva]

You really are of no importance.

[A Woman of No Importance]

Maybe you should re-read the play.

[Riva]

Oscar Wilde was writing satire. You are embarrassingly serious.

[A Woman of No Importance]

The entire Trump administration would not be believed as satire.

[Sarcastr0]

I saw a production of Earnest where they men were all directed as if they were indeed in a satire and the women were all played serious.

It was very jarring.

[Bob from Ohio]

"re-read the play"

Have to read it first. Pretty obscure play to make it your handle.

"widely regarded as the least successful of his four drawing room plays." wikipedia

[A Woman of No Importance]

So, no disagreement on the merits of the comment, just on my handle?

[Bob from Ohio]

Your comment had no merit.

I find obscure screen-names weird.

[A Woman of No Importance]

And I find Trump voters weird. But at least any weirdnesses I have, such as they are, don't give aid and comfort to people like Putin.

[Paladin_44]

Try this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJFQcB781Uo

[David Nieporent]

In the person of Donald Trump, the Republican Party and the evangelical church have both finally found a devil willing to buy."

Well, he doesn't have one of his own.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'd just say it's not very snappy, you know?

Cf., "He who saves his Country does not violate any Law."

See what I mean? Sure, in a modern context, it's obscene, but it's punchy (in a Tiki torchlit Leni Riefenstahl kinda way).

[Martinned2]

How are we feeling about the notion of prosecuting a US Congressman for criticising Elon Musk?

https://robertgarcia.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-robert-garcia-statement-threats-department-justice-over-criticism

https://bsky.app/profile/briantylercohen.bsky.social/post/3linaktrzqc2q

[ThePublius]

It's not for criticizing Elon Musk is for threatening violence against Musk - "...bring actual weapons to this bar fight. This is an actual fight." The letter said nothing about criticizing Musk.

Did you even ready the letter sent to Garcia, or are you just totally against anything Trump and Musk that it blinds you?

[SRG2]

We know perfectly well that this does not remotely constitute a prosecutable threat.

[ThePublius]

And how do we know that? It sure looks like a threat to me.

[SRG2]

No it doesn't.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know it doesn't look like a threat to ThePublius? Mind reading at a distance despite pseudonyms? Impressive!

[Noscitur a sociis]

I actually do believe that ThePublius is simply opportunistically lying. That would probably be the less embarrassing explanation: if the comment offends his tender sensibilities otherwise, he is one hell of a special snowflake, and probably needs to find a blanket and a safe space for a few decades.

[Ridgeway]

Wouldn't a blanket be the worst thing for a snowflake? Other than a space heater, I guess.

[ThePublius]

Lying about what? What's the lie?

At what point does a threat on TV or the internet not become a threat, but simply harmless rhetoric? Who determines that?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t think that you actually believe that Rep. Garcia intended to threaten anyone, or that anyone actually felt threatened by them.

Now, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you’re actually so pathetically pusillanimous that the thought of someone saying “What the American public want is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight” genuinely terrifies you, and you’re oblivious enough to think other people are as cowardly as you are.

If so, I apologize for accusing you of lying.

[ThePublius]

If he meant if metaphorically, rhetorically, he should have said "actual" weapons. When he used the adjective "actual" he broke the metaphor.

[Martinned2]

I did read it, which is why I know that not only does it not contain any sort of actionable threat, but that no English-speaking person could believe otherwise. So please take your lies and shove them where the sun don't shine.

[ThePublius]

Another one with the "lies." Get lost. Take the plain text of what Garcia said, and the plain text of the letter he received, and don't apply your own twisted interpretation to it. It's a threat! If not, then what?

[SRG2]

It's a threat! If not, then what?

Rhetoric.

[ThePublius]

Where do you draw the line? Are actual fighting words always just rhetoric?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Where do you draw the line? "

Its rhetoric when its said by his ideological friends.

[SRG2]

You're arguing in bad faith.

[ThePublius]

I don't really understand that comment, but I am being quite sincere. If it's simply rhetoric, let Garcia tell a judge that it's just rhetoric. I'll note that it is inciteful, too, i.e., dangerous "rhetoric."

[SRG2]

I don't really understand that comment, but I am being quite sincere

Two lies in one sentence.

[Noscitur a sociis]

1. Fighting words are unprotected because they create a risk that the person hearing them will be so angry that they will immediately attack the speaker. Saying, “what the American public want is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight. This is an actual fight for democracy, for the future of this country” does not create that kind of risk.

2. Even Garcia had said something that could create a risk if said face to face (like calling Elon Musk a “racketeer”), he instead said it on TV. There was no risk that Elon Musk was going to be so angry he would go down to the studio, break in, and attack Garcia.

3. To the extent it still exists, the fighting words doctrine allows the government to criminalize speech: it doesn’t automatically make it illegal. There is currently no federal statute that would purport to criminalize these comments as fighting words.

Other than that, great comment!

[ThePublius]

The risk isn't that Musk going to be so angry as to attack Garcia, it's that Garcia might have incited someone to attack Musk.

Remember, we've had two assassination attempts on Trump.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The risk isn't that Musk going to be so angry as to attack Garcia, it's that Garcia might have incited someone to attack Musk.

Then you’re not talking about fighting words, you’re talking about incitement. Which raises two further issues:

1. To be punishable as incitement, speech must both be both directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and likely to incite or produce such action. This was neither.

2. Incitement can be punished, but like fighting words there needs to be an actual law punishing it. What statute do you think was potentially violated even if these comments were punishable?

[David Nieporent]

Where do you draw the line? Are actual fighting words always just rhetoric?

The legal term you're looking for is "incitement," not "fighting words." Fighting words are when you say something to someone's face to anger them to attacking you. E.g., insults, racial slurs, calling a cop with incredibly delicate sensitivities a "God-damned racketeer." That sort of thing.

Incitement is when you try to rile people up to commit a crime. For that to be illegal, you must (a) intend to cause imminent lawless action and (b) your words must be likely to cause such action. And if what Garcia said, in the context in which he said it (an interview on CNN) were enough to constitute incitement, then Trump's words on the morning of J6 were treason. Because, you know, speaking to an angry mob and telling them that a crime is being committed right near them and they have to march over and stop it is a lot more inciting.

[Commenter_XY]

This post was very helpful = incitement definition

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Rhetoric."

There's a woman being prosecuted for saying "Delay, deny, depose. You people are next" on a phone call with Blue Cross. If enough reasonable people view that as sufficiently a threat to prosecute, how is this any better?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Well, in one situation, a member of Congress is telling a TV interviewer that the public wants Democrats to vigorously resist what Elon Musk is doing. In another, someone is telling an employee of a company that she’s going to murder them.

That’s the big difference.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You need to read more carefully. In the first situation, you have a Congressman saying he's going to murder Elon Musk on live TV, and in the second, you have a woman venting on a phone call.

Anybody can paraphrase.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I did read it, which is why I know that not only does it not contain any sort of actionable threat, but that no English-speaking person could believe otherwise."

The threat was

...what the American people want is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight. This is an actual fight for democracy...

Maybe your English isn't so good?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Which bar were they in? Were the police called?

[TwelveInchPianist]

What difference does it make?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, once you realize there is no bar, maybe you'll realize there is no threat of a bar fight...

[TwelveInchPianist]

He didn't say it was an actual bar fight.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I did read it,"

If you read the letter, why are you talking about prosecuting anyone? The letter didn't say anything about prosecution.

[David Nieporent]

If you read the letter, why are you talking about prosecuting anyone? The letter didn't say anything about prosecution.

Another bad faith argument. The letter was written by a prosecutor, on his official letterhead. Areas of responsibility for prosecutors generally do not involve parades or poetry reading contests.

[TwelveInchPianist]

They also involve investigation. And there's certainly nothing wrong with following up after a statement like Garcia's to see if he represents an actual danger, which is what this letter is doing.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Democrats lie to us; Republicans lie to themselves."

According to the aforementioned pearl of wisdom, TPub is simply engaging in prototypical Republican behaviour, to wit, convincing himself or herself that black really is white, for political purposes.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If saying, “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J." at a political protest is not a true threat (and it’s not), it’s hard to see how saying that in a TV interview could be.

[ThePublius]

You guys speak as if there can NEVER be a true threat. Is that what you believe? "On TV" makes it not a threat? How about in writing, in speech, in tweets? Can there really be no threats?

[Noscitur a sociis]

On the contrary, I think the law enforcement generally, and federal law enforcement in particular, should make investigating and prosecuting threats a much higher priority, and I’ve been saying that since at least the first Trump administration.

I do, however, think they should confine those prosecutions to cases actually involving actual threats. For instance, from some of the screenshots I’ve seen it looks like Elon Musk and other DOGE members have been getting actual threats, and I hope those are being investigated (preferably through actual criminal investigations, not posturing demand letters). This one, however, ain’t it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's not a true threat because it was conditional on the speaker being inducted into the military, which he swore would never happen.

Garcia's words were unconditional and, taken literally, were an incitement to violence. I suppose the argument is that we shouldn't take them literally because of a subjective belief that a congressman is unlikely to make a literal threat. But maybe not everyone is certain enough to give the Congressman the benefit of the doubt.

[TwelveInchPianist]

*The "If they ever make me carry a rifle..." was not a true threat because...

[Noscitur a sociis]

1. Even taken literally, i.e. that Rep. Garcia wanted people to take actual weapons to a real-life bar fight, that would not be a federally-punishable threat. See United States v. Bagdasarian, 652 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2011) (overturning threat convictions for “Re: Obama fk the niggar, he will have a 50 cal in the head soon.” and “shoot the nig country fkd for another 4 years+”).

2. It shouldn’t be taken literally because the literal meaning doesn’t make any sense in context. There is no actual bar fight for people to take weapons to.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If "Delay, deny, depose. You people are next" is a true threat, it's hard to see how this isn't.

But I guess it doesn't matter, since it looks like the claim that anyone threatened prosecution over the comments is a lie.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The letter does in fact note that Garcia called Elon Musk a “dick” and does not mention “threatening violence against Musk.” The letter simply refers to “threats against public officials,” and the only threat that Garcia might have been making was a threat to call Musk a “dick” again in the future. Whether he even threated to do that is a close call. Here’s the transcript; decide for yourself.

Q: Do you thing that calling Elon Musk a “dick” is effective messaging for confronting what is a potentially irreversible transformation of the U.S. goverment?

Robert Garcia: Well, he is a dick. And I think he’s also harming the American public in an enormous way. And what I think is really important, and what I think the American public want, is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight. This is an actual fight for democracy, for the future of this country, and it’s important to push back on the chairperson of this committee. [Note: Marjorie Taylor Greene is chairperson of the Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency.] I mean, Marjorie Taylor Greene talks about having decorum, about bipartisanship? This is the person that lies more than anybody else in the entire Congress. And so if she’s going to make a mockery of hearings, I want to make sure that us as Democrats are bringing that same level of energy.

And of course, after those comments, we went into exactly what Elon Musk is trying to do: dismantling the Department of Labor, dismantling the Department of Education, dismantling all of our consumer protection agencies. It’s all important, but it’s also important to get the attention of the American public, and call Elon Musk out for what he is, and to make people know that Marjorie Taylor Greene is not a serious legislator, and she shouldn’t be treated as such.

[TwelveInchPianist]

From the letter:

"This sounds to some like a threat to Mr. Musk."

[TwelveInchPianist]

"How are we feeling about the notion of prosecuting a US Congressman for criticising Elon Musk?"

Do you worry that you will lose credibility for claiming that the Congressman might be prosecuted for criticizing Elon Musk, instead of allegedly threatening Elon Musk, which is what the letter said?

Why lie?

[TwelveInchPianist]

The DoJ is asking Garcia to clarify his comments, which is simply prudent.

Can you imagine how stupid they'd feel if Garcia brought a weapon somewhere and killed or injured Musk or some of his supporters, and they had to say that they assumed it was just rhetoric?

Like they say, you know what happens when you assume...

[David Nieporent]

The DoJ is asking Garcia to clarify his comments, which is simply prudent.

You're arguing in bad faith. If they actually believed that Garcia intended to bring a weapon somewhere and assault someone, it would not in fact be "prudent" to "ask for clarification." I mean, I know we're talking about the Trump administration, but even so, how stupid do you think law enforcement is?

Q: Sir, did you actually mean to kill someone?
A: No, I was just using rhetoric.
Q: Oh, okay then, never mind.

vs.

Q: Sir, did you actually mean to kill someone?
A: Yup.
Q: Oh, okay then, you're under arrest.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You're arguing in bad faith. If they actually believed that Garcia intended to bring a weapon somewhere and assault someone, it would not in fact be "prudent" to "ask for clarification.""

1. Of course not. It's prudent if they don't believe that Garcia intended to assault someone.

2. In case it wasn't clear from the tone, my comment was largely tongue-in-cheek.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"How are we feeling about the notion of prosecuting a US Congressman for criticising Elon Musk?"

Who said anything about prosecuting a US Congressman?

[Martinned2]

Meanwhile, another one of the two dozen-odd Federal investigations of Elon Musk's businesses has just been dropped. Must be a coincidence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/20/us/politics/spacex-elon-musk-discrimination-doj.html

[Martinned2]

Another coincidence: Guess who are being brought in to replace all those FAA people that Musk just fired?

https://www.theverge.com/news/614078/faa-air-traffic-control-spacex-elon-musk-layoff-staff-shortage

[Martinned2]

I'm sure SpaceX running the FAA won't have any consequences for the civil penalty that the FAA was, until last month, seeking against SpaceX.

https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-proposes-633009-civil-penalties-against-spacex

[ThePublius]

I would much prefer SapceX running the FAA than the current crop of knuckleheads. They have ignored infrastructure FOR DECADES, and have antiquated and inadequate work rules. SpaceX actually gets things done, competently and expeditiously.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Damn, you're good at this!

[Voize of Reazon]

The FAA already has a comprehensive modernization strategy, one created by people who know what they are doing.

[ThePublius]

I'm sure they've had a comprehensive modernization strategy for decades. How about doing something about it?

[Bob from Ohio]

"two dozen-odd Federal investigations "

Good, they are just Biden political motivated investigations.

[Sarcastr0]

He says without bothering to look up anything about any of them.

[Bob from Ohio]

Occam's Razor

[Martinned2]

Merger clearance decisions now depend on whether the merging companies spend enough on advertising on Twitter:

https://www.wsj.com/business/media/x-hinted-at-possible-deal-trouble-in-talks-with-ad-giant-to-increase-spending-feb122a6

[Sarcastr0]

Martinned posted a number of stories here, but I wanted to call this one out.

This is some wild corruption. Multiple instances corroborated from multiple sources each.

[RedheadedPharoh]

My favorite part:
"Interpublic leaders interpreted the communications from X as reminders that the recently announced $13 billion deal to merge Interpublic with rival Omnicom Group OMC -0.71%decrease; red down pointing triangle could be torpedoed"

Yes, liberal dog whistles and creative interpretations are proof of "wild corruption".

But "Don't forget 10% for the Big Guy" paired with actual deposits isn't.

You Stockholm Syndrome victims are just so sad.

[David Nieporent]

But "Don't forget 10% for the Big Guy" paired with actual deposits isn't.

Nazi lying again. Never happened and there were no actual deposits.

[David Nieporent]

And just to be clear, even if it happened exactly as the Nazi claimed, it couldn't be corruption because Biden was a private citizen.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Which explains all the sweeping pardons!

[David Nieporent]

He didn't pardon himself. Or half the people who were potentially involved in the transaction that never happened. Also, the statute of limitations would be up on pretty much any possible crime that was committed in 2017.

[Ed Grinberg]

"This is some wild corruption."
Hey, remember when this joke of a commenter kept gaslighting everyone about Biden & family's shady dealings? When you'd give him a link, he'd tell you he didn't trust the source. A fucking joke...

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0 has to put on the (D)ecoder glasses. 😉

[Sarcastr0]

You mean the Comer stenographer?
Who kept treating Comer as gospel even when his breathless promises never materialized?

You thinking the WSJ is basically like Comer but for Democrats?

I think that's the equivalence you're trying to draw.

[Kazinski]

Comer isn't the one who got censured by a vote of his peers for lying to Congress, that was Adam Schiff.

[Sarcastr0]

If you think that's relevant to credibility you're more of a fool than you seem.

[John F. Carr]

Just this morning I was reading that some in high tech are upset at the Trump administration for maintaining the Biden administration's antitrust policies. The upset people must be the ones who can't afford bribes.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Trumpcoin is right there waiting to be bought.

[Kazinski]

Well you don't think their are any antitrust concerns with major advertisers admittedly colluding in their advertising platform choices?

"The lawsuit claims the companies and the advertising trade group World Federation of Advertisers violated antitrust laws and conspired to collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising from the platform.

Companies named in the lawsuit had no immediate comment. The World Federation of Advertisers has previously said that the lawsuit misconstrues the purpose and actions of its responsible media efforts and is significantly draining its finances."

And that the company in question was an active participant in the collusion:
"Interpublic Group of Cos., Inc. engages in the provision of marketing, communications, and business transformation services. It operates through the following segments: Media, Data, and Engagement Solutions, Integrated Advertising and Creativity Led Solutions, and Specialized..."

[Martinned2]

Well you don't think their are any antitrust concerns with major advertisers admittedly colluding in their advertising platform choices?

Not really. Colluding on the purchasing side is almost never an antitrust concern, unless it concerns something (like labour) that makes up a large part of the companies' cost base. That's the only way it would affect consumer welfare.

[Martinned2]

The firing of people who, it turns out, have pretty essential jobs continues:

Days after "accidentally" firing nuclear safety workers, Trump and Musk have "accidentally" fired the people racing to protect the American public from bird flu.

https://bsky.app/profile/beyer.house.gov/post/3liigudy4ts22

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Trump handled the last pandemic so well, he wants a second chance.

[Martinned2]

While the notion of a "state of the state" address is ridiculous, and shows again how the laboratories of democracy have no ideas but to run each state like a mini-Federal government, because that's the only form of democracy Americans know, the speech that Illinois governor Prizker gave on Wednesday is worth reading:

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-politics/full-text-illinois-gov-jb-pritzkers-state-of-the-state-address/3678119/

“There are people – some in my own Party – who think that if you just give Donald Trump everything he wants, he’ll make an exception and spare you some of the harm. I’ll ignore the moral abdication of that position for just a second to say — almost none of those people have the experience with this President that I do. I once swallowed my pride to offer him what he values most — public praise on the Sunday news shows — in return for ventilators and N95 masks during the worst of the pandemic. We made a deal. And it turns out his promises were as broken as the BIPAP machines he sent us instead of ventilators. Going along to get along does not work – just ask the Trump-fearing red state Governors who are dealing with the same cuts that we are. I won’t be fooled twice.
(...)
“Tyranny requires your fear and your silence and your compliance. Democracy requires your courage. So gather your justice and humanity, Illinois, and do not let the “tragic spirit of despair” overcome us when our country needs us the most.

[ThePublius]

"While the notion of a "state of the state" address is ridiculous, and shows again how the laboratories of democracy have no ideas but to run each state like a mini-Federal government, because that's the only form of democracy Americans know,...."

You have no idea how the United States works.

[Gasman]

The concept of a state bicameral legislature seems like pointless federal mimicry (all but Nebraska).
My state senator is merely a separate overlay map of representation and the state senator's function bears no similarity to my federal senator.
1. State senator represents just another gerrymandered pod of people.
2. SCOTUS has required that state senators represent equal number of people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims
3. State senators do not represent political divisions, as is the purpose of federal senators, who represent states. Counties, the logical analogy for the relationship of states to federal governance, have no representation. But then states have never been a federation of counties, rather, counties were created by the state.

[ducksalad]

(1) and (3) are only true because of (2).

Most of the colonies had bicameral legislatures, so it's not reasonable to claim that it's "mimicry" of the federal government. More the other way around.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nebraska did too -- it eliminated it as part of the Progressive movement a century ago.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Still seems rather wasteful, doesn't it?

[not guilty]

A Republican member of the House of Representatives, Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wisc.), has introduced articles of impeachment against U. S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer based upon the judge's ruling against President Trump. https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hres143/BILLS-119hres143ih.pdf

Other House Republicans are reportedly also planning articles of impeachment against judges. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-republican-files-articles-of-impeachment-against-judge-who-blocked-trump/ar-AA1zsM5F?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=15d3dc75897d48319951cae9c13f37c0&ei=14

Do these clowns think their buffoonery will advance Trump's agenda in the federal courts?

[ThePublius]

I don't know, do these clown judges think they can usurp the executive authority? Engelmayer's order was ridiculous and probably unlawful.

[not guilty]

Federal judges tend to get prickly about threats to judicial independence. And as a class they are not easily intimidated. I suspect that chatter about impeachment will cause judges who already are skeptical about the Trump administration's assault on the rule of law to steel their resolve -- and rightly so.

Of course it doesn't help the MAGA toadies in Congress that their threats are toothless, which enhances the stupidity of making such threats.

[John F. Carr]

In the 1990s Judge Harold Baer caved under threat of impeachment.

This time the threat is not credible. No Democrat will vote to convict.

[Mr. Bumble]

In the whole history of the US only fifteen judges have been impeached with eight convicted.

[RedheadedPharoh]

And one of them become a longrunning Democrat Congressman!

[Bob from Ohio]

"In the whole history of the US only fifteen judges have been impeached with eight convicted."

The failed Chase impeachment turned judicial impeachment into a nullity. Judges get convicted by the Senate only if they are already convicted of crimes.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

And when that happens, they can always just jump to the House of Representatives.

[Martinned2]

Apparently the Senate majority has forgotten that Congress has the power of the purse. I'm sure that won't cause any problems down the line.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/19/trump-musk-senators-funding/

[Martinned2]

It looks like Q himself is trying to get Andrew Tate off the hook so he doesn't have to stand trial for child molestation: https://www.ft.com/content/3f951e0b-a9cb-489a-be89-fdf9f996ed27

I'm sure Romania will be much more likely to give Trump what he wants given that he's just promised Putin that he will withdraw US troops from their country (which is maybe 50 miles from the nearest Russian military base).

[ThePublius]

Martinned2 , you should change your username to King of Spam.

[ThePublius]

I have an idea. Israel release approximately 61 Palestinian prisoners for every Israeli hostage released. How about, going forward, Israel turn over 61 Palestinian prisoners' corpses for ever dead hostage Hamas releases? Oh, yea, in locked coffins with no keys.

[John F. Carr]

Israel has killed approximately 61 Palestinians for every one of its own dead. The exact ratio is hard to tell but it is very likely over 10:1 and probably less than 100:1.

[Mr. Bumble]

If there's a point there I'm missing it.

[John F. Carr]

ThePublius proposed reprisals against Palestinians for actions of Hamas. I pointed out that Israel has been doing that for over a year with little effect. A more favorable body count will not win the war. A more favorable body count might expand the European arms embargo. That will not lose the war. Trump still has Netanyahu's back.

[Brett Bellmore]

Technically, wouldn't "reprisals" have to be killing random innocent Palestinians, the way the Palestinians took random innocent Israelis hostage and then killed them?

Not killing Palestinian soldiers.

[Mr. Bumble]

There is a difference. A one to one basis is no way to win a war.

[Frank Drackman]

And the crew of Enola Gay took out 500,000 Japs, do the math on that, fuckstick

[Ska]

I never thought I'd laugh so hard about the deadly force of an atomic bomb, but here we are.

[Commenter_XY]

Get any remaining hostages out, then open the gates of hell and fight this war to the finish. There is no compromise with Judeocidal terrorists, and their ardent supporters.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And then give it to Trump?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I am truly shocked that you're the kind of shit to not keep your word and renege on your agreements.

[TwelveInchPianist]

As opposed to the kind of shit to strangle children?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Are you trying to argue that it's acceptable to have no integrity because other people do bad things? Are you a child?

[Commenter_XY]

Jason...The current ceasefire agreement was already violated by hamas several times. When an agreement terms are violated, then there is no agreement. Legally, that is the case.

As an American, I want the Americans out now and I assume you feel the same way. You see how the hostages have been treated, and how they look. There will be retribution for that, from an American perspective. There will not be a turning of the cheek.

Israel must decide for themselves what to do. The desire to free captives is incredibly strong, particularly when we recite Acheinu. I simply note there is no compromise with Judeocidal terrorists, and their supporters, who have gleefully and publicly pledged to repeat the Judeocidal attacks until all Jews are dead.

hamas will violate the ceasefire agreement yet again, and the gates of hell will open. The traditional terms of war in that neighborhood for the last 5,000 years are: surrender, or death.

[SRG2]

NY Post on Ukraine: https://nypost.com/2025/02/20/opinion/putin-is-the-dictator-and-10-ukraine-russia-war-truths-we-ignore-at-our-peril/

[apedad]

(from Jan 2025) Tesla Acquires $98.7M Land for Mexico Gigafactory Expansion

Tesla has made a strategic move to expand its manufacturing footprint by acquiring a substantial piece of land in Santa Catarina, Nuevo León, Mexico. The purchase spans 1,194 hectares across four parcels of land, costing approximately $98.7 million. This acquisition lays the foundation for the highly anticipated Giga Mexico facility.

The new Gigafactory will play a crucial role in Tesla’s plan to maintain its leadership in the electric vehicle (EV) market.

https://www.inspire2rise.com/tesla-acquires-land-mexico-gigafactory-expansion.html

So not America First? and what about Trump's direction to states to stop spending money for EV charging infrastructure, funds they were allocated under former President Joe Biden.

Trump has slammed federal funding for electric vehicle chargers as “an incredible waste of taxpayer dollars.”

These boys sure are an odd couple.

[Michael P]

"So not America First?"

The first "Gigafactory" was (per Wikipedia) built in Nevada, the next in New York (state), then Shanghai and Berlin-Brandenburg and Texas. Shanghai and Texas both have twice as many employees as the Mexico plant is expected to have.

You're rather slow. On this, I mean, not only in general.

[Malika]

Sure, Musk is building his *next* Gigafactory outside the US, but he's totes down with America First because he built the First Gigafactory in America, man!

[apedad]

President Trump appoints Virginia's Youngkin and Maryland's Moore to Council of Governors

President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced new appointments to the Council of Governors, a bipartisan group of state leaders focused on strengthening federal and state collaboration on national security, disaster response, and military coordination.

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) are among the 10 governors selected to serve two-year terms.

The Council of Governors was created by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 and formally established by executive order in 2010. It serves as a key forum for governors and federal officials to coordinate on issues related to the National Guard, disaster preparedness, and defense support to states.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/president-trump-appoints-virginia-s-youngkin-and-maryland-s-moore-to-council-of-governors/ar-AA1zqCrF?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=e0a7b9adee3f447c84d27d8c70329cb5&ei=52

Huh....I knew about the National Governors Association but had not heard of this council.

The Council of Governors is composed of 10 members, selected by the President for a term of 2 years from among the governors of the several states and territories of the United States and the Mayor of the District of Columbia.[3][4][5] No more than five members may be from the same political party.[3] (wiki)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Spring Training begins this week. Enjoy.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Soto got the first homer out of the way during his first at-bat.

[Riva]

Some interesting commentary on the sanctimonious Sassoon resignation letter (from manhattancontrarian):
… [T]he now-famous Sassoon resignation letter is unusual not only in its length and detail, and accusations of improper conduct against her superiors, but also in appearing promptly in the press, and in disclosing confidential information that could be damaging to the further pursuit of the Adams case (should the government decide at some point to go there). Since when is it OK for a prosecutor to write a letter containing confidential information about a case and then promptly leak the letter to the press? Indeed, the letter appears to have been written for the purposes of leaking to the press.

[Ed Grinberg]

The whole thing is highly worth reading:
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2025-2-20-the-end-of-the-eric-adams-prosecution-and-hoiier-than-thou-federal-prosecutors

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is talk of a bar referral on her.

[Noscitur a sociis]

For what, exactly?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"also in appearing promptly in the press, and in disclosing confidential information that could be damaging to the further pursuit of the Adams case (should the government decide at some point to go there)."

Releasing confidential information to the press???

[David Nieporent]

What confidential information, Dr. Ed? (And who said she's the one who released her letter?)

[Dr. Ed 2]

See above...

[David Nieporent]

No; you made the claim. I'm asking you, not some random blogger. If you have no idea and are just repeating what someone said without any knowledge or evidence, then say so.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Ed Whelan: Bove leaked his Feb. 13 reply before Sassoon's letter became public, thus ensuring that it would.

[Riva]

Uh huh. I'm sure that's accurate. Because its not like democrats ever leak highly confidential or even mishandle classified info. That's crazy talk. Like saying they would store it in their garage next to a classic Corvette.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So, you agree Sassoon didn’t leak it?

[Riva]

Wit really is wasted on fools. And, oh how to put it, there's just a shitload of fools here.

[Noscitur a sociis]

No argument there!

[Riva]

Sounds like someone needs to read the 8 page letter Sassoon leaked to the press. It’s pretty easy to find, being leaked and all. You’re rather opinionated for someone who really has no idea about the underlying facts on any issue, aren’t you?

[Noscitur a sociis]

the 8 page letter Sassoon leaked to the press

Wait, I thought a democrat leaked it?

[Riva]

You seem to be going in an idiot circle. I guess I could repost my comment above on wit and fools and we could keep going but we'll end this now and let you go do whatever it is idiots like to do on a Saturday afternoon. I'd rather not know by the way.

[David Nieporent]

Bot programmed to never ever respond substantively, but ust to insult and then repeat in a loop.

[Michael P]

Apple is withdrawing end-to-end encryption from UK customers rather than comply with government orders to provide a backdoor that would allow an unknown number of third parties to read that data.

https://www.macrumors.com/2025/02/21/apple-pulls-encrypted-icloud-security-feature-uk/

So much for martinned's totally unsupported assertion that the UK would never ask for information that the US spy agencies don't have.

[Martinned2]

How do you figure? The Brits are wimps, and would never try to strong-arm an American company unless they knew the thing they were asking for was already being shared. And nothing in this news story would allow you to make a different inference.

[Michael P]

If there such a backdoor existed, Apple wouldn't need to make this choice.

Instead, you apparently prefer the double conspiracy theory that Apple has this backdoor, but will only use it for the US government, and would rather take away an advertise feature than give the Brits access to that information.

Not that you have ever shown much ability to put two and two together.

[Brett Bellmore]

Everything I've ever heard about the matter says that Apple security is the real deal, no back doors, even Apple can't break it, by deliberate design. It's one thing they absolutely got right, and other phone makers could have gotten right, but deliberately chose not to.

[Bob from Ohio]

“Ariel and Kfir Bibas were murdered by terrorists in cold blood.
The terrorists did not shoot the two young boys—they killed them with their bare hands.
Afterwards, they committed horrific acts to cover up these atrocities.”
-IDF Spokesperson RAdm. Daniel Hagari [via twitter

But Israel is awful.

[Sarcastr0]

Is all morality comparative in your world?

[Brett Bellmore]

In a world of flawed people, (And governments aren't run by saints.) all morality is indeed comparative.

[Bob from Ohio]

Mr. Both Sides has a comment on comparisons.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

One obscenity deserves another!

[Absaroka]

Interesting article for NY Post fans.

[ThePublius]

1. This was previously linked in this thread;
2. a more descriptive heading in the comment would be helpful.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Vladimir Putin started this war, despite what Trump said days ago."

Like I'm going to take the media's word on something Trump said, when they won't give it context.

"Russia is fighting for conquest."
"Ukraine is fighting for its independence."
"Ukrainians are not Russians."
"Putin is a dictator."

Absolutely!

"Zelensky is not a dictator."

Kinda sorta true, it's time to stop using martial law as an excuse to not hold elections, but I'm reasonably confident he'd win.

"Ukraine is a friend of the US."

Yup.

"Putin cannot be trusted."

Absolutely true, and we never should have urged Ukraine to trust him in the first place. They should have kept those nukes.

"American aid to Ukraine is not being wasted."

Not a lot to argue with, I'd only say that there are a lot of things on which money would not be wasted, that I don't spend money on anyway, because I only have so much money to spend.

The US, too, has only so much money to spend, and we have been digging ourselves into a pit that will bury us one day soon if we don't accept that, and refrain from spending on a huge range of things which are not wasteful in and of themselves.

A genuinely stable peace in Ukraine can only come if there is some guarantee that Russia will not dare invade again. NATO or EU membership, US troops on the border, something that makes invading Ukraine a trigger for a bigger fight than Putin has stomach for.

[Josh R]

Trump:

I’ve been watching for years, and I’ve been watching him negotiate with no cards. He has no cards. And you get sick of it. [...] So, I don’t think he’s very important to be at meetings, to be honest with you. He makes it very hard to make deals.[...] ”Every time I say, ‘Oh, it’s not Russia’s fault,’ I always get slammed by the fake news

Trump says the war is Biden's and Zelensky's fault for not agreeing to a deal before the invasion and Putin doesn't need to make a deal. Basically, Trump thinks Putin has the right to take over Ukraine and Ukraine should be grateful to get any deal short of that.

This is sick shit.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think this is about rights. If I'm in a bad neighborhood, and somebody sticks a gun in my face and says I should hand over my wallet if I want to live? I've got every right to tell him no.

But I'm still going to end up dead on the pavement.

[Josh R]

Trump is turning his back and allowing you to die.

[Armchair]

Unlikely. What's more likely is he's trying to get a peace deal done. There are likely sticks and carrots to it.

1. Trump may for example be willing to (have Ukraine) give up Crimea for peace. Potentially a pre-2022 invasion borders deal.

2. Trump has other carrots he can throw on that deal. Normalization of relations. Release of frozen funds.

3. But...Trump has other sticks that he can make Putin aware of. If Trump feels that Putin is just "screwing him around" with fake negotiations, Trump can always threaten to transfer a thousand Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, with unlimited targeting parameters. Putin might care about that.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

He may? He's already given up Crimea and the Donbas. That was just to get Putin to the table.

[grb]

Armchair : "Unlikely"

Which pretty much describes everything you said. A few highlights :

1. Putin will never agree to a pre-2022 invasion border deal and his BFF Trump won't ask for one anyway.

2. Likewise, the idea DJT would threaten Putin with your "thousand Tomahawk missiles" is ludicrous in the extreme. What planet do you live on?

3. What will happen is exactly what occurred with Trump's negotiations with the Taliban. He wants to wave around his little “piece of paper”, so will get down on his knees and give Putin every possible concession to get it.

Doesn’t anyone remember the terms of Trump’s capitulation to the Afghan mullahs? His appeasement had Neville Chamberlain spinning in his grave with envy. The Taliban got everything they wanted. The U.S. and our Afghan allies (who weren't allowed in the negotiations - sound familiar?) got nothing in return.

Per Trump’s deal, the U.S. had to cut their forces by two-thirds within four months. All troops had to be withdrawn in just over a year. Per Trump, the U.S. had to immediately close five military bases and end all economic sanctions on the Taliban. Per Trump, we pledged to get the U.N. to lift their restrictions against the Taliban as well. Per Trump’s agreement, we would make the Afghans trade 5,000 Taliban prisoners for 1,000 government POWs. Per Trump, U.S. military aircraft were banned from attacking the Taliban more than 500 meters away. Per Trump, the U.S. couldn’t launch airstrikes against Taliban units unless they were actively fighting.

The United States had conducted 8000 airstrikes in the 14 months before the agreement. That number dropped to 800 in the 10 months after. And Afghan Gen. Sami Sadat described those new Trump rules : Taliban fighters had to be actively shooting within 150 meters of a checkpoint for U.S. aircraft to engage. If Taliban forces were 500 meters away, or stopped shooting when U.S. aircraft arrived, the Afghan security forces were screwed.

So what did the Taliban have to give? They didn’t have stop attacks on the U.S and car-bombed Bagram Airbase during the middle of negotiations. But that didn’t slow Trump’s give-away a bit. The Taliban also didn’t have to limit attacks on our Afghan allies. In fact, attacks on Afghan troops climbed steadily after Trump’s deal neutered U.S. forces. Less than two months after Trump’s Munich, Taliban attacks had increased 70% over the previous year. More than 900 Afghan security forces were killed in that period, up from 520 a year earlier. Taliban casualties dropped to 610 in the period down from about 1,660 in the same period a year earlier.

All Trump got was a pledge the Taliban would not allow al-Qaeda to use the soil of Afghanistan to threaten the United States. Plus, deal-maker Trump got a pledge the Mullahs would (maybe) talk to our Afgan allies about some kind of (peace-like) agreement. Of course every U.S. concession went into effect immediately while the Taliban weren't required to do anything.

Don't get me wrong : If Trump Porn is your thing, whatever. If you want to fantasize about him holding the line, eye-to-eye with Putin, go right ahead. Whatever floats your boat. In reality, Trump with appease, get his piece of paper, and enjoy that day's headline. That's the only thing important to him, and he'll screw-over Ukraine to get it. Trump only goes eye-to-eye with countries like Canada and Denmark.

[Commenter_XY]

grb, the only way UKR gets back the territory they lost is on the field of battle. They have to defeat RUS. That isn't happening. They do not have the manpower. That is reality. RUS took what they took, is continuing to advance via the meat grinder, and have the political will to keep the meat grinder going. That is reality.

Time for everyone involved (UKR, RUS, EU, USA) to cut their losses, and stop the killing. grb, it is not wrong to advocate for peace.

Two quick points. One, there should be some kind of security agreement for UKR. I don't know what that is. I am wary about The Donald's deal, vis a vis US troops. Two, think about the 'prize' that RUS has won; there are significant challenges (reconstruction, corruption) that came with winning the prize. Could be a booby prize.

[David Nieporent]

grb, the only way UKR gets back the territory they lost is on the field of battle. They have to defeat RUS. That isn't happening. They do not have the manpower. That is reality. RUS took what they took, is continuing to advance via the meat grinder, and have the political will to keep the meat grinder going. That is reality.

He literally just now in this very comment proved that this claim is false, and yet you keep repeating it.

I'll use smaller words: A. Country. Does. Not. Need. To. Win. On. The. Battlefield. To. Win. A. War.

The U.S. won pretty much every battle in Vietnam.

[Commenter_XY]

David, when UKR/RUS come to terms, we will see whether I was right or not.

[Michael Ejercito]

Who was it that cut off aid to South Vietnam?

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "David, when UKR/RUS come to terms, we will see whether I was right or not"

So let's consider something more probable than possible : Trump cuts off all support for Ukraine and forces Zelenskyy to accept Putin's worst terms. What would we see here?

1. XY will praise Trump's actions.
2. Then do an I-told-you-so to David Nieporent.

Meanwhile, here's Trump in his latest Fox News interview:

TRUMP: You have a man who has let a country that had the more beautiful cities. They’re demolished. Had the most beautiful domes.

KILMEADE: But that’s Russia’s fault though, Mr President

TRUMP: 1,000 year old domes. And everything is demolished. It’s sorta like Gaza

KILMEADE: That’s Putin’s fault

TRUMP: I get tired of listening to it

Trump won't make any concessions to Ukraine unless Putin tells him to.

[Armchair]

"1. Putin will never agree to a pre-2022 invasion border deal and his BFF Trump won't ask for one anyway."

Let's see...

2. Likewise, the idea DJT would threaten Putin with your "thousand Tomahawk missiles" is ludicrous in the extreme. What planet do you live on?

This is Donald Trump...we're already supplying ATACMS attack missiles that Ukraine is launching into Russia. It's got a 190 mile range. You think Donald Trump wouldn't threaten to send missiles with a 1,000 mile (plus) range into Ukraine, if it got Trump what he wanted? Really?

[David Nieporent]

You think Donald Trump wouldn't threaten to send missiles with a 1,000 mile (plus) range into Ukraine, if it got Trump what he wanted? Really?

A Ukrainian victory / a Russian defeat is the opposite of what Trump wants.

[Armchair]

That's just TDS talking.

[Josh R]

I hope you are right, but am pretty sure you are living in a fantasy world. Trump is on Putin's side.

You basically got everything backwards in your response below. To take one example, I am certain Zelensky would agree to give up Crimea (and maybe even more) in exchange for NATO membership. But it's Putin who won't go for that. With Trump on his side, Putin can hold out for a "deal" that will allow him to eventually takeover all of Ukraine (perhaps through a puppet government).

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I am certain Zelensky would agree to give up Crimea (and maybe even more) in exchange for NATO membership. But it's Putin who won't go for that."

Why would we let Ukraine join NATO if we're not willing to go to war with Russia to defend them?

[Krayt]

The point is Russia wouldn't dare because Nato would respond. He hasn't touched the Baltic countries or any of the former Warsaw pact.

What are you afraid of? We have all the overwhelming power.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The point is Russia wouldn't dare because Nato would respond."

Would they? We have made it clear that we were unwilling to take on Russia because the risk of WWIII is too high.

The point is, if the West is willing to take on Russia to defend Ukraine, why make a bunch of concessions first? I've been saying for years that we should be much more active in the war. No-fly zone, air support, whatever it takes.

But the dominant position is that we can't afford to risk becoming involved in a war with Russia. If that's correct, we can't allow Ukraine to join NATO or offer other security guarantees.

Our position since 2014 has been to effectively cede to Russia any territory that they could capture. Biden was pretending to help, while ensuring nothing we did was effective enough to provoke Russia. Trump's change is just that he is admitting what we are doing.

[Commenter_XY]

You know Krayt, you casually speak of sending your fellow Americans to die on a distant battlefield wielding that 'overwhelming power'. Those are American lives you're ending. Make the case that UKR is worth a single American life.

(btw, I agree, in a conventional fight, we would kick Russian ass)

[Commenter_XY]

This is crazy = NATO membership for UKR as compensation for giving up what UKR lost on the field of battle (Crimea, etc) stemming from their own ineptitude, corruption, and inability to resolve internal political issues

Anyone proposing that lunacy completely discredits themselves making that argument. We don't want UKR in NATO, for any reason. Zelenskyy doesn't have leverage, he has nothing to trade, Josh R. The US weapons spigot can be turned off, overnight. And if it is in our (American) interest to do so, then it will be done. Europe can solve it themselves; because UKR isn't a NATO issue, it is a European issue.

To make peace, you must talk to your enemy. And you must make compromises to obtain peace. It is not the first time compromises have been made for peace, and it won't be the last time, either.

[David Nieporent]

We don't want UKR in NATO, for any reason.

You don't, because you're still bizarrely holding a grudge over WW2. We do.

To make peace, you must talk to your enemy. And you must make compromises to obtain peace.

What compromises did the Taliban make to end the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan?

[Commenter_XY]

Who is we, David. The cauliflower half of the electorate? The very same people whose incompetence caused the war in the first place and couldn't figure out a way to end it in 3 years. No thanks, David. They had their chance. Somebody else's turn now.

UKR isn't even an EU member. Let them become an EU member, and submit to their regulatory regime, before entertaining the thought of asking to join NATO. But UKR is corrupt AF, and unworthy of membership.

[David Nieporent]

Who is we, David.

People who support the liberal international order and oppose Russia and China.

[Bwaaah]

Dear C_XY:

"We, The Liberal International Order, hold you to be wrong."

Sincerely,
David Nieporent
Self-appointed Chair and Arbiter of Such

[Josh R]

I'm with David. The NATO (and beyond) post-WWII alliances have kept the peace. We were giddy after the fall of the USSR that the alliances would no longer be needed, but the reality of Putin (and Xi) have thrown water on that hope.

If Putin splits the NATO alliance by peeling off Trump, what stops him from getting the Baltic states?

On the other hand, I can see a deal that requires Ukraine to be accepted into the EU as a precursor to NATO membership, so long as there is a security guarantee in the meantime.

[Commenter_XY]

David...The liberal international order. Who is that? The very same people who got us into this mess, and made it worse and worse. They have singularly failed. The representatives of that liberal order were rejected at the ballot box, because they failed. Is Jake Sullivan one of those liberal international order true believers?

Josh R...There is no 'peeling off' anyone. Candidate Trump ran on ending the war. POTUS Trump is following through. Surprise! Absent America going to war and pushing RUS out of UKR (not happening), the smart move is a) acknowledge reality of battle field, b) cut your losses and, c) make peace. Any security guarantee has to include RUS, they need to be a (I say 'a', not 'the') guarantor for peace to endure. I don't know the magic formula for that, but RUS must participate.

I am not a huge fan of The Donald's reported mineral deal, but the devil is in the details.

[Josh R]

Russia being part of Ukraine's security guarantee. Are you fucking kidding me?

I hope you wouldn't accept a peace that permits Putin to own Ukraine (even through a puppet government) or invade the Baltic states. So indeed, a "magic formula" is needed to make sure those things can't happen. Ukraine will go for that.

Putin on the other hand is using these negotiations as an attempt to split the alliance because he knows Trump deep down doesn't want us in NATO. He hopes such a split produces a deal absent the "magic formula" and allows him to continue his territorial expansion.

On the other hand, the more I look at Trump's incendiary statements against Zelensky this week, the more I think they are a reaction to the rare-earth mineral negotiations. Man-baby Trump thrashes out when someone stands up to him. At least I hope that's the case and Trump won't be giving Ukraine to Putin on a silver platter.

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R...There is nothing to split, vis a vis NATO, since UKR is neither an EU member nor a NATO member. The EU is not anxious to make UKR a member, yet they could do it tomorrow if they so chose; why is that?

Albania, the Baltics, Poland, Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia all chose to join NATO. There is no way UKR should be admitted to NATO. That time came and went.

Yes, in any armistice, you ideally want RUS to be a part of the security guarantee. I suggest looking at the Abraham Accords framework as a potential model to make a more enduring peace.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "Candidate Trump ran on ending the war"

Trump ran on everything. He had a new promise for each new crowd. No presidential candidate in living history has pandered so much. Since everyone (supporters included) knows he's a pathological liar, they heard what they wanted to & ignored the rest.

So let's see how much credit Trump gets for going down on his knees and giving Putin everything the Russian leader demands. When Trump waves about this "piece of paper", let's see who applauds his appeasement. MAGA will, to be sure. They long ago sold off their soul. But let's see about everybody else.

Trump got away with Neville-Chamberlain-grade weakness with Afghan agreement because no one was paying attention. That won't be the case here.

[Armchair]

"Trump is on Putin's side."

Why? What possible reason is there for Trump to be on "Putin's" side? Trump is on Trump's side.

One of the mistakes made consistently here is to not really attempt to understand people's motives and reasoning. You don't need to agree with it....but you do need to understand it, in order to properly assess what they will do.

Let's start with Putin. He won't agree to NATO membership for Ukraine, under any circumstances. He views NATO as an existential threat to Russia (not without reason). There's no way he lets Ukraine join NATO. It's a non-starter. Putin's viewpoint is that he wants to re-expand Russian/Soviet power and hemogeny across the old Soviet States. And if he can take advantage of Western weakness to do that...he will.

As for Trump...Ask yourself this question...what does Trump want? Just "helping Putin" doesn't help Trump. It undermines him at home, it undermines him abroad, it makes him look weak. What does Trump want? He want the following....
1) A reasonable peace treaty to get out of Ukraine. But one that doesn't end up in a Ukraine puppet state.
2) And to stop spending hundreds of Billions on it.

And if Trump has to threaten more to get peace...he will do that. Trump is good at threats. But Trump also understands what Putin wants, and is willing to give him "part" of it, to get what Trump wants. But not all of it. Because Trump is transactional. He believes in the "Deal"....even on the geopolitical stage.

But a "Deal" where Putin gets everything he wants and Trump gets nothing? Trump doesn't go for that. He's Trump.

[Josh R]

You could be right, but why then did Hesgeth give away land and NATO membership before negotiations began. And why isn't Ukraine at the negotiating table?

[Armchair]

"And why isn't Ukraine at the negotiating table?
-Because it is counterproductive for US interests

"You could be right, but why then did Hesgeth give away land and NATO membership before negotiations began."

NATO membership is a non-starter. Might as well ask Russia to give up St. Petersburg.

[Josh R]

How is it counterproductive to US interests?

A Russian puppet government is also a non-starter. And yet, Hesgeth didn't rule it out. Why is it that only Ukrainian-leaning non-starters are conceded ahead of negotiations?

[Commenter_XY]

What give away? NATO stated publicly that UKR was 'years away' from any formal motion to admit them to NATO. UKR has had years to address their deficiencies to join the EU, and then NATO...and chose not to.

Land...Are you going to fight RUS to get it back? The answer is No. Acknowledge that reality...we aren't going to war to liberate all of UKR.

That is the price to pay for a) not preventing the war in the first place, and b) not making peace early on. First, Obama's team f'ed up on Crimea. Then, the cauliflowers team in the form of Sullivan, that boob Blinken and associates totally f'ed UKR up; POTUS Trump is cleaning their mess created by their hubris and incompetence.

You call it give away (ridiculous). It is a sober acknowledgement of reality.

[Josh R]

The give away is no NATO membership ever.

It's also real that Russia will not get a puppet government in Kyiv. Why didn't Hesgeth acknowledge that reality? Why does the USA only recognize realities that favor Russia?

XY, how could war have been prevented and alternatively how could peace have been reached early on? You sound like Trump when he says Russia is not to blame for the war.

[Armchair]

"How is it counterproductive to US interests?"

Because Ukraine's interests and the US's interests don't perfectly align. And if it's in Ukraine's interests to sabotage the negotiations, then they will.

[Josh R]

Russia's interests and our interests don't perfectly align either. Yet, you seem to have no problem including Russia in the negotiations even though they could sabotage them if it is in their interest to do so.

[David Nieporent]

What does Trump want? He want the following....
2) And to stop spending hundreds of Billions on it.

Trump does indeed want that.

1) A reasonable peace treaty to get out of Ukraine. But one that doesn't end up in a Ukraine puppet state.

But not that.

[Armchair]

This magic where you "know" what Trump wants....is mistaken.

[Absaroka]

"He views NATO as an existential threat to Russia (not without reason)"

NATO poses no threat whatsoever to a peaceful Russia, and it never has. The only thing it threatens is Putin's plan to conquer 'Greater Russia'.

In fact, one of the many colossal mistakes that Putin has made is that he didn't play nice and have Russia join NATO. That would have protected him from China, which is his real threat.

[Armchair]

"NATO poses no threat whatsoever to a peaceful Russia, and it never has. The only thing it threatens is Putin's plan to conquer 'Greater Russia'."

You may view it like that. And I may view it like that. But Putin does not view it like that. Understanding that people may not view things like you do it critical.

[David Nieporent]

Understanding that people may not view things like you do it critical.

So apparently you think one cannot figure out what Trump wants despite ample opportunity to observe him over the last 10 years (I mean, 40 years, but the last 10 as a politician), but that you are capable of figuring out what Putin is thinking. Weird.

[Absaroka]

I was responding to your 'not without reason'.

I erroneously understood that to mean that *you* thought he had some reasonable reason to think NATO was a threat to Russia.

As opposed to merely being a threat to his ambition of reestablishing the boundaries of the USSR and Warsaw pact.

My apologies.

[Commenter_XY]

The failure by Pres Clinton to seriously address the inquiry of Putin to join the EU and NATO back in the 90's will rank as one of the great strategic errors. We had our chance, and missed it. It could be a century before another strategic opportunity like that comes along.

It is understandable. The USSR has just melted down, east europe was in upheaval, it was post Desert Storm. The point is, there were many incongruent pieces where it would have been hard for a US POTUS to even conceive of having Russia (Soviets) joining NATO. Hindsight is 20/20.

[David Nieporent]

The failure by Pres Clinton to seriously address the inquiry of Putin to join the EU and NATO back in the 90's will rank as one of the great strategic errors.

…great historical errors, I think you mean, since Putin didn't even become president until 2000, and at no point tried to join NATO. Yeltsin at some points had suggested it, but then at other points said Russia wasn't interested.

Moreover, neither Clinton nor any other American president could address any alleged inquiry of Russia joining the EU, which of course the U.S. is not a member of.

[Armchair]

Absaroka,

You seriously don't think NATO is a threat to Russia?

[David Nieporent]

You seriously don't think NATO is a threat to Russia?

Correct. It is no threat to Russia. It may be a threat to Russia's intent to recreate the Soviet Union by force, but not to Russia itself.

[ThePublius]

David, it only matters if Russia thinks it's a threat to Russia. I happen to think it is. Russia has been invaded at least three times through Ukraine.

When they withdrew their troops from German in 1989 through 1994, over 400,000 of them, it was under the condition that NATO would not move "one inch" East. Russia doesn't want NATO on its border. NATO violated that, and moved 1,000 miles East, including adding countries on Russia's border.

Ukraine had been flirting with NATO since 1991 and Zelensky tore up the Minsk II accord, which precipitated the 2022 invasion by Russia. Recall that Zelensky was elected into a government that existed due to a coup in 2014 that the US largely encouraged and facilitated.

[Josh R]

Nice Kremlin talking points, Publius. I suspect we will hear trump parroting them soon.

[David Nieporent]

When they withdrew their troops from German in 1989 through 1994, over 400,000 of them, it was under the condition that NATO would not move "one inch" East.

This myth has been debunked many times, including by the guy to whom the promise was supposedly made, Gorbachev. Baker's statement was about stationing troops in the former East Germany, not about NATO expansion.

Moreover, everyone except the Russian apologists of the 2020s understands the difference between a treaty and a vague oral discussion.

Ukraine had been flirting with NATO since 1991

I can't deny that only because I don't know what "flirting with" means, concretely. At no point was Ukrainian accession to NATO ever anything but a someday-in-the-future possibility.

and Zelensky tore up the Minsk II accord,

He did not

which precipitated the 2022 invasion by Russia.

It did not.

Recall that Zelensky was elected into a government that existed due to a coup in 2014 that the US largely encouraged and facilitated.

I do not "recall" that because there was no "coup" and the US did not "facilitate" the non-coup. What actually happened was that the corrupt Russian puppet holding the Ukrainian presidency, under Russian pressure, suddenly and shockingly tore up a wildly popular deal to bring Ukraine closer to the EU (not NATO) and instead tried to bring Ukraine into Russia's orbit. This was incredibly unpopular, leading to mass protests and demonstrations. Eventually, Yanukovych was ousted by parliament and fled (to Russia, natch). And then of course Russia invaded for the first time.

[Armchair]

It's a little more complicated than that. A few points need to be made.

1. Ukraine's taking a maximalist position on negotiations. They don't want to give up one bit of Ukrainian land. And are willing to spend billions to trillions of American dollars to accomplish that. But...without US/western support, Ukraine wouldn't likely last long.

2. The US by contrast, isn't necessarily willing to spend trillions on the war at all costs. And...if the war could end today, for just the cost of Crimea...that's a deal the US would make. And if the US makes that deal, then Ukraine would "have" to agree...or continue the war without US support. Which would end up in them losing.

So, to the points...

1. Zelensky has "no cards." It's basically true. Ukraine can't really threaten anymore than it's currently doing. It can't offer items that Russia couldn't take (one US support is gone). Ukraine is in many ways the junior partner. So, Zelensky bluffs, bluffs hard, but everyone knows it's a bluff.

2. "He makes it very hard to make deals"
Again, this is the maximalist position. Sure, it's his right...but he's essentially fighting on the US's dime. It in some ways benefits him to sabotage negotiations that the US might be willing to entertain.

3. "Oh, it’s not Russia’s fault,’"
-Again, the maximalist position and the sabotage of negotiations. That's essentially what's going on. Zelensky is playing a game of chicken in many ways with the US. "You have to support me, otherwise Ukraine will collapse, so I won't entertain any deals you might think are reasonable."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

$183 billion since 2022 is a little short of "trillions" isn't it?

[Armchair]

I'm sure Ukraine would have no problem spending trillions

[TwelveInchPianist]

Russia doesn't really have any cards either. It can't credibly promise to stop the war, for example.

[David Nieporent]

Ukraine's taking a maximalist position on negotiations.

I guess they've read "Trump's" book, because that's what he claims is the right way to conduct negotiations.

[Armchair]

"I guess they've read "Trump's" book, because that's what he claims is the right way to conduct negotiations."

It's not even necessarily the wrong thing for Zelensky to do. But, there's a difference between Zelensky's goals and the US's goals.

[Riva]

Well they certainly made a lot of money for one of America’s great political crime families. Maybe there’s a new motto there for democrats? Make Grifting Great Again? Not really a good acronym though. And the climate change grifters already own that.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Er, it's an opinion piece.

But, yeah, a little surprising to see in the NYP.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Janet Mills (D-ME) just told Trump that "he'd see her in court" on Trannie Sports. He said "fine" -- that will be an easy case and he will shut off all all Federal Funds to Maine.

First time in a LONG time that someone stood up to General Mills.

[Martinned2]

Sounds like a nice strong man system of government you've got going on there.

[Josh R]

All funds? Not legal. Mills wins. Funds tied to compliance with Title IX (education)? Assuming Trump's order is held by the courts to be a permissible Title IX requirement? Legal. Trump wins.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "First time in a LONG time that someone stood up to General Mills"

Not surprisingly, you've got everything ass-backwards. Mills stood up to a whining petty bully. Metaphorically speaking, she's the one who had balls. Since it shows someone defending the rule of law, the conversation is worth quoting in full.

TRUMP: The NCAA has complied immediately. That’s good. But I understand Maine — is the governor of Maine here?

JANET MILLS: Yeah I’m here

TRUMP: Are you not gonna comply?

JANET MILLS: I’m going to comply with state and federal law

TRUMP: WE are the federal law.

JANET MILLS: I’ll follow the statutes

TRUMP: You better do it bc you’re not gonna get any federal funding at all if you don’t. And by the way, your population, even though it’s somewhat liberal, I did very well there, your population doesn’t want men playing in women’s sports, so you’d better comply otherwise you’re not getting any federal funding

JANET MILLS: See you in court

TRUMP: Good I’ll see you in court. I look forward to that. That should be a real easy one.

JANET MILLS: It should be for me

TRUMP: And enjoy your life after governor because I don’t think you’ll be in elected politics.

[Magister]

Dr. Ed 2 : "First time in a LONG time that someone stood up to General Mills"

It's about time! Their ultraprocessed breakfast food has probably killed lots of people, making them the biggest cereal killer in American history.

[grb]

Magister : " ...making them the biggest cereal killer in American history."

My applause, sir.

[grb]

It might be good for folk here to ask one question minimum each thread they have no idea how to answer (myself certainly included). This would be something other than opining on things they know with absolute certainty - right, wrong, hero, villain. Here's one from me :

The Marine Corp is implementing a major restructuring call Force Design. It involves ditching all their heavy armaments to become highly mobile units:

"Force Design will see the Marine Corps create a new formation called littoral regiments, consisting of infantry, rocket artillery, logistics, and an anti-air battery, which will be highly mobile and have a long range precision strike capability. The littoral regiments will be equipped with missiles and drones, and can form smaller teams that could be moved quickly from island to island using amphibious ships, to assist the Navy with attacking enemy vessels and keeping sea lanes open."

I regularly read opinions from people who firmly oppose this. They have the air of old-timers against these all new-fangled ways, but might be right in substance regardless. I don't have the slightest clue either way. Does anyone have any thoughts?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_Design_2030

[hobie]

I read that Ukraine's success on the battlefield has been, in part, something similar to this...minus the gadgets

[Mr. Bumble]

Not comparable. The Marines were/are essentially an amphibious force to be later supported by ground troops. There motto is land, sea and air and this is taking away a good chunk of the land ability.
To make matters worse we don't have the littoral vessels to support the new plan.

[grb]

If it helps decide matters one way or another, this scheme seems to have been developed mainly (perhaps almost exclusively) with China in mind. Of course proponents & opponents just make their arguments accordingly. The military branches seem to go in cycles where the distinctions between their capabilities / mission blur or are accentuated. The latter would be the case here.

As hobie notes, the Ukrainian War is like many conflicts in the past: Everyone is looking on to see how the latest tech/strategies work on the battlefield (as they did - for instance - in the Spanish Civil War with air power). What's been seen is lightly armed units able to neutralize tanks and massed troops with drones & anti-tank weapons. Whether than can scale-up with more sophisticated weapons across much larger Pacific Ocean distances is the question. The Ukrainian War is limited as an example because neither side can conduct fully integrated land-air operations - the Ukrainians because they lack the capacity; the Russians because they lack the competence. I'm pretty certain the Chinese wouldn't be so hampered.

[Frank Drackman]

The Clittoral Vessels are an even bigger waste than the F35, yeah I said it, the Emperor has no G-Suit, a single F35 has a 50/50 chance against a solo F15, and even less against multiple adversaries, and the Clittoral Ships are even worse, the first commissioned weeks before Bary Hussein's erection (not his fault, development started about the time Monica was blowing Slick Willy) 5 or 6 already decommissioned in a Navy that prides itself on having Cher dance on 50 yr old Obsolete Battleships...
OK, I supported recommissioning the Battleships, practically worthless in any actual combat scenario (Battleships were built to fight other Battleships)
Purely because of that Cher Video
You think I'm kidding, Bullions of dollars of Weapons Systems have been approved on less

Frank

[grb]

As always, your comment is completely fucking useless. But - hey - being useless & worthless is your raison d'être....

[Frank Drackman]

Amazing how you just displayed your complete ignorance on any of my assertions, so what is your “Middle Management” “Job Title”?
I hear the “Bobs” are interviewing next week

[Dr. Ed 2]

Battleships were weapon platforms -- 16" guns that were super accurate and great for coastal bombardment. Great for Gaza...

[Commenter_XY]

grb, what is the mission? That is what it comes down to. The strategy is reminiscent of island hopping, that MacArthur executed in WWII. The chief difference is, the Marines will no longer 'hold' territory, now the Army will. The Marines capture territory initially, and move on. That requires a BIG logistics tail (move in Army with heavy armor). Our sealift and airlift capability is Ok, but not where it needs to be to take on action in the Pacific.

Long ago, the standard was the US had to have the capability to fight two major conflicts (on different continents), plus a regional war. When I think about Taiwan, UKR and ISR...today, I wonder how likely that scenario is becoming. Can we handle that...2+1?

[SRG2]

Lying Russophile too much for Kilmeade on Fox:

https://x.com/i/status/1892986863863922945

[hobie]

"Mr. Gorbachev. Tear down this wall!"

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, go ahead and laugh you Pubic Hair (Actually I'm not sure if you rise even to the point of being a Pubic Hair on a Pubic Hair)
Berlin Wall came down after a generation of "Experts" said it never would, let my mom go back to see her Mutti (OK, Vati had already died, but there were legal procedures (Germans love their legal procedures)
and not to get maudlin, but imagine if you went overseas as an "Exchange Student" and while you were gone your country built a wall and wouldn't let you back in (or more importantly, back out) and one of your parents died, and you only knew from a letter months afterwards

Frank

[Malika]

was the letter about the
Berlin Wall written like this (like a child
(not good at writing wrote it

[Dr. Ed 2]

I never thought that the Berlin wall would come down.

When I saw that press conference, it was the Noon TV News (which we used to have) and the Boston station cut to the network and the network cut to Germany and a DDR bureaucrat addressing the media, and my gut reaction was "Holy F***, did he just say what I think he did?!?" -- he had.

He said that DDR citizens were free to travel to the West on vacation, and it was suppertime there, the DDR citizens all heard that, and immediately did...

[Krayt]

The mechanics on the ground were fascinating. Tons of East Germans showed up at the gates, and the guards were stunned, so just lifted the bar and let 'em out, and it was all over.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Some shitbag govies are going down for this one:

The unusual nature of the arrangement alone—a major bank rather than Congress handling a big chunk of tax dollars ($20B) with no known oversight mechanism established just a few months before the election (emphasis added) —should raise the Spidey senses of any federal prosecutor, especially one with a stellar DOJ resume that stretches back more than two decades.

https://www.declassified.live/p/the-real-scandal-behind-the-latest

[Commenter_XY]

Subpoenas are already in the works.

[Riva]

You mean the slush fund referred to in the video of the EPA hack bragging about throwing “gold bars” off the Titanic? Is this what you’re referring to?

[David Nieporent]

a major bank rather than Congress handling a big chunk of tax dollars

That is indeed the sort of gibberish masquerading as legal analysis one expects from recipe blogger Julie Kelly. Congress does not in fact "handle" tax dollars. Congress appropriates them. Which it did. What she's having a tantrum about, but isn't honest enough to say, is that the way Biden handled it makes it more difficult for Trump to illegally refuse to disburse the money.

[grb]

Trump on Thursday : “I had an approval rating today of 71 and another one of 69,” Trump bragged at the Republican governors dinner in Washington on Thursday. “I have not heard of those numbers before.”

The man is mentally ill. His mind is broken. He's sick in the head.

[Malika]

“His quarterback was named Mahomes,” Trump said. “He was a great college coach. I said ‘How good was he?’ He said ‘You don’t want to know how good. He made me into a great coach.’ He’s a pretty good quarterback, right? He’s a good guy, too.”

....Tuberville never coached Mahomes.

[Frank Drackman]

and Sleepy Joe never was recruited by Navy

[Malika]

“The spirit is as high as it’s been,” he said. “That’s the biggest increase in the history of whatever the poll was.”

[Riva]

Democrats like to project but you may want to hold off a little before writing asinine comments like that. A little too soon after the demented Joe disaster. Just some friendly advice.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

When I see assured comments from conservatives about what "the Left" wants, well, pardon me for doubting it.

When people talk about "the Left," be on the look out for some partisan-laden assumptions.

[Michael P]

That because the left has a long history of denying reality and trying to gaslight the rest of us.

[David Nieporent]

Once more: not what gaslight means.

[Riva]

That’s a good rule to apply to any media and democrat BS (but I repeat myself) and the ubiquitous “extreme right” label they attach to every opinion they want to demean.

[SRG2]

Claim that Trump was recruited by the KGB om the 80s - apparently the story has been scrubbed from a number of sites, but this is the internet:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/donald-trump-recruited-by-kgb-in-80s-and-even-has-codename-claims-former-soviet-spy/ar-AA1zwS2y

IMO the probability of the story being true is low but not zero. Certainly lower than the general claim that Putin has something on Trump.

[hobie]

Heh. I saw that. His code name 'Krasnov' is a derivation of the color red

[Dan Schiavetta]

If the KGB recruited Trump, they were wasting their rubles. He would be a terrible spy.

[SRG2]

My scepticism is not whether he would have accepted a role were he offered it, but that the KGB wouldn't have deemed him reliable enough.

[hobie]

Right? He'd end up doing something dumb to blow his cover like offering fealty to Putin

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't doubt they had a file on him -- the KGB had a file on everyone in the military at the O-1 level and up. They'd definitely have had a file on him if he'd gone there.

That doesn't mean that he was spying for them, or even that they thought he might -- they just wanted to keep track of everyone influential and Trump very much was that.

Furthermore, the head of the Kazakhstan’s National Security Committee might be assigned to report on Trump, but wouldn't really have known why or what was going on. The Soviets were quite racist and this would be like a Black man's knowledge of Bull Connor's Police Dept.

[SRG2]

I don't doubt they had a file on him -- the KGB had a file on everyone in the military at the O-1 level and up. They'd definitely have had a file on him if he'd gone there

The claim includes that he had a codename - which is not consistent with there merely being a file on him.

[Dr. Ed 2]

On someone who (even then) was internationally known?

Tradecraft would mandate a code word name.

[David Nieporent]

Tradecraft would mandate a code word name.

It's in his dissertation, folks!

[Riva]

Wow. I guess Hillary could try getting one her lawfirm cutouts to buy some new lies to peddle to the FBI but just so you know, Comey is gone and Kash Patel is now in charge. Don’t really think your new Russian collusion fraud is going to get much traction but go for it if you really want to.

[SRG2]

Just to see where you stand, did Russia attempt to interfere in the 2016 election?

[Riva]

I think they may have spent a few thousand on some silly ads somewhere, probably small change compared to what USAID has funneled out around the world to influence foreign elections. And probably far less than Hillary paid her law firm cutouts to buy the lies that were funneled to the FBI to start the Russian collusion fraud hoax. That would be the point you're response is desperately trying to distract from while at the same time you clowns try to peddle a new hoax, which is basically the same as the old hoax. You clowns aren't really all that clever, are you?

[Malika]

"I will immediately bring prices down, starting on Day 1."

https://eggprices.org/national-data

Maybe he meant Day 1 of his second year of his second term?

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe he meant they aren’t as high as they would have been with Cums-a-lot

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

I remember being on a bus to work in St Louis and most everybody was moaning about economy, world situation, global warming, taxes, etc. and one guy said "but I heard today that things are actuallly much better" ....It's raining like hell, streets flooding.cars stalling out but Google says, "wonderful weathin in your area" -- and if you believe it , well they play to fools

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court has held in abeyance until February 26 the Trump administration's application to vacate the District Court's temporary restraining order prohibiting the defendants from removing Hampton Dellinger from his position as Special Counsel for the Office of Special Counsel. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/dellinger-order.pdf

On February 12, 2025, the District Court entered a temporary restraining order providing that Dellinger should remain in office until the court ruled on his motion for a preliminary injunction. The District Court has scheduled a hearing on that motion for February 26, the day that the TRO expires. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson would have denied the application. Justices Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, dissented from the order holding the application in abeyance.

Mr. Dellinger was appointed in February 2024 to a five year term. Per 5 U.S.C. § 1211(b), he may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office -- none of which was alleged as to Mr. Dellinger. By disregarding this mandatory Congressional enactment, President Trump here has unquestionably overstepped his constitutional bounds.

"There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes." Clinton v.City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 438 (1998). "Repeal of statutes, no less than enactment, must conform with Art. I." Ibid., quoting INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 954 (1983). As Justice Robert Jackson, concurring in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), famously opined:

When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.

Id., at 637-638 (footnote omitted).

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The order was unsigned but Sotomayor and Jackson publicly said they would deny the application & Gorsuch + Alito dissented from the order holding the application in abeyance.

So, that leaves five. It is somewhat interesting that Thomas was among the five.

[Commenter_XY]

Justice Thomas saves his talk for the opinion he writes.

[David Nieporent]

That doesn't even make sense, and to the extent I can figure out what you're saying, it's wrong.

[not guilty]

"Justice Thomas saves his talk for the opinion he writes."

That is untrue. Justice Thomas frequently dissents from or concurs separately as to the denial of certiorari.

[Mr. Bumble]

Happy Washington's Birthday (as adjusted when changing the calendar in use at the time of his birth).

[ThePublius]

I don't follow. The Gregorian calendar is the calendar used by most of the world today. It was introduced in 1582 by Pope Gregory XIII. George was born in 1732.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Washington was born in Virginia on February 11, 1731, according to the then-used Julian calendar. In 1752 Britain and all its colonies adopted the Gregorian calendar, which moved Washington’s birthday a year and 11 days.

That puts Washington’s birthday on February 22, 1732."
https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2025/02/11/washingtons-birthday-the-federal-holiday/

[ThePublius]

Ah, gotcha, thanks.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Before Lincoln and Washington got consolidated into "Presidents' Day", we celebrated Lincoln's birthday on Feb. 12 and Washington's on Feb. 22.

[Mr. Bumble]

Lincoln's birthday was never a federal holiday but was celebrated as a holiday in several states and localities.
The formal title is NOT President's day but is still Washington' birthday.

[Frank Drackman]

You can say the same about Robert E Lee's Birthday

[Dr. Ed 2]

Great Britain, including the American colonies, adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752. That is why you see "old style" and "new style" date notations for a while after that.

[hobie]

Keep selectively purging negroes, women and dwarfs from civil service. It will never backfire. Around election time, my niggas in this hood were mixed. The women hated Trump, but the young men liked him solely because he was 'gangster'. They ain't that bright. Now they all hate him. The blacks heavily associate with people they feel share their experiences. Trump was just another guy with a mugshot persecuted by the powerful whites. However, they strongly associate with Ukraine for the same reasons. Trump's betrayal of Ukraine shattered all that. Ah yes, things are getting back to normal

[Mr. Bumble]

You're full of shit.
I doubt your "niggas" even know where Ukraine is let alone careing about white dudes killing white dudes.

[hobie]

Surprisingly, Ukraine is very resonant with my niggas. Just another persecuted group being held down by the man.

[Frank Drackman]

Only way your niggers would go to You-Crane is if you told them they were giving away free Fried Chicken and Watermelon. See, THAT's how you do a race-ist comment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I wonder how many of them would like to be drafted to go die there.

[SRG2]

I doubt your "niggas" even know where Ukraine is

Thus showing they do share something with the average Trump supporter.

[hobie]

Like I alluded above. It takes a certain level of stupid or a lack of rational thought to buy the baubles Trump's selling from the lining of his trench coat

[Mr. Bumble]

"Thus showing they do share something with the average Trump supporter."
Seems this time around they numbered among the average Trump supporters.

[Riva]

There's probably a fat, pimply faced Caucasian college sophomore behind the "hobie" alias.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Where's the rev with his tabulations of racial slurs?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Jeff Daniels played the birthday boy in "The Crossing," a dramatization of General George Washington's crossing of the Delaware to attack the Hessians. Pretty good.

[SRG2]

Krasnov continues to threaten Ukraine - this time with loss of Starlink: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-threatens-to-cut-ukraines-starlink-access-report/ar-AA1zzmkr

This is not how you treat an ally- - it's how you treat an enemy.

[hobie]

Jesus...

[Life of Brian]

Dunno what Hobie's excuse is, but I suppose it's at least possible that 4 hours ago when you posted this the article hadn't yet been updated with "but Elon Musk denied the report on Saturday" in the opening sentence.

[SRG2]

Musk has denied many things. I believe Reuters ahead of him.

[Life of Brian]

Look, it's a free country, so if squeezing your eyes shut to clear and unequivocal words from the horse's mouth in favor of breathless rumors from supposed little birdies pleasantly tickles your priors, you do you.

[SRG2]

And if the horse is wont to lie you're be a gullible idiot to believe it. But as you say, you do you, sucker.

[Life of Brian]

I mean, Zelenskyy himself certainly hasn't been shy about getting in front of cameras and saying whatever comes to mind that he thinks might keep the money/equipment flow coming, so it's just a trifle weird that if he really felt like there was a credible risk of something like this that he wouldn't be out there trumpeting it to the stars and we'd instead have to learn of it via whisperings from certain allegedly-existing anonymous cowards. It also seems like once you peek behind the bloodbath oooh-scary notion in the headline, there are some rather pesky structural questions about how the Trump administration could somehow exercise control over the Starlink network so as to be able to keep that sort of a promise if it came to that.

But assuming you can steer clear of the uncomfortable and maybe even slightly scary world of critical thinking, I guess the great thing about non-verifiable/non-falsifiable approaches like AP's is that you can still steadfastly maintain your belief even when it ultimately doesn't happen.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Who says that Ukraine is an ally? What have they ever done for us?

NB: Subsidizing the corrupt Bidens is not for *us*....

[David Nieporent]

Who says that Ukraine is an ally? What have they ever done for us?

Destroyed a large part of the Russian army.

[ThePublius]

We are not supposed to be at war with Russia.

[David Nieporent]

…and one good way to head off that possibility is to decimate Russia's military so that it cannot be a threat to us and our allies.

[ThePublius]

That would be waging war against Russia, directly or by proxy.

[David Nieporent]

I do not think that defending oneself against aggression is normally considered "waging war against" the aggressor.

[Mr. Bumble]

Kind of what we've been doing (proxy) by the never ending stream of arms to Ukraine.

[David Nieporent]

It unfortunately seems to be ending. And Ukraine is fighting on its behalf, not ours.

[Absaroka]

"We are not supposed to be at war with Russia."

If you were around then, did you have the same objection at the time when were aiding the Afghans against the Soviet Union?

Saudi Arabia against Iran? Greece post WWII? Come to think of it, we weren't at war with Iraq when it invaded Kuwait. Bush 1 had no business sticking our nose in that local dispute, I suppose?

[John F. Carr]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-far-right-leader-is-chinese-speaking-economist-with-foreign-partner-2025-02-22/

Reuters points out that the leader of AfD is a Chinese-speaking lesbian economist with a Sri Lankan partner. Except Reuters isn't willing to write out the l-word.

I remember a profile of far-right groups in Idaho revealing that they like Asians.

[Z Crazy]

If you judged races in America by socioeconomic metrics, youd conclude that Asians are the master race.

They make all the money and get all the girls. Even the girls among them get all the girls!

[David Nieporent]

I remember a profile of far-right groups in Idaho revealing that they like Asians.

Yellow Aryans!

https://www.nytimes.com/1941/12/15/archives/rome-defines-yellow-aryans.html

[Frank Drackman]

The most Righty-Right of the Far Right go any further than that, they claim they're the "Original Jews" (we real Original Jews prefer "OJ") The whole "British Israelism/Christian Identity" theory, and Aryans did originate in Asia, the word stemming from "Iran". Funny, don't see many of them in Sin O' Gogue much, and don't even get me started with the "Messianic Jews" (Imagine Jerry Falwell wearing a Yarmulke, I think he was actually photographed wearing one)

[Brett Bellmore]

I never thought of the Black Hebrew Nationalists as 'right wing'. (Does sound like it should be a hot dog brand, though.)

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha!

[Commenter_XY]

She sounds like a real threat to democracy. /sarc 🙂

[ThePublius]

AfD is only called "far right" because anyone or any organization or party that is in opposition to the liberal leftist forces that have run things are branded as extreme and dangerous.

They call AfD Nazis. But the left is villainizing them, marginalizing them, boycotting them (inducing others to not form coalitions with them), surveilling them, and censoring them. Sounds like the left are the Nazis in this scenario. Never forget, Nazism is a phenomenon of the left, essentially communists with the addition of nationalism, not unlike Mussolini's fascism, another communist with the addition of nationalism.

AfD in Germany are the new jews.

[Noscitur a sociis]

AfD in Germany are the new jews.

ThePublius, I must implore you to stop helping.

[not guilty]

A federal district judge in Maryland has partially enjoined enforcement of President Trump's executive orders which purport to deprive federal funding from programs that incorporate diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility initiatives. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.575287/gov.uscourts.mdd.575287.45.0_2.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.575287/gov.uscourts.mdd.575287.44.0_2.pdf

The Court ruled that the plaintiffs had shown that they are likely to succeed on their claims of unconstitutional vagueness, that the orders violate the First Amendment because on the face thereof it constitutes a content-based restriction on the speech rights of federal contractors and grantees, that the orders operate as a facially viewpoint-discriminatory order, and that that the Enforcement Threat Provision violates the First Amendment, because it threatens to initiate enforcement actions against Plaintiffs (in the form of civil compliance investigations) for engaging in protected speech.

Because the plaintiffs had shown their likelihood of success on their other claims, the Court did not address the likelihood of success on the plaintiffs' claims that President Trump's purporting to unilaterally terminate equity-related grants and contracts without express statutory authority is ultra vires and violates the constitutional separation of powers.

[Commenter_XY]

I would surmise many of the contracts have a terminate for convenience clause. That is pretty much a standard. I don't think this injunction stops the Trump Admin from terming a contract for convenience (if in the contract...and if not in contract, why not).

[Noscitur a sociis]

If the termination is impermissible, doing it pretextually doesn’t fix the problem.

[ThePublius]

Kash Patel Is Already Making Huge Changes at the FBI

"Following his blistering speech on Friday, [Patel] ordered the transfer of 1,500 agents and staff from the bureau’s Washington, D.C., headquarters to field offices across the country.

Roughly 1,000 will be sent to high-crime cities that the Trump administration designated, where they can focus on fighting crime instead of political games. Another 500 will be reassigned to Huntsville, Ala., which is widely seen as D.C.’s version of exile."

“A third of the workforce for the FBI works in Washington, D.C.,” Patel said. “I am fully committed to having that workforce go out into the interior of the country, where I live west of the Mississippi, and work with sheriff’s departments and local officers.”

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/02/21/boom-kash-patel-is-already-making-huge-changes-at-the-fbi-n4937220

[Dan Schiavetta]

The fact that he ordered these sweeping changes three days after joining the agency is (further) proof that he doesn't know what he's doing.

[Mr. Bumble]

...if it were you doing so that would be true. On the other hand he might know exactly what he's doing.

[Life of Brian]

1. What in your view would he have done differently if he had known what he was doing?
2. Since I take it you aren't inside the FBI yourself, what's your basis for believing that?

[ThePublius]

You think he only started thinking about what he'd do after he was sworn in? He has been talking about this stuff and planning it for months.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, I do think he never imagined what he would do. He has no idea of what the FBI does, no idea as to how it's organized, and nothing in what he has said or written displays any sophisticated knowledge of it. He's just an ignorant blowhard.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Pam Bondi said that Justice was far worse than she imagined.

[ThePublius]

And now Acting Director of the BATF!

[Frank Drackman]

Huntsville (AKA Rocket City) is a nice town, hard to believe it's in Ali-Bama (HT K. Jackson) Free Frankie Tip, try the Schnitzel at Ol Heidelberg.
Funny as much as people who live in DC complain about the traffic, cost of living, you know they're gonna scream like little Bee-Otches when they get the orders for Huntsville (You know what would be a Genius move for Kash? move the FBI Headquarters to Selma Alabama)

Frank

[SRG2]

Krasnov now trying to get Ukraine to rewrite a UN resolution
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/02/22/ukraine-war-un-resolution-trump/

The Trump administration has called on Ukraine to withdraw an annual resolution at the United Nations condemning Russia’s war and instead wants to replace it with a U.S.-sponsored statement calling for an end to the conflict that contains no mention of Russian responsibility, according to officials and diplomats from a number of involved countries.

[Commenter_XY]

This is hilarious
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elon-musk-says-bar-very-low-after-ordering-federal-employees-fill-out-productivity-reports-resign

Five bullet points, written legibly, from fed bureaucrats stating five things done in the previous five days, and you literally get to think about it all day on Monday.

Don't lawyers do this routinely for their clients when you bill them? You tell them what you did and itemize, right? 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

People on travel. People on vacation.
The e-mail that wasn't configured right and will go to spam in a lot of agencies.
There isn't an actual cause to fire nonresponsive employees since it doesn't come through the leadership of any agency.
The new head of the FBI says don't answer it.

Hilarious? It's just more wanky stupidity. Square peg of silicon valley shittiness not fitting into the round hole of the US government structure.

You just don't think much these days.
Spite has taken over your life.
Spite at Ukraine based on some WW2 shit.
Spite at federal employees based on some funeral you weren't allowed to attend.
Spite at Palestinians because just hating Hamas wasn't enough for you.

[Mr. Bumble]

Shit poster, who shit posts from work every day has trouble understanding accountability.

[Sarcastr0]

The idea that doing a good job is X hours of exclusive focus and Y hours off is decades out of date.

I'm sure you do plenty of productive things when you're not posting grade-school insults on this forum.

You should still get a better hobby.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and you should get a real job.

[wreckinball]

Accurate. Thinks the government is highly efficient and does not need an independent audit. That is incredibly stupid. stupid. Then calls everyone who agrees that government needs oversight stupid.

[Sarcastr0]

GAO is independent.
CRS is independent.
Congress itself is independent.
IG's are set up to be independent.

Do you think this is the first time someone thought of government oversight?

But hell, if Musk would actually *do* an audit, like a formal audit, that would be a redundant waste of time but worlds better than this performative churn.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, it is rather hilarious. It doesn't even mandate that you reach five, it says "aprox. 5".

I could have filled out an email like that in seconds, without breaking a sweat, at every job I've ever held. How useless do you have to be, that an email like that would make you break into a sweat?

[Sarcastr0]

No one is saying the e-mail is hard to respond to.

If you get it. And your agency leadership decides you have to. And you're around to respond.

The ease part of the issue - it's nothing more than pointless churn.

That you and Commenter are into it shows your real goals are nothing practical. Just utopian hostility to people you don't know or understand what they do.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, the email is not hard to respond to, which is why the refusal to if you were in a position to would be treated as a constructive resignation.

And as ThePublius said, stop assuming that these things are going to be implemented stupidly. That's your hostility talking, not reason.

[Sarcastr0]

This entire thing has been nothing but stupid to all but the utopianists and nihilists.

Plenty of conservatives on here have pointed that out.

You don't care because you're both an extreme partisan tribalist AND a utopia-seeker who isn't afraid of embracing some dodgy ends to justify their utopian means.

"those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

[Armchair]

"Right, the email is not hard to respond to, which is why the refusal to if you were in a position to would be treated as a constructive resignation."

Not...quite.

Let's take an example from the corporate world. Let's say you're a Secretary working on shipping manifests for Fruit of the Loom.

Then, out of the blue, you get an e-mail from [e-mail]. That e-mail directs you to "Immediately give a status update in the next 24 hours on what you did last week to [e-mail]". You've never seen this e-mail before. You've never communicated with anyone there. It's...odd.

What do you actually do in such a situation? What's the first thing?

[ThePublius]

You're just being silly. These people don't live in vacuums, they have colleagues and supervisors, and presumably read the news. They know about and expect the email.

[Armchair]

But see what you did there? Your first response was not to "immediately answer the e-mail". It was "confirm if it's real with colleagues and supervisors."

How long should supervisors have to confirm the details? 1 hour? 4 hours? There's a lot of layers of management...

Again, I'll point you back to the original hypothetical. You get an e-mail from [e-mail]. What is the FIRST thing you do?

[Life of Brian]

You get an e-mail from [e-mail]. What is the FIRST thing you do?

This doesn't really seem like an apt analogy. The article C_XY originally linked says 1) the emails are coming not from some out-of-the-blue entity that someone working at one of its subsidiaries may legitimately never have heard of, but from the Office of Personnel Management itself, and 2) each reply is to be copied to the employee's direct supervisor.

What exactly are the indicia of potential fraud that you think the employees might reasonably see in such a request?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I mean, have you seen the email? It looks exactly like the example phishing email you’d get shown at a cybersecurity training.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, that subject line would make me think it was a phishing attempt.

[Life of Brian]

I mean, have you seen the email?

I've seen purported screenshots like this one that don't look unreasonable. If you know of an authenticated copy or think this one isn't representative, please link what you have.

It looks exactly like the example phishing email you’d get shown at a cybersecurity training.

Then you and I have taken dramatically different cybersecurity training classes. The email 1) is from "[e-mail]," not some weird variation with random digits or similar as in Armchair's hypo (and, in fact, is the exact same email address from which the employee would have received their deferred resignation offer just a few weeks ago!), 2) starts with a big green "safe sender" badge created by the receiving email server; 3) has no potentially hazardous attachments; 4) explicitly says "please do not send any classified information, links, or attachments", and 5) explicitly instructs to CC your manager (literally the last thing a real phisher would do even if they were trying to strike up a longer-term conversation to try to get info or access, since the entire point of phishing is to try to find, isolate, and exploit vulnerable employees and advertising their presence to the supervisor would sorta... work against that).

My question to Armchair wasn't whether some employees MIGHT think it's potential fraud, but what indicia they might REASONABLY think is such.

[Armchair]

Most government employees don't actually report to OPM (OPM employees do). Most government employees never actually get an e-mail from OPM asking for a response. (Until today)

What normally happens is it filters down through management. The White House talks to the Department of State heads who talk to the Bureau of Counterterrorism heads who then talk to the line employees in Counterterrorism.

The analogy is apt, because Berkshire Hathway technically owns Fruit of the Loom. But Berkshire doesn't directly e-mail Fruit employees. They tell Fruit management what they want, and then it filters down from there.

[Life of Brian]

Most government employees never actually get an e-mail from OPM asking for a response.

As I just said above, every one of these employees just got a deferred resignation offer email from the exact same OPM emall address a few weeks ago. If that's already slipped their mind and they are legitimately in a panic over whether [e-mail] is a safe sender, maybe that isn't a bad weed-out right there.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And as ThePublius said, stop assuming that these things are going to be implemented stupidly.

We’ve yet to see a DOGE initiative that hasn’t been implemented stupidly (if not mendaciously or maliciously), so why would we think this one would go any better?

[Mr. Bumble]

Time? We are only four weeks into the reset.

[Noscitur a sociis]

“They started doing too much stuff before they had time to figure out how to not do it stupidly” is neither a defense of DOGE (it’s in fact one of the main complaints!) nor much reason to think this will go better.

[ThePublius]

Sarcastr0, don't assume that Musk is stupid, and that this will be implemented stupidly. I'm sure it's not black and white, and he well knows that there are folks on vacation or leave, and those who don't use email in their daily jobs. He will make allowances for that, I'm sure.

Second, for professional and administrative and general office jobs, in the commercial world, it's common, perhaps universal, to provide a weekly status report to one's manager. As a senior manager I did, and had to roll up my team's individual contributors' reports for my boss. This chain of reporting and summarizing and passing them up the chain went all the way to the Sr. VP of our division. Question one was 'what are we getting for our money?'

There's very good reason for this, and no reason federal employees shouldn't do it.

Again, don't assume incompetence or stupidity for lack of detail.

[Sarcastr0]

Musk has demonstrated that he is, if not stupid, not wise.

He's spending far too much time calling people retards on twitter to think hard about anything, anyhow.

You make a huge and unwarranted assumption I'm against keeping track of what people do.

Part of my job is workflow. So if my boss wants to know where we are on something, I should have that info at my fingertips.
I do it with on-on-ones. We shoot the breeze informally, but I make sure in the course of that discussion I ask what they did, what they're planning to do, and what challenges they've faced.

That's nothing like this impersonal broad-blanket nonsense. This is useless churn. It's shaped like something legitimate, but it's actually bureaucracy in it's worse and most useless form.

[ThePublius]

I disagree. It has to start somewhere. My intuition is that we have a huge percentage of federal employees who are deadwood or doing next to nothing.

Don't underestimate Musk. Look at his accomplishments in the private sector.

By the way, we did both one-on-ones and written status reports. We tracked work and workflows with various tools like JIRA. The "written" reports could indeed be entries into JIRA and then pulled as a report. We also used Bugzilla and for open source work could reference things like commits, reviews, etc. I'm pretty sure Musk, being quite the nerd, is intimately familiar with all of these tools and more.

[Sarcastr0]

Your intuition.

[ThePublius]

Yes, based on 42 years of an engineering career, mostly in software, and including government contracting. I was on a couple of occasions involved in clearing out deadwood, and it went so far as to even people fraudulently working at other companies while still collecting a paycheck from us, supposedly working from home. That's an extreme case, but it wasn't a singular one. Others just used the gym, ate the free meals (even took a to-go container with them for a spouse), "phoned in" the same vague status report week after week, but were, in reality, doing nothing for us. Others were the stay at home parent and spent most of their day caring for their children, and maybe just attending video meetings and writing a status report, and not much else.

This happens everywhere, in big organizations, and I'm sure it's rampant among feds, who are not know for their efficiency.

The people actually working, and there are many, cheer this kind of clean-up. I've also had people who worked tirelessly and extremely competently, some I even had to suggest they take a break, consider work-life balance. So I'm not saying it's all bad, just that there is bad there. Slackers cost money, reduce profits and/or efficiency, and hurt morale.

[Sarcastr0]

None of this has been a cleanup.

You manage a cleanup. You look for inefficiency. You study the problem.

Government isn’t business, but none of this is good business either.

No; this is just a show.
And Feds are the victims you came to jeer at.

[ThePublius]

I'm not jeering, cut it out.

[Sarcastr0]

You're jeering plenty below.

But the key here is that you and Brett and wreckingball and commenter etc. etc. sure as fuck aren't engaging with the actual facts. Just twitter posts from Musk. Posts that have been shown to be largely lies and mistakes.

You're here for the show, because you like what's going on and a show is all this is.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"None of this has been a cleanup.

You manage a cleanup. You look for inefficiency. You study the problem."

No, it's a steamrolling. Sometimes you can't manage a cleanup when you have intrenched interests who will resist your cleanup, and a steamrolling approach is necessary.

Lots of people on both sides warned that Musk would find out what it's like trying to reform government, so it's not surprising he thought such a steamrolling was necessary.

[wreckinball]

Great post. Government is not a business in that there is no bottom line to be met and the customer is captive so a competitor cannot take away your customers.

BUT in providing services the same principles apply to both government and private industry or at least they should.

This includes internal audits

[Sarcastr0]

1. Congress creates bottom lines each year.

2. Government is not a fee-for-service enterprise.

[ThePublius]

You know, you're fighting and resisting this whole thing. Do you think government efficiency and accountability can be improved? Or is it just fine the way it is? If you do think it can be improved, what's your plan, what's your suggestion as to how to go about it?

[Sarcastr0]

This whole thing isn’t about efficiency. You strawman me to pretend my issue is that I think government is perfect.

You want efficiency? Implement the latest GAO reports about defense acquisition and benefits fraud.
And go down the line from there.

Not as exciting as Musk tweeting over 200 times in one day, but there it is.

[wreckinball]

The proof that government is wasteful and inefficient is observing their performance on anything. Name anything public that is better than private or even equal to it.

Zilch. There are no exceptions.

[Magister]

I hope you're not claiming there's a private sector nuclear arsenal that's as good as the US government's. For things that the private sector tries to do: government run prisons are better than private prisons (that are dangerous and ineffective); the judicial system is better than arbitration systems (that are corrupt or companies wouldn't want to force you to arbitration, would they?); universal health care (every other developed country spends less for overall better outcomes). Government bears a burden to achieve the transparency demanded of it, but the private sector bears the burden of delivering profit.

[ThePublius]

If government sponsored universal health care is so good, why do people make medical journeys to the United States? You realize that the NHS is collapsing? You can't get care except by waiting many months, or years, or being denied? Canada's solution seems to be euthanasia. Give me a break. How many U.S. citizens are medical tourists to the UK or Canada?

[Absaroka]

"You can't get care except by waiting many months, or years, or being denied?"

FWIW, here in the USA, I just came due for another colonoscopy (yay!) ... and the GP said local times are in the several month range.

10 years ago it was a couple weeks. Dunno if it is just a local thing.

[Magister]

I was due for a colonoscopy in September of 2023 and could only get an appointment in June of 2024; several months sounds like an improvement. (Colonoscopies ordered due to symptoms were scheduled with shorter wait times.) I was told that the delay was due to a still unresolved backlog from the pandemic. (I was also told many years ago by a doctor that there wouldn't be enough people to do colonoscopies if everyone had the recommended colonoscopies.)

[Magister]

Lots of people still go to Canada just to get cheaper prescriptions. The Canadians who travel to the US for medical procedures because of wait times -- don't you think they may be among the better off? US has plenty of health care for people with enough money.

[David Nieporent]

the judicial system is better than arbitration systems (that are corrupt or companies wouldn't want to force you to arbitration, would they?);

Um, what? They want arbitration because it's more efficient, not because it's more corrupt.

[Magister]

They want it because it has a profit motive to favor their interests; that's corrupt.

[David Nieporent]

No.

[Magister]

It doesn't have to be corrupt, but in practice they won't go back to arbitrators who don't favor them. That's why they want their choice of arbitrator and not the consumer's choice.

And I have no qualms about calling it always corrupt when replying to those who think that government is always bad.

[Noscitur a sociis]

My intuition is that we have a huge percentage of federal employees who are deadwood or doing next to nothing.

Let’s stipulate that that’s true.

How does this advance the goal of doing something about it?

[ThePublius]

"if not stupid, not wise"

You really think he could be stupid? That's Musk derangement syndrome speaking.

[David Nieporent]

This chain of reporting and summarizing and passing them up the chain went all the way to the Sr. VP of our division. Question one was 'what are we getting for our money?'

If your SVP was spending all his time on a weekly basis trying to find that out, sounds like the company wasn't getting very much out of his salary.

Also, it's just dumb in many contexts. If there's a specific project that you're working on, especially with a defined end date, the company may need to know about your progress. (But unless you're approaching the end, a weekly basis sounds pretty neurotic.) But there are many people who that doesn't describe, from secretaries to HR to maintenance to IT, whose job is just to keep things running smoothly on an ongoing basis. What 5 bullet points would people filling those types of jobs report weekly?

[ThePublius]

You apparently have no idea of how this works, or what "summary" means with regard to status. The SVP has a responsibility to know what is returned for his staff expenditure. It also allows him to redirect investment to align better with corporate strategy.

[David Nieporent]

The SVP has a responsibility to know what is returned for his staff expenditure. It also allows him to redirect investment to align better with corporate strategy.

Not on a weekly basis.

[ThePublius]

Oh, yes, on a weekly basis.

[David Nieporent]

I'm obviously not saying that your SVP didn't do it on a weekly basis; how would I know? I'm saying that he shouldn't have been evaluating roi of employees or "redirecting investment" on a weekly basis. That's like a parody of the leftist critique of businesses that supposedly focus too much on quarterly numbers.

[Commenter_XY]

David, it works the same way in the consulting world. ThePublius described a reporting chain I have, also. I report upwards internally and to clients. That is life in the private sector.

You bill clients, right? Do you itemize the bill?

[David Nieporent]

When I bill clients on a flat fee basis (as I frequently do) or a contingency basis, I do not in fact itemize anything; I simply give them progress updates when things happen (not on a weekly or even monthly basis).

When it's an hourly billing arrangement, I record my time contemporaneously down to the 0.1 hour (i.e., 6 minutes). We send those bills to the client on a monthly basis, not to prove that we've been doing something (indeed, in some months we haven't) but because that's how we take money out of their retainer. If a client wants to discuss the progress of his case, we schedule a call (which we of course bill for), but if a client said, "I demand you prove to me on a weekly basis that you're working on my case," I would drop that client.

[ThePublius]

Ha!

"The state of America: People feeling as if their rights are violated for having to make a list of 5 things they accomplished over a 40 hour period. How many people are going to list “responding to this email” as one?"

(As seen on X.)

[ThePublius]

Sample Status Report
- Well, I generally come in at least fifteen minutes late, ah, I use the side door - that way my boss can't see me
- after that I just sorta space out for about an hour.
- I just stare at my desk; but it looks like I'm working.
- I do that for probably another hour after lunch, too.
- I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, no jeering here.

[ThePublius]

Lighten up, Francis. It was a joke!

[David Nieporent]

I got the reference, anyway. And I hope Trump ends up in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

[ThePublius]

TDS

[David Nieporent]

Lighten up, Francis. It was a joke!

[Magister]

The whole thing is a ploy to find all the red staplers.

[Sarcastr0]

“I'm not jeering, cut it out.”

“It was a joke!”

Own what you are.

[ThePublius]

Likewise, Gaslight0.

[Frank Drackman]

Dammit, you beat me to it, you Engineers!

[Frank Drackman]

JOB DESCRIPTION "My job consists of basically masking my contempt for the assholes in charge, and, at least once a day, retiring to the men's room so I can jerk off while I fantasize about a life that doesn't so closely resemble Hell."

[ThePublius]

Peter Gibbons: So I was sitting in my cubicle today, and I realized, ever since I started working, every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life.
Dr. Swanson: What about today? Is today the worst day of your life?
Peter Gibbons: Yeah.
Dr. Swanson: Wow, that's messed up.

[Noscitur a sociis]

1. I’ve had supervisors who wanted this kind of thing; if your stereotypes of government workers are accurate, there are probably plenty of people who are already doing that. It’s inevitably the kind of bureaucratic makework bullshit that I thought we were supposed to be getting rid of. There also tends to be a Goodhart’s law effect, where the least productive and capable people develop a remarkable capacity for making their lack of achievement sound good rather than actually doing stuff.

2. The screenshot that’s been going around (e.g. here: https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1893424961026486389) conspicuously fails to mention anything about failure to respond being a resignation, which makes it strange for Elon Musk to say that.

3. The legal basis for OPM(?) to demand this information or impose consequences for not complying (if they are proposing to do so) seems pretty questionable.

4. Apparently the DOGE email database is still wrong, and this has gone out to judicial employees.

5. What is this supposed to accomplish, exactly? I note that Elon Musk claims that it’s to catch the “non-existent people or the identities of dead people are being used to collect paychecks” that he “believe[s]” are on the federal payroll which is, needless to say, insane. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1893657900851278115

[Magister]

There also tends to be a Goodhart’s law effect, where the least productive and capable people develop a remarkable capacity for making their lack of achievement sound good rather than actually doing stuff.

Yes, my experience is that the people who don't do stuff are good at making it sound like they have; it's mostly how they got hired in the first place.

[Sarcastr0]

That is my experience as well.
At least if you just require regular paper reviews.

[Armchair]

"What is this supposed to accomplish, exactly? I note that Elon Musk claims that it’s to catch the “non-existent people or the identities of dead people are being used to collect paychecks” that he “believe[s]” are on the federal payroll which is, needless to say, insane."

Just out of curiosity, why is this "insane?" Ghost Soldiers are a well known phenomenon.

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

[Noscitur a sociis]

Just out of curiosity, why is this "insane?"

Because it betrays a basic ignorance of how federal employment works.

Ghost Soldiers are a well known phenomenon.

I note that the only American example offered there that in 2004, some reserve units were listed as full strength even though many of its members were ineligible to deploy. There’s no instance the kind of fraud Elon Musk is talking about, where non-existence or dead people are drawing pay.

[ThePublius]

"non-existence or dead people are drawing pay."

B.S. I found 'non existent' people on my payroll - they were working at other companies, and never resigned from mine. In my case they were caught and prosecuted.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Unless I missed it, your company was not mentioned in that Wikipedia article. Nor, it would appear, is your company the U.S. government. Although from what you’ve said about it so far, it certainly does seem poorly-managed enough that I’m not surprised people were able to defraud it.

[Mr. Bumble]

NaS, this sounds like the same arguments that occur when voter "fraud" is discussed.
You will NEVER find what you don't look for.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The government does look for it, which is precisely why it’s so implausible to believe that this is a problem, as Elon Musk purports to believe.

[Armchair]

"Because it betrays a basic ignorance of how federal employment works."

Just out of curiosity, what is this "ignorance" about how federal employment in particular works? Again, particular to federal employment.

If a federal employee who was working from home then died, what safeguards are in place to stop the employee from continuing to be paid? How easily could those safeguards be gotten around?

[Noscitur a sociis]

1. At some point, people will typically notice that they can’t contact the employee and haven’t seen any work from them. (This is ignoring the fact that effective Monday, there shouldn’t be many employees who aren’t working on site anyway.)

2. Employees generally have family members who have certain death beenefits, which they’d have to report the death to receive.

3. To get paid, employees have to affirmatively submit time and attendance records.

4. Every agency is required to conduct periodic performance reviews, with the participation of the employee.

If you were lucky, you might be able to sneak out a paycheck or two. The prospect of someone doing this successfully for any length of time—much less enough people to make this a systemic problem—is simply ridiculous.

[Armchair]

I did ask about what items were specific to the federal employment..as opposed to just general "work related stuff." Which is what you had for items 1-3 (and 4 to an extent).

If there's nothing that's actually specific and particular to federal employment, then perhaps you should correct yourself?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’m not claiming that there’s anything unique to federal employment that would make the scheme impossible—on the contrary, I think it would be hard at most (although, per ThePublius, apparently not all!) employers. Rather, my point is that federal employment conditions that would make this infeasible.

[Ridgeway]

Yeah -- I am sure there are plenty of people goofing off while WFH, but even they know to show up for their periodic teleconferences, and respond to their emails (at least their boss' emails). If you go completely radio silent for more than a day or two, alarm bells are going to start going off.

[Absaroka]

" the least productive and capable people develop a remarkable capacity for making their lack of achievement sound good rather than actually doing stuff."

Boy howdy. A couple of years before I retired they instituted a report-time-spent-in-6-minute-intervals system. Every minute had to be accounted towards an approved project. People complained they needed to have a project number for ... the time spent filling out the time accounting system.

There were people reporting spending hours per week doing the $%^^&* time accounting - and they weren't kidding. The correlation coefficient between time spent timekeeping and value to the organization was about -0.95.

The old joke rang true: how do you report changing a lightbulb?

"Single-handedly managed the successful upgrade and deployment of new environmental illumination system with zero cost overruns and zero safety incidents."

[Noscitur a sociis]

To expand on #5 a bit: according to the tweet, the point of this exercise is to catch non-existent or dead employees who are being paid, and real employees who “are doing so little work that they are not checking their email at all!”

Let’s the premise that there is a big group of lazy or fraudulent employees who would normally have not seen this email and responded to it, thus allowing a non-response to trigger follow up scrutiny (and that falling into this group is a the main reason why someone might not respond). Isn’t making this into a major national news story, thus guaranteeing that people will hear about it without checking their email, kind of dumb?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Don't lawyers do this routinely for their clients when you bill them? You tell them what you did and itemize, right?

Yes, (large, institutional) clients have demanded ever-increasingly precise billing statements. The dynamic this creates is not generally considered a model to emulate in other industries and fields.

[David Nieporent]

And then there's Wachtell's approach!

[Ridgeway]

Do they still get away with that? Back in the '90s when I was in BigLaw (before it was called BigLaw) that was what I heard about Wachtell -- S&C too, at least sometimes. But I figured that went the way of the Yankee's facial hair policy.

[David Nieporent]

Well, i haven't gotten a bill from them recently (LOL), but as recently as a decade ago, they were still doing it that way.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, it commoditizes the practice of law.

[Ridgeway]

Like with many things, you don't know what you are talking about here. Large (and not so large) companies have introduced legal spend analysis software which, among other things, automates invoice processing. This in turn requires very precise bill coding (think medical insurance billing) in order to avoid having the invoice kicked back. This process is labor intensive -- so much so that my former firm now sends all their draft invoices to the Philippines to be properly formatted and coded, in order to keep costs down. MAGA!

[ThePublius]

"This is the crux of the problem facing Europe right now, including its security situation with its weak militaries.

Severe overregulation has stifled their economic growth."

"Home Depot is worth more than all the European start ups created in the past 50 years combined. Home Depot."

https://x.com/RealSaavedra/status/1893720366205288797

I might add, it's only to get worse, with the ridiculous European energy policy.

[ThePublius]

You know the Democratic and liberal flap about Musk supposedly giving a Nazi salute? Check out this:

https://x.com/chadfelixg/status/1893656697706533326

(Obama, Warren, Hillary, Kamala, AOC.)

Where's the Democratic/liberal outrage for that?

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. These are sad sad sad attempts at gotchas. Still photographs and videos are different. You can catch anyone who is waving sticking their arms out if you pick one frame.

[ThePublius]

Isn't that what was done with Musk?

[Noscitur a sociis]

No.

[ThePublius]

I've spent a lot of time researching the Ukraine/Russia war, and the situation over the last 35 years. It makes Trump's blame of Zelensky and his mineral rights gambit seem not so crazy; maybe even brilliant.

Meanwhile Zelensky said today (?) that he would step down if Ukraine is admitted to NATO. That's a huge mistake, that Putin will not take lightly.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I've spent a lot of time researching the Ukraine/Russia war, and the situation over the last 35 years.

How did you go about conducting this research?

That's a huge mistake

Why?

that Putin will not take lightly.

Yeah, if Zelenskyy isn’t careful, Putin might attack his country or something!

[ThePublius]

This is just incredible.

Shot:
“The endgame here seems to be controlling every single apparatus of the federal government directly out of the White House. And that's just never been how we've understood executive power,” says Stephen Vladeck, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown."

Chaser:
"The endgame here seems to be the Chief Executive running the Executive Branch. And as a constitutional law professor who somehow never read Article II, this confuses and frightens me."

https://x.com/exjon/status/1893411422979158083?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1893426270190346250%7Ctwgr%5E8f7de0c00866cf6823b18b1294bad95bbd98d7f7%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F704391%2F

[Absaroka]

In today's episode of 'accurate predictions are hard' - there is a youtube channel called 'Perun' by an Aussie defense analyst. In today's vid at around 54:00 he is quoting from a 1917 book by the recent US ambassador to Germany (this is from the transcript, so is a mix of quotes from the book and narration):

"I want to bring home to our people the gravity of the situation because I want to tell them the military and Naval power of the German Empire is unbroken he then gives a number of figures on the German military in 1917 and goes on I State these figures because Americans do not grasp either the magnitude or the importance of this war the 9 million men and more for at least 400,000 come of military age in Germany every year because of their experiences in 2-1/2 years of war are better and more efficient soldiers than at the time when they were first called to the colors their officers know far more of the signs of this war and the men themselves now have the skill and bearing of veterans nor should anyone believe that Germany will break under starvation or make peace because of resolutions the German nation is not one which makes revolutions there will be scattered riots in Germany but no simultaneous rising of the whole people the officers of the army are all of one class and a class devoted to the ideals of autocracy a revolution of the Army is impossible
and at home there are only boys and old men easily kept in subjugation by the police"
"...there is a far greater danger of starvation to our allies than the Germans"
"... and there is at present no financial distress in Germany ... we are engaged in a war against the greatest military power the world has ever seen"

(for folks not up on their WWI timelines, Germany was on the ropes, its economy was in shambles, its people were starving, and a revolution happened)

[Bwaaah]

Accurate predictions are hard. History _doesn't_ repeat itself. What are the differences between what is and what I believe? How often does the course of events break from what was expected?

Lotsa sayin', but not much soothsayin'.

For this moment I like, "Buckle your seat belts." It has a staying kind of sensibility to it, and doesn't reach.

[Sarcastr0]

https://library.rumsfeld.com/doclib/sp/2382/2001-04-12%20To%20George%20W%20Bush%20et%20al%20re%20Predicting%20the%20Future.pdf

Thoughts for the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review

If you had been a security policy-maker in the world's greatest power in 1900, you would have been a Brit, looking warily at your age-old enemy, France.

By 1910, you would be allied with France and your enemy would be Germany.

By 1920, World War I would have been fought and won, and you'd be engaged in a naval arms race with your erstwhile allies, the U.S. and Japan.

By 1930, naval arms limitation treaties were in effect, the Great Depression was underway, and the defense planning standard said "no war for ten years."
Nine years later World War II had begun.

By 1950, Britain no longer was the worlds greatest power, the Atomic Age had dawned, and a "police action" was underway in Korea.

Ten years later the political focus was on the "missile gap," the strategic paradigm was shifting from massive retaliation to flexible response, and few people had heard of Vietnam.

By 1970, the peak of our involvement in Vietnam had come and gone, we were beginning détente with the Soviets, and we were anointing the Shah as our protégé in the Gulf region.

By 1980, the Soviets were in Afghanistan, Iran was in the throes of revolution, there was talk of our "hollow forces" and a "window of vulnerability," and the U.S. was the greatest creditor nation the world had ever seen.

By 1990, the Soviet Union was within a year of dissolution, American forces in the Desert were on the verge of showing they were anything but hollow, the U.S. had become the greatest debtor nation the world had ever known, and almost no one had heard of the internet.

Ten years later, Warsaw was the capital of a NATO nation, asymmetric threats transcended geography, and the parallel revolutions of information, biotechnology, robotics, nanotechnology, and high density energy sources
foreshadowed changes almost beyond forecasting.

All of which is to say that I'm not sure what 2010 will look like, but I'm sure that it will be very little like we expect, so we should plan accordingly.

[Absaroka]

That's a classic!

[Absaroka]

Another classic, completely unrelated, but I had section 11a1-8 on page 28 framed on my office wall. We've all worked with people like that, but never suspected they were trained saboteurs.

[Sarcastr0]

I'd heard legends of that but never seen the primary source.