Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

United States District Judge Lauren King has issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of various provisions of Executive Orders 14,168 and 14,187 within the four plaintiff states: Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.344459/gov.uscourts.wawd.344459.233.0_2.pdf Among other things, the challenged orders purport to prohibit federal funding for hospitals that offer gender-transition treatment for people under 19 and use of federal funds "to promote gender ideology.” https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-01-30/pdf/2025-02090.pdf
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-02-03/pdf/2025-02194.pdf

The District Court found that the plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on their claim that the President is usurping Congressional spending authority in violation of the constitutional separation of powers, that the offending Sections of the Executive Orders violate the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause because the challenged orders facially discriminate on the basis of transgender status and sex but fail to survive heightened scrutiny, and that the Gender Ideology order reflects a “bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group,” as its underlying “actual purpose.” The District Court's reasoning is solidly grounded upon SCOTUS and Ninth Circuit precedents.

This order appears to me to be a likely candidate for SCOTUS review. The issues are clear cut and present pure issues of law as applied to undisputed facts -- the government elected not to present any evidence in contravention of considerable documentary evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, and neither side requested an evidentiary hearing to test any of the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs. Speedy affirmation by the Ninth Circuit is highly likely. It would not surprise me at all if the government seeks to bypass Ninth Circuit review by filing a petition for writ of certiorari prior to judgment.

[Kazinski]

"The District Court found that the plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on their claim that the President is usurping Congressional spending authority"

Sounds like a candidate to add a provision in the reconciliation bill. But it might be cause a few wobblers like Murkowski and Collins to fall off in the Senate. McConnell might have been a problem on some of the nominees, and some.of the other spending cuts, but he won't lose any sleep voting for this.

[not guilty]

What, if anything, do you surmise that has to do with the merits of the case in Washington state?

[Armchair]

Seems that if such a provision is passed, the case would then be moot, as the President is no longer usurping Congressional Spending Authority.

[not guilty]

"Seems that if such a provision is passed, the case would then be moot, as the President is no longer usurping Congressional Spending Authority."

And as Cassandra said to Mike Campbell, if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV9U23YXgiY&t=9s

[Krayt]

Wishing Congress would do its duty and speak clearly is always a good thing.

[Reallynotbob]

It did.

[Don Nico]

Nothing except that the such an inclusion undercuts the argument that the Executive is thwarting the will of the Legislature. Certainly the reconciliation will seek to do that with many of the suits against the EOs

[Kazinski]

If Congress themselves cuts funding for puberty blockers, and transgender surgery then its in the same boat as US v Skrmetti, which the court hasn't ruled on yet.

[not guilty]

That would be within the power of Congress. The President, however, has no authority to unilaterally impose conditions on monies that have been previously appropriated by Congress. City & County of San Francisco v. Trump, 897 F.3d 1225, 1231–32 (9th Cir. 2018).

[Kazinski]

Congress can withdraw that funding whenever they want, its called rescission. And its allowed in a reconciliation bill.

Look it up.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t think not guilty is disagreeing with you. His point, I take it, is that since Congress hasn’t done that, the possibility that it could doesn’t have much bearing on how the judge should have ruled this case.

[not guilty]

As I said, that is within the ambit of Congressional spending power under Article I. The issue before the District Court in Washington is whether the President can impose conditions othat Congress has not authorized on the monies Congress has appropriated. Read pages 20 through 23 of Judge King's order. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.344459/gov.uscourts.wawd.344459.233.0_2.pdf

[A Japanese Student]

I don't think reconciliation can be used to attach conditions to funds already appropriated under existing law. Provisions with "budgetary changes incidental to non-budgetary changes" are subject to the Byrd rule; during consideration of ARPA, an amendment relating to transgender sports participation was struck down.

[William of Brooklyn]

How would recession of budgetary authority (we authorized x spending, but now are rescinding that authorization) "incidental to non-budgetary changes"?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look at the legislative history of Obamacare...

[A Japanese Student]

Byrd Rule was invoked twice, both successfully, to challenge Pell Grant-related parts of HCERA. (It was also used to bar Republicans' attempts to sabotage the bill.)

Byrd Rule must be invoked by a senator, and the Senate Republicans didn't challenge most of the provisions. Perhaps because the original PPACA had already passed Senate, and HCERA was at least more acceptable to them than PPACA alone.

[Kazinski]

If the conditions they are attaching can be attributed to budget savings, and they can be, then its in order for a reconciliation bill.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, what level of scrutiny is appropriate here? Doesn't the case turn on that question. If strict scrutiny, then the gov't loses, correct?

[not guilty]

In the Ninth Circuit:

"Review of a ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction is `very limited.'" Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985) (quoting Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Int'l, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984)). A grant of a preliminary injunction will be reversed only where the district court abused its discretion or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous factual findings. Id.; Dollar Rent a Car v. Travelers Indem., 774 F.2d 1371, 1374 (9th Cir. 1985).

Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d 793, 795 (9th Cir. 1990). Within this inquiry, the Court of Appeals reviews the District Court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Ramos v. Wolf, 975 F.3d 872, 888 (9th Cir. 2020). "[T]o be clearly erroneous, a decision must . . . strike us as wrong with the force of a five-week old, unrefrigerated dead fish." Ocean Garden, Inc. v. Marktrade Co., Inc., 953 F.2d 500, 501 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting Parts and Elec. Motors, Inc. v. Sterling Elec., Inc., 866 F.2d 228, 233 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 847, 110 S.Ct. 141, 107 L.Ed.2d 100 (1989).

[Noscitur a sociis]

That doesn’t really seem responsive to Commenter_XY’s question.

[not guilty]

Au contraire. He asked about what level of scrutiny is appropriate here, and I cited Ninth Circuit authorities on point as to appellate review of the granting of a preliminary injunction.

As to the sub-issues applicable to de novo review of the District Court's equal protection analysis, I elaborated on that in a separate comment.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You talked about the standard of review that the appellate court would use in reviewing this order, but it seems like he was asking about the level of scrutiny that a district court should use in assessing the constitutionality of the government action. I say that because he used the terms “level of scrutiny” and “strict scrutiny”, which apply only to the latter.

(Admittedly, you did answer that question in your initial post.)

[not guilty]

Here the facts are undisputed. The government inexplicably declined to submit evidence contraverting the plaintiffs' declarations and documentary evidence. Neither party requested an evidentiary hearing, which would have shifted the burden to the plaintiffs to show justification for a preliminary injunction and offered the government an opportunity to test the strength of the plaintiffs' proffered evidence.

As to whether the District Court based its decision on an erroneous legal standard, the separation of powers question regarding whether the Trump administration usurped Congressional spending power is a pure question of law, which the appellate court reviews de novo. As to the Fifth Amendment equal protection questions, intermediate scrutiny applies, such that successful defense of legislation that differentiates on the basis of sex requires both an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for doing so and a “close means-end fit.” Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 582 U.S. 47, 58, 68 (2017). In the Ninth Circuit, heightened scrutiny likewise applies to laws that discriminate based on transgender status. Doe v. Horne, 115 F.4th 1083, 1102 (9th Cir. 2024); Karnoski v. Trump, 926 F.3d 1180, 1201 (9th Cir. 2019). Specifically, a law that employs such classifications withstands constitutional scrutiny only where the classifications (1) serve important governmental objectives and (2) are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.

Where, as here, governmental action reflects a “bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group,” rational basis analysis applies. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 634 (1996). Where a challenged governmental regulation seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests. Id. at 632.

[Josh R]

On the Equal Protection issue, the outcome and reasoning in Skrmetti will impact this case.

[not guilty]

It may. The (Biden administration) Solicitor General at oral argument emphasized at oral argument that the challenged statute facially discriminated on the basis of sex, analogous to the manner that Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), was a sex discrimination case for purposes of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The District Court in Skrmetti opined that the challenged statute targets a quasi-suspect class -- transgendered persons -- and reflects a quasi-suspect classification, such that intermediate scrutiny applies. L. W. v. Skrmetti, 679 F. Supp. 3d 668, 686-681 (M.D. Tenn. 2023). The Sixth Circuit disagreed and applied rational basis analysis. L. W. v. Skrmetti, 83 F.4th 460, 486 (6th Cir. 2023).

The Supreme Court may or may not address whether transgender status is a quasi-suspect classification. If not, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will remain bound by circuit precedent holding that it is. Doe v. Horne, 115 F.4th 1083, 1102 (9th Cir. 2024); Karnoski v. Trump, 926 F.3d 1180, 1201 (9th Cir. 2019). Of course, if and when the instant case reaches SCOTUS, all bets are off.

Even at that, the Executive Order here may fail rational basis equal protection analysis under Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 634 (1996).

[Joe_dallas]

NG - are you stating that you are in favor of chemical and surgical mutlation of minors?

NG are you stating that you are against - Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government

[not guilty]

What I personally favor or oppose has nothing to do with the applicable law.

That having been said, I favor equal treatment of cisgender and transgender minors. And I find a fixation with what is in other persons' pants to be, well, more than a little bit creepy.

[Joe_dallas]

I favor equal treatment for everyone. Not faux equal treatment.

I am opposed to medical and mental health treatment that causes harm. Most all the European medical societies have come to realize the harm caused by the fad treatment treatment of chemical and surgical treatment of those suffering from the mental illness. Its unfortunate that the american left still embraces the harm.

[Drewski]

"the fad treatment treatment of chemical and surgical treatment"

[Noscitur a sociis]

While I have no doubt that not guilty does oppose the policy underlying the executive order, there’s nothing in this comment saying that. There’s not even really anything suggesting that the court opinion is correct.

[Kazinski]

There seems to be a lot of ignorance about what is going on with Ukraine and the US and the other primary players in Europe, mainly Starmer, Macron, and Putin.

Most of the information has been public for weeks, but evidently is not well known. Here are the most important facts. Almost all the facts are from the 2 articles linked at the bottom.

1. US and Russian envoys had preliminary discussions in Saudi Arabia, and came up with a framework which closely resembles Trumps Campaign promises on ending the War.

2. Trumps US envoy to Ukraine presented the plan in private talks to the Munich Security Conference a few weeks ago, and was received favorably, and was the basis of Macron, Starmer's, visits last week.

3. The plan envisions an ceasefire along current lines, except for the Ukrainian incursion in Russia.

4. UK, French and possibly other EU nations troops will be deployed in Ukraine as peacekeepers as a security guarantee.

5. Then talks will start after the ceasefire to resolve the final borders, more permanent security guarantees.

6. This was agreed to by our NATO Allies at the Munich Conference.

7. Trump was able to extract Putin's consent for UK and French peacekeeping troops, and he related this during his talks with Macron.

8. No US troops will be deployed and the the Security guarantees are a European responsibility.

9. Zelensky reportedly does not have any confidence in the European powers peacekeeping forces or their Security Guarantees.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/02/06/donald-trump-plan-end-war-ukraine-kellogg-munich-russia/

https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-war-donald-trump-vladimir-putin-european-troops-peacekeeping/

Zelensky seems to have some demands which there are a little problematic:

"This had been expected to become a sticking point, with Kyiv previously insisting that it would continue to fight Russia until Ukraine was returned to its internationally recognised borders."

"Mr Zelensky said that such a plan could only work with American troops, saying that at least 200,000 soldiers would be needed to enforce peace and that Europe alone was not reliable enough."

"The Ukrainian president told Sky News: “If we want to stop the hot stage of the war, we should take under [the] Nato umbrella the territory of Ukraine that we have under our control.”

"The country has long demanded Nato membership and, failing that, being allowed to possess nuclear weapons."

There is no way to get Putin to the table if those are preconditions, and I don't think the EU is going to approve of Ukrainian control of even tactical nukes.

[Michael P]

"Europe alone was not reliable enough."

Understatement of the year, and Europe is working to become ever less reliable.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Reality is that it was a mistake to give up the nukes, and even if they could not be detonated without the KGB-held PAL codes, they'd have made terrific dirty bombs.

[tylertusta]

The hardest part about building nuclear weapons is the immense industrial effort needed to create sufficient quantities of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium. PALs are stupidly easy for a nation-state to replace as PALs are only intended to prevent a rogue officer or group of officers from using nuclear weapons without proper approval.

PALs are not technologically difficult for a 1990's-era Ukraine to replace especially since they were likely designed and built in Ukraine in the first place.

[Martinned2]

...said the guy who's busy forming an alliance with Russia.

[Dr. Ed 2]

China is a threat to the US -- Russia isn't.

[Vryedni]

China is a threat to the US -- Russia isn't.

Where do you think their nukes are pointed?

[Martinned2]

...and you wonder why people like Zelenskyy and the other European leaders are wondering whether the current US administration is a friend or a foe?

[Mr. Bumble]

"European leaders"; an oxymoron.

[Commenter_XY]

More like Stepford wives...re: X tweets post Zelenskyy cock-up.

[Krayt]

Russia isn't a threat? This entire thing is about them rolling tanks through Europe.

[Davedave]

Russia isn't a threat to NATO in any military sense. It wants to be, but it isn't. That's why Russia has to try to buy traitors who hold high political office in the US - though it isn't why such traitors sell out for fairly small sums.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

But you miss the engrained embrace of our destruction by China, hand-crafted by Biden

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management issued its proposed updated Western Solar Plan on Thursday, designating more than 31 million acres of public land in 11 states as open to utility-scale solar development.
AND

China now controls more than 80% of the global solar panel supply chain, from raw polysilicon to finished solar modules.

WAS BIDEN THE STUPIDEST MAN TO EVER DRAW BREATH ????

[SRG2]

IIRC Obama was all in favour of the US developing its own solar industry, but he was a Marxist negro from Kenya so it was a bad thing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Solandra. That worked out well.

[SRG2]

Quite, But you inevitably miss the point.

[Frank Drackman]

You say that like it’s a bad thing

[Michael P]

Since when is Zelensky forming an alliance with Russia? That seems like it should significantly shift the calculus here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"... American troops, saying that at least 200,000 soldiers would be needed..."

We only have 100,000 in all of Europe, and that includes the USAF bases in places like Germany that are necessary to maintain the logistical train further East. And this clown wants 200,000?!?

Amongst all our branches, we only have slightly more than 24,000 servicemen in South Korea and he wants almost TEN TIMES THAT?!?

The only thing the Ukraine currently produces is wheat, and we produce our own wheat in the Midwest. So bleep it -- give Putin another Chechnya and maybe he will go the way of Stalin, which is, imncidentally, what ended the Korean war -- although it is only a ceasefire some 70+ years later.

And South Korea did not sign the cease fire -- the US did.

[Krayt]

I thought Russia wasn't a threat.

[Frank Drackman]

Not to us they aren't, they are a "threat" to Europe if they decide to stop selling them Oil and Natural Gas.

[Kazinski]

Reuters is reporting that Volodymyr is starting to come around:

"Volodymyr Zelenskiy says he could make amends in his relationship with Donald Trump and Ukraine was still willing to sign a minerals deal with the US"

https://x.com/Reuters/status/1896495765394268376?t=Pq_tBiLEAa4aQs6aWBT6og&s=19

Listening to Kier promise everlasting friendship and support over the weekend and then realize the package only amounted to 1.6 billion probably focused his mind a little.

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3966109-starmer-announces-gbp-16b-package-for-ukraine-for-air-defense-missiles.html

I honestly hope Trump makes it easy for Zelensky to back down and get the peace plan implemented before Putin can take advantage of the discord.

[tylertusta]

I honestly hope Trump makes it easy for Zelensky to back down and get the peace plan implemented before Putin can take advantage of the discord.

The warmongers in the West- especially those in the Democratic Party and our media establishment (but I repeat myself)- are aghast that the fighting is on the verge of ending, and they're doing everything in their power to keep the war going.

May they rot in a special circle of hell.

[Sarcastr0]

Ukraine has agency. It is the height of bullshit to call anything going on on the US side warmongering other than those calling for US boots on the ground, which is largely false-choice well poisoning by the Trump folks.

But hey, why not ignore an entire country's decision to fight for it's independence to get your partisan jollies?

[tylertusta]

Ukraine has agency.

Yes, Ukraine has agency, but so do we. You seem to have forgotten that Ukraine asked us to be a part of their war.

If Ukraine wants to continue to receive aid from the US, then there are strings attached to it.

. It is the height of bullshit to call anything going on on the US side warmongering other than those calling for US boots on the ground

And those who encourage, fund, and arm those fighting a war bear no moral responsibility?

Of course they do. We don't have clean hands, and we don't even pretend otherwise, so stop gaslighting us.

Besides those calling for direct intervention, warmongers include:

1. Those saying that the war should continue because it means jobs in the US defense sector

2. Those saying that the war should continue because Ukraine is killing Russians because the objective is just dead Russians.

But hey, why not ignore an entire country's decision to fight for it's independence to get your partisan jollies?

Is Ukraine losing its independence if there is a cease fire? No. Ukraine doesn't even believe that they're losing the sovereignty with a cease fire backed up by European peacekeepers. Hysterics don't become you, Sarcastr0.

Oddly enough, Russia does think that a cease fire causes Ukraine to lose their independence, but Russia thinks that Ukraine is just a European/American puppet state already.

[Sarcastr0]

'Part of their war?' As in giving them our old weapons? You act like we're on the ground.

those who encourage, fund, and arm those fighting a war bear no moral responsibility?
Sure, we can talk about that. But calling that warmongering is both well poisoning and bullshit.

We don't have clean hands
Wrong.
We didn't invade Ukraine, Russia did. We'd prefer they didn't actually.

"Those saying that the war should continue because it means jobs in the US defense sector"
No one has said that on this blog.

Is Ukraine losing its independence if there is a cease fire? No.
Do you actually believe this?

[tylertusta]

'Part of their war?' As in giving them our old weapons? You act like we're on the ground.

I act like we're giving them weapons and encouraging them to fight the Russians to the death.

...which we have been doing.

We didn't invade Ukraine, Russia did

Yes. We armed Ukraine to fight the Russians. I don't disagree that arming Ukraine was the right thing to do- up until a point, that is.

No one has said that on this blog.

You should note that my comment was not limited to only individuals who comment on the blog.

Do you actually believe this?

That you actually believe that Ukraine is about to lose its independence due to a cease fire that will be enforced by the military power of NATO member states is a sign that the American media continues to fail to inform Americans.

Jesus Christ, ya'll are so scared of Trump and Russia Russia Russia that you don't even recognize a good outcome when it lands right at your feet.

[Sarcastr0]

encouraging them to fight the Russians to the death
You give us a lot of persuasive ability I don't think is what's driving Ukraine.

up until a point, that is.
That point being...?

I think the cease fire redounds to Russia's benefit, as does the ending the aid, as does the spanking Zelenskyy in front of everyone as does Trump's clear respect for Putin.

I'm not scared of Trump and Russia, I'm pissed because this is a shitty thing to do.

I'm also unhappy because this act alone has wrecked the trust undergirding the worldwide peacekeeping edifice that worked for 80 years.

[tylertusta]

That point being...?

The war is not winnable for Ukraine (by that I mean a clear military victory that expels Russian forces from pre-2014 or even pre-2022 borders).

Achieving a stalemate is increasingly unlikely due to Russian forces grinding down Ukrainian manpower. Ukraine continues to lose ground every day, and there is no end in sight for those small retreats.

Ukraine is also closer to a military collapse than Russia is due to manpower depletion. Russia not only has much of their domestic population not-yet-mobilized, but North Korea is also a source for ground troops.

A cease fire in place is the logical, desirable outcome for Ukraine at this stage.

I think the cease fire redounds to Russia's benefit, as does the ending the aid

I refer back to my previous comment about your view of Russia. This view is so warped that anything that maybe helpful to Russia is automatically a bad thing even if it helps Ukraine more.

Are you so invested in hatred of all things Russia that even a minor 'win' for them is unacceptable even if it gives a major 'win' for Ukraine?

[Brett Bellmore]

Don't forget to mention that Europe is feeding Russia more money in energy purchases than they're sending Ukraine's way. They can't even be bothered to totally boycott Russia!

[David Nieporent]

Ukraine is also closer to a military collapse than Russia is due to manpower depletion. Russia not only has much of their domestic population not-yet-mobilized, but North Korea is also a source for ground troops.

The fact that the Russians are forced to rely on North Korean auxiliaries is a sign of how bad a shape the Russian position is, not how bad the Ukrainian position is.

[tylertusta]

The fact that the Russians are forced to rely on North Korean auxiliaries is a sign of how bad a shape the Russian position is, not how bad the Ukrainian position is.

Fact is, Russia has sources of additional manpower that are untapped. Ukraine does not, and are scraping the bottom of the barrel only to slowly lose ground to the Russian advance.

https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/02/26/ukraine-is-scrambling-to-find-fresh-fighters

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-labor-shortage-refugee-return-unity-hubs/33300521.html

[tylertusta]

An addendum:

You're drawing inferences as to the Russian military strength based on where they draw their troops from. Your perspective is based on what's been reported and perceived through the concept of an American way of fighting wars. You're assuming that if a country has to resort to foreigners then it's a sign of weakness.

...except that's not how Russians have fought their wars, and it's been this way for a long time. The Russians use non-ethnic Russians first whenever possible just like they send in other undesirables like criminals and dissidents.

This isn't even a Russian-only way of doing things, of course. Other colonial powers used colonial troops from their colonies to fight to bolster their forces in both world wars.

Regardless, when another country joins a conflict and adds their manpower to one side's combatants, the other side doesn't view that as a good thing. If I were Ukrainian, I'd rather that North Korea didn't send any troops at all.

But hey, I guess hopium springs eternal!

[David Nieporent]

I act like we're giving them weapons and encouraging them to fight the Russians to the death.

They do not require any such "encouragement."

[David Nieporent]

If Ukraine wants to continue to receive aid from the US, then there are strings attached to it.

Trump hasn't offered to continue to provide aid; indeed, he's been demanding tribute for past aid. And even if he did make such an offer, "We'll only give you aid if we undermine you to the point where the aid won't do you any good" is a hell of a "string."

And those who encourage, fund, and arm those fighting a war bear no moral responsibility?

Correct. We have no moral responsibility for assisting someone in defending himself from an aggressor. Our hands are 100% clean. As evidenced by the press conference the other day, we are not forcing Ukraine to fight; that's what they want to do.

Besides those calling for direct intervention, warmongers include:

1. Those saying that the war should continue because it means jobs in the US defense sector

2. Those saying that the war should continue because Ukraine is killing Russians because the objective is just dead Russians.

If anyone said, "I want the war to continue because of (1) or (2)," that would indeed be outrageous. But I have never heard/read anyone saying either of those things. What people are saying is that (1) and (2) are rebuttals to the claim that the U.S. is bearing the cost and getting no benefits.

Is Ukraine losing its independence if there is a cease fire? No.

Without American security guarantees, yes. It becomes a Russian puppet state at best.

[tylertusta]

Trump hasn't offered to continue to provide aid

Donald Trump Says US Will Still Send Ukraine Aid - Feb 13, 2025

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-says-usa-will-still-send-ukraine-aid-rare-earths-deal-2030419

(Of course, that promise was not a blank check and was subject to change, contingent on Ukraine's good behavior with the Trump administration)

We have no moral responsibility for assisting someone in defending himself from an aggressor

Incorrect. We bear a moral burden for encouraging them to continue fighting when there is no hope of victory, and without a cease fire then ultimate defeat is likely.

The cop-out of 'We're not encouraging them to fight! We're just arming them so they can protect themselves!' fools no one.

What people are saying is that (1) and (2) are rebuttals to the claim that the U.S. is bearing the cost and getting no benefits.

Maybe in your head they say this. Meanwhile in the real world:

https://www.vox.com/world/2022/12/16/23507640/dc-party-invite-military-contractors-money-ukraine-russia-war-us

Without American security guarantees, yes. It becomes a Russian puppet state at best.

Oh? And how will this happen?

[David Nieporent]

Donald Trump Says US Will Still Send Ukraine Aid - Feb 13, 2025

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-says-usa-will-still-send-ukraine-aid-rare-earths-deal-2030419

(Of course, that promise was not a blank check and was subject to change, contingent on Ukraine's good behavior with the Trump administration)

It wasn't even a check, let alone a blank check. That was back when Trump was trying to extort $500B in minerals from Ukraine.

Incorrect. We bear a moral burden for encouraging them to continue fighting when there is no hope of victory, and without a cease fire then ultimate defeat is likely.

The cop-out of 'We're not encouraging them to fight! We're just arming them so they can protect themselves!' fools no one.

Incorrect. We bear no such moral burden, and of course they have a hope of victory. It's one thing to surrender because you don't want to defend yourself. It's quite another to force someone else to surrender, even though they want to defend themselves, because you don't think they should want to defend themselves. Ukraine could say, at any point, "we surrender." The U.S. could not stop them, and of course under Trump would not even try to stop them.

Maybe in your head they say this. Meanwhile in the real world:

https://www.vox.com/world/2022/12/16/23507640/dc-party-invite-military-contractors-money-ukraine-russia-war-us

In the real world what? Nothing in that says what you said.

Oh? And how will this happen?

A state that is half occupied, with not only no means to defend itself, but forbidden to defend itself? How would that state be under the thumb of its occupier? To ask the question is to answer it.

[tylertusta]

That was back when Trump was trying to extort $500B in minerals from Ukraine.

New administration, new policies.

We bear no such moral burden

All you've done here is demonstrate to me that, in my opinion, you're an amoral sociopath.

In the real world what? Nothing in that says what you said.

Nothing in there is about how US defense companies were flouting their new military production, not as a means of defense for Ukraine, but an end in and of itself?

Not even a pip about how it was so on the nose that even participants and the Ukraine-friendly Vox felt it was too over-the-top?

A state that is half occupied, with not only no means to defend itself, but forbidden to defend itself? How would that state be under the thumb of its occupier? To ask the question is to answer it.

Apparently Ukraine is a nation of contradictions:

Ukraine cannot survive as a nation if there is a cease fire even with NATO troops entering the country. Ukraine still falls despite these NATO troops potentially adding several European countries' armies and air forces to the Ukrainian cause.

Ukraine is seemingly capable of fighting Russia forever with the trickle of aid that went to them over the past 3 years, but cannot rebuild its forces faster or better than Russia at peace while still receiving the same aid.

Russia has been on the verge of military collapse any day now for the past three years yet Russian advances into Ukrainian territory steadily continue.

Russia is also determined to conquer all of Ukraine no matter the cost or consequences yet is also willing to halt the fighting and allow NATO troops into Ukraine, adding to the problems they would face if Russia restarted the war.

[David Nieporent]

All you've done here is demonstrate to me that, in my opinion, you're an amoral sociopath.

Telling a woman who's being raped, "Resisting will just make it worse for you, so I'm going to refuse to help you defend yourself" is certainly a take, but it's not the moral one.

Nothing in there is about how US defense companies were flouting their new military production, not as a means of defense for Ukraine, but an end in and of itself?

(1) You mean either touting or flaunting, not flouting.
(2) Correct. Nothing in there about that.

Ukraine cannot survive as a nation if there is a cease fire even with NATO troops entering the country

NATO troops entering the country is not on the table, according to Russia. (It would be exceedingly strange for Russia to claim that the hypothetical distant prospect of NATO expansion to Ukraine justified an invasion and then permit NATO forces there.)

Ukraine is seemingly capable of fighting Russia forever with the trickle of aid that went to them over the past 3 years, but cannot rebuild its forces faster or better than Russia at peace while still receiving the same aid.

The U.S. is bankrupting itself with a "trickle of aid"? You guys have to get your talking points straight. And what "same aid"? You think Trump is offering to continue to send tens of billions a year in advanced military weapons to Ukraine? And do you imagine that any "deal" with Russia would not involve easing sanctions on Russia?

Russia has been on the verge of military collapse any day now for the past three years yet Russian advances into Ukrainian territory steadily continue.

They do not. Indeed, Russia can't even retake Ukrainian-occupied Russia territory.

Russia is also determined to conquer all of Ukraine no matter the cost or consequences yet is also willing to halt the fighting and allow NATO troops into Ukraine, adding to the problems they would face if Russia restarted the war.

Russia is willing to pause the fighting, not halt it, and the NATO troops thing is a figment of someone's imagination; Russia has said it's not willing to allow that.

You're the one who's not making any sense.

[Nelson]

“ If Ukraine wants to continue to receive aid from the US, then there are strings attached to it.”

The strings being Russia getting Ukrainian territory? So Trump is negotiating for Russia’s benefit and we get nothing? What a great deal!

“ And those who encourage, fund, and arm those fighting a war bear no moral responsibility?”

No, dumbass. When someone else is fighting against a brutal dictator who invaded their country, giving them weapons to carry on that fight is not in any way a moral failure. It’s a moral good.

Remember, Russia actively targets civilians. Like Hamas, just with better weapons.

“ Is Ukraine losing its independence if there is a cease fire? No.”

Since the present front lines are all in Ukraine, a sizable amount of it would lose its independence. And Ukraine would lose territory through a warmongering invader.

You seem to be confused about who the warmonger is. It’s the one who invaded another country, not the one defending against the invasion (nor their allies).

“ Oddly enough, Russia does think”

No one cares what Russia thinks. They are a third-rate kleptocracy run by a sociopath who thinks the largest tragedy of the 20th Century was the fall of the Soviet Union. And their military is being ground up and spit out by a country 1/10 its size. Russia is as successful a military as Donald Trump is a businessman.

At this point it should be obvious that Ukraine won’t surrender. The only question is whether Russia will lose more troops there then it did in Afghanistan before it eventually gives it up as not worth the blood and treasure it costs.

[tylertusta]

and we get nothing?

The deal was that the US got access to Ukraine's rare earth minerals. Ukraine got NATO member state troops to prevent a resumption of the war.

It’s a moral good.

Ukraine is free to continue to fighting Russia if it wants, and it seems like that is what it wants. American weapons are a gift, not an entitlement.

Since the present front lines are all in Ukraine, a sizable amount of it would lose its independence.

That has already happened. Ukraine isn't going to be retaking the lost territory, so the sensible course of action is to prevent the loss of additional territory and not a quixotic crusade to liberate the lost territory.

No one cares what Russia thinks.

Not caring what Russia thinks is what caused the war to begin with.

An overly inflated sense of moral self-righteousness is not a good character trait. Not only does it make for an awful diplomat, but people think you're just an arrogant tool.

before it eventually gives it up as not worth the blood and treasure it costs.

Insurgencies are the strategy of someone who loses a conventional war. You don't resort to insurgencies if you don't have to.

You bring up Afghanistan, but you may want to instead read up on the Second Chechen War.

Spoiler: It doesn't end well for the Chechens.

[Nelson]

“ The deal was that the US got access to Ukraine's rare earth minerals”

No, that is a completely separate deal. Credulous fools like you say that it is connected to something else, but it isn’t. It’s a stand-alone deal, which is why Ukraine didn’t sign it. There was nothing in it for them except money.

“ American weapons are a gift, not an entitlement.”

Agreed. But helping an invaded country fight off the despotic invader is a good thing. Failing to support them is not. When faced with dictators like Putin and vicious brutality like what Russia has inflicted on Ukraine, refusing to help is capitulating to monsters. Appeasement of evil is cowardice and Trump’s GOP is the party of Neville Chamberlain when it comes to Ukraine.

“ That has already happened. Ukraine isn't going to be retaking the lost territory”

Of course they will. Look at the Soviet Union in Afghanistan for an example. They are never going to stop fighting and Russia is already weary of their soldiers coming home in body bags. There is a finite appetite for death in any country, even one as oppressed and subjugated as Russia. Russians will get tired of dying long before Ukrainians will get tired of killing them.

“ Not caring what Russia thinks is what caused the war to begin with.”

No, Russia invading Ukraine is what caused the war. Russia was going to invade no matter what. If you believe their BS about security concerns, you are a fool. Notice they haven’t invaded Finland, even though that’s literally a NATO country touching their borders, not a potential NATO country possibly touching their border in the future like Ukraine before the invasion. Are you really so stupid that you believed them?

“ An overly inflated sense of moral self-righteousness is not a good character trait.”

True. But we aren’t discussing the shortcomings of the anti-abortion movement right now.

Opposing a brutal invader who has targeted civilians isn’t an “inflated” anything. Opposing Russia by providing arms for them to fight for their own country is about as basic a moral question as there is. If you can’t figure out which side has the moral high ground between Russia and Ukraine, you have no moral sense at all. Or you are actively choosing immorality.

“ Insurgencies are the strategy of someone who loses a conventional war.”

And? What’s your point? The question isn’t whether Russia can, in another half-decade or so, grind down Ukraine conventionally. It’s about whether the killing will continue after the Russian “victory”. And everyone knows it will. For Russia, it will be “how long before we’ve lost so much it isn’t worth it?”. Because it’s Ukraine, even if Russia claims otherwise. Ukrainians have nowhere else to go.

And if they kill Zelenskyy, things will get even worse for Russia.

“ Spoiler: It doesn't end well for the Chechens”

That’s because they didn’t mount an insurgency. Ukraine will, like Afghanistan did, with many willing world partners arming them. The majority of the world is mobilized against Russia. Russia’s economy is struggling and they have almost no allies beyond North Korea, China, and India. There’s going to be more, not less, problems if they conquer and subjugate Ukraine. Putin is like Trump in that they think that acting “strong” is worth any price, but when you’re running a country there are many, many more factors to take into consideration.

But ultimately, are you on the side of the brutal invaders or the defenders? Because providing arms is not a big deal and no one (see: Joe Biden) is willing to put American boots on the ground so there’s no honest “slippery slope” narrative. Only a useful idiot would believe such nonsense.

[Kazinski]

"other than those calling for US boots on the ground, which is largely false-choice well poisoning by the Trump folks."

Its Zelensky that was calling for US boots on the ground. Which certainly seems consistent with his complaints in the Oval Office that UK and French boots on the ground weren't robust enough Security Guarantees.

Do you think that's realistic, or is it "warmongering"?

[tylertusta]

The irony is that as of Friday's meeting, Trump seemed open to putting some US troops into Ukraine to enforce the cease fire.

But that wasn't good enough for the fuckin' warmongers.

[Kazinski]

Where did you see that?

I don't think that was ever a possibility for Trump.

[tylertusta]

It was during some of Trump's remarks during the long presser with Zelensky before it all went to hell.

[David Nieporent]

"Seemed." LOL.

[Sarcastr0]

If all we did was tell him no US boots on the ground, I don't think anyone would be concerned.

And you're the main one pushing the false choice around here - don't fob that off!

[Kazinski]

What false choice am I pushing?

I'd like to see just what incredible insight into what I am thinking you have this time.

[Sarcastr0]

This false choice:
either we stop supporting Ukraine or
we support with boots on the ground.

You use this false choice to claim that anyone lamenting Trump's pulling of support for Ukraine must want an expanded war.

You're hardly the only one, but it's an inaccurate accusation.

[Kazinski]

No. That's not the choice, because US Boots on the ground isn't an option.

The choice is either Zelensky agrees to ceasefire on current lines, European peacekeepers and security guarantees, or he loses US economic and military aid.

If Putin rejects it that's one thing, he will keep getting the aid, if Zelensky rejects it he's fucked.

[TwelveInchPianist]

He's fucked either way. That's why he's reluctant to agree to a cease fire. And when the fucking stops, Europe has another Belarus-like state on its border.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This false choice: either we stop supporting Ukraine or we support with boots on the ground."

What's you're evidence that it's a false choice? I know you guys really want to believe that there's some magic level of support that is sufficient to change the course of the war, but insufficient to provoke Putin to escalation.

But what's the evidence that such a level of support exists, and, more importantly, why would Putin let such a level of support exists?

Assuming, arguendo, that the options are getting directly involved in the war and letting Putin eventually overrun Ukraine, which do you think we should do?

[David Nieporent]

What's you're evidence that it's a false choice?

Because there are definitionally other choices besides "stop support" and "support with troops." We know, because we've been doing something different than either of those two for three years.

[Commenter_XY]

If Zelenskyy cannot be trusted to execute a simple deal, why should we trust him in more important matters.

[Reallynotbob]

It's not Zelensky's trustworthiness that was at issue.

It was Trump's. The only thing Trump's team criticized Zelensky for was allegedly lacking gratitude, and being "disrespectful."

[Kazinski]

No, it was he said that diplomacy wouldn't work with Putin, and doesn't want to stop fighting.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why should he stop fighting, unless there are reasons to think that Russia can be relied to stop fighting.

[DeAnnP]

The reason Zelensky said that diplomacy won't work with Putin is that Putin always breaks agreements. Minsk, Minsk II, etc., apparently 25 times according to a list Zelensky sent Trump. It is not Zelensky that does not want to stop fighting.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, Zelenskyy destroyed any hope for a working r'ship with The Donald last Friday with his stupidity and hubris. Senator Graham neatly summarized how Zelenskyy is viewed and where we go from here.

Europe can deal with UKR and provide their security guarantee. No problem. In the meantime, I hope UKR elementary schools offer Russian language classes.

[Kazinski]

That was Trump's plan all along is leave the security guarantees up to Europe.

And thats what Europe has already accepted and what Zelensky is coming to terms with.

But the mineral deal by its own terms will add to the security guarantees, just not explicitly.

[Commenter_XY]

The deal looks dead, to me. Zelenskyy never intended to sign it.

[David Nieporent]

The "deal" was — and is — utterly meaningless. It has nothing to do with the war.

[Commenter_XY]

The deal would have unlocked a way for UKR to stop the killing, and align with US business interests, David. It was a terrible miscalculation by Zelenskyy.

Many young men will die as a result of Zelenskyy's arrogance and hubris.

[Frank Drackman]

If current trends continue(they usually don’t) every day Zelenski remains in power helps the Russians

[David Nieporent]

1) It's up to Putin to stop the killing.
2) The "deal" had nothing to do with the killing. It didn't address it in any way.
3) If you actually cared about the killing — you're dishonestly pretending to — you would support Ukraine's immediate accession to NATO.

[Frank Drackman]

Ok David Nevercoherent, did Lincoln “stop the killing” in 1863 when the South certainly would have made a deal? Did FDR stop killing Germans once we drove them out of France? We’re getting close to the End Game, Putin has a Queen and Zelensky has a Knight(Horsie)a skilled player can play it out for awhile but a Queen always beats a Knight

[Krayt]

You're proving the opposite of what you think you are.

[Frank Drackman]

Like General Turgid-son said in "Dr. Strangeglove", there are 2 regrettable, but nevertheless distinguishable Post-War alternatives, 1 in which you have 200,000 You-Cranians killed, and 1 in which you have a million You-Cranians killed, Roosh-a wins in either one

[Dr. Ed 2]

We "Stopped the Killing" after Nagasaki and let them keep their Emperor. We'd already burnt most of Tokyo flat, but we could have nuked the palace.

Truman DID stop killing Japanese. I argue wisely, but "unconditional surrender" was dropped.

[Commenter_XY]

David, it takes two to tango. UKR and RUS need to decide when to turn off the meat grinder. Zelenskyy threw away his best opportunity to achieve exactly that. That is totally on him.

There are nocircumstances UKR should ever be in NATO. They are corrupt AF, and not even an EU member. They've had decades to do what was necessary in order to obtain EU (and NATO) membership. They chose not to do those things. Tragic, for them.

[David Nieporent]

1) It takes but one foe to breed a war, not two.

2) Setting aside the complete non sequitur about the EU and NATO, I've already exposed your lies about Ukraine and the EU. Why are you repeating them again?

3) Like I said, you've proven you don't care about the killing.

[Commenter_XY]

Lies, my ass. I've been consistent about UKR from day 1. It isn't an American problem, and never was. What annoys you is that I've been right the whole time.

You have a problem with seeing reality, David. That is unfortunate. I hope you see reality better in a courtroom for your clients, then you do here.

[David Nieporent]

Lies, my ass. I've been consistent about UKR from day 1. It isn't an American problem, and never was. What annoys you is that I've been right the whole time.

Indeed you have been consistent. I don't know how you think that's a rebuttal to any of the three points I raised.

[Krayt]

We wish Ukraine to be in NATO. The deeper the former Soviet Union is dead and buried, the better. We have no interest in that resurgent.

[Frank Drackman]

Who's this "We" Paleface? I sure as fuck don't want them, didn't want any of the former Warsaw Pact countries either, how about Malta? Austria? (A Pilot in my Squadron learned the hard way Austria wasn't a NATO member when he got caught Spelunking just over the border from Italy and the Grenzenkontrol wasn't impressed with his "NATO Orders" instead of a Passport, but we got to go to Vienna to bring him home)

[Dr. Ed 2]

I never understood why Austria WASN'T in NATO....

[bernard11]

it takes two to tango. UKR and RUS need to decide when to turn off the meat grinder. Zelenskyy threw away his best opportunity to achieve exactly that. That is totally on him.

Russia could turn it off today. Stop their aggression and withdraw their troops. If you are that concerned about it, why no criticism of Putin?

And if Trump is that concerned about it why the suckup to Putin?

Look, XY. This is simple. Putin initiated a war of aggression, gained some ground, and doesn't want to give it up. He's the one in the wrong here, but Trump and his cultists, like you, want to let him keep his loot, and bide his time for a future attack.

Meanwhile, they criticize Zelensky for not liking that idea.

And what is your evidence that "Ukraine is corrupt AF?" Used to be, sure, but now probably has no more than a normal level.

Zelensky is surely less corrupt than Trump, for example, but you don't mind Trump's corruption at all.

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, sometimes the bad guy wins. Neither you nor I like that, but it is a fact. We agree: Putin is an asshole who invaded UKR. If you aren't willing to go to war to eject RUS from the portions of UKR they took, the best option is to cut your losses, and end the killing.

NATO isn't going to war over UKR. So somebody needs to make a deal to stop the killing. Biden had years, europe had years; they couldn't do it. RUS isn't leaving, in fact, they continue to advance.

There is a deal on the table that would have aligned US business interests to UKR. American workers on the ground are the best UKR can realistically hope for, b/c countries generally don't fuck with American workers b/c they know America will do something about it (we can, we have the power to). Zelenskyy stupidly screwed that up, and it will cost the lives of young UKR men.

UKR corruption is endemic, and well documented. Go do some homework. They are second-most corrupt society after, get this, Russia.

[David Nieporent]

the best option is to cut your losses, and end the killing.

Best option for whom?

[Sarcastr0]

the best option is to cut your losses, and end the killing.
This is what RT says, yeah.

I watch RT to get a sense of what lines they're pushing, and they show up on here within a day or so invariably. Maybe not direct, because there seem to be a ton of right-wing media inroads that love to parrot whatever Putin's latest line is.

To be fair, this particular TP is like an October vintage.

[Kazinski]

And so what is your solution Bernard, to turn that around?

Who is going to send in troops to push Putin back?

Ukraine is exhausted, they can't do it themselves.

What you are risking by keeping the war going is a sudden Ukrainian collapse.

Putin after 3 years of war has lost 700,000 troops, and only gained 20% of Ukraine. He has lost, but he's not giving up that 20%, at least not yet, unless he loses it on the battlefield.

Who is going to take it from him?

Nobody is going to send in troops to do it, that's the reality.

[Riva]

The matter of who instigated the little man should be investigated. What democrats or democrat agents conspired with a foreign actor to undermine US policy? About time to shove the Logan Act down their throats.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Crimea Riva always has another "lawfare" target in mind...

[Riva]

Lawfare? You clowns pretend it doesn’t exist, can’t define it throughout the corrupt Biden regime’s years of abuse, but now you whine “lawfare”? Uh, no. Not lawfare. A legitimate investigation into potential misconduct.

And wtf, you clowns brainlessly parrot each other worse than the media. I could appreciate a clever insult but that would require cleverness, something that can’t put that into a talking point you clowns could mimic.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Your constant demands actually prove that lawfare can exist.

[Riva]

And the want of cleverness thunders deafeningly yet again

[tylertusta]

I do not favor the Logan Act being used this way, as the Act is unconstitutionally broad on its face. It was a joke up until the point where the FBI admitted it used it to investigate Flynn.

It should be repealed and not used as a basis for lawfare.

[Commenter_XY]

100% agree with this. Why not ask Congress to repeal it?

[Brett Bellmore]

Too many people like keeping it around as a threat, I guess.

[tylertusta]

Repealing the Logan Act is a political nonstarter. Even if someone passed a bill out of the House, Democrats in the Senate would filibuster it and that would be that.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know what's not a political non-starter?

Creating a perfect test case to get the Supreme court to declare it unconstitutional.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, in today's environment (and surveillance), that might not be too difficult to do.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not too difficult? It would be dirt simple, you just get somebody to volunteer to be the "defendant", with a promise in advance of a Presidential pardon if things go bad. Test cases are often collusive, if you want the law struck down.

[Riva]

And how many here who rant daily against the president have acknowledged any investigatory abuses by the FBI? None. They even pretended lawfare didn’t exist. Now they’re frightened that there may be some accountability. Good. They should be worried.

[tylertusta]

I don't think that TDS exists, but there are definitely good-faith reasons for people to think that it does. To wit:

You can't even get them to admit that the FBI repeatedly lied to the FISC even after the FISC itself admonished the FBI for lying to it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Feh. They were insisting the IRS didn't target conservatives even after the IRS publicly confessed that they'd been, too. And that predates Trump's political career by several years.

It's not TDS, really, it's DDS; Democrat Derangement Syndrome.

[tylertusta]

Regardless of how it's classified, perhaps we can just agree that they're using the narcissist's prayer as an instruction manual.

[Kazinski]

I don't think Zelensky was instigated by the Democrats, if you look what he was saying in that February 6th article I posted from the Telegraph, he has been saying much the same thing for weeks.

[Nelson]

“ The deal would have unlocked a way for UKR to stop the killing”

They didn’t start the killing. Why are they required to give up parts of their country to end it?

Russia is the only one that can stop the killing by going home. Nothing else will stop it.

“ Many young men will die as a result of Zelenskyy's arrogance and hubris.”

No, many young men will (and have) died as a result of Vladimir Putin. No one else bears any responsibility for the deaths in Ukraine.

Russia is Hamas with bigger guns. Morally bankrupt, intentionally targeting innocent civilians, and cheered on by a tiny fringe of Americans. Who are, in both cases, equally morally bankrupt.

[Kazinski]

The ceasefire had nothing to do with the war?

That's the deal under discussion.

Latest comments from Zelensky:
"An agreement to end the war is still very, very far away, and no one has started all these steps yet. The peace that we foresee in the future must be just, honest, and most importantly, sustainable,”

Latest TS comments from Trump:
"This is the worst statement that could have been made by Zelenskyy, and America will not put up with it for much longer! It is what I was saying, this guy doesn’t want there to be Peace as long as he has America’s backing and, Europe, in the meeting they had with Zelenskyy, stated flatly that they cannot do the job without the U.S. – Probably not a great statement to have been made in terms of a show of strength against Russia. What are they thinking? https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-zelenskyy-starmer-trump-b025877c40ffe0ddf2a92adad1715231"

[Commenter_XY]

Somebody in UKR needs to put duct tape over Zelenskyy's mouth, and mittens on his hands, pronto.

[Kazinski]

They might do more than put duct tape on his mouth when he gets back to Ukraine.

He might get de Witted (Martinned might get that reference).

[Kazinski]

Trump just now live:

"If someone doesn't want peace, that someone won't be around much longer"

[David Nieporent]

The ceasefire had nothing to do with the war?

That's the deal under discussion.

There was no such deal under discussion. The deal under discussion was Trump's attempt to extract mineral wealth from Ukraine. No "ceasefire" was involved.

[Kazinski]

The whole disagreement is about the security guarantees for the ceasefire.

Zelensky has said days ago that he is ready to sign the mineral agreement. That's last weeks news.

Keep up.

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=74940b13bb8c626e&q=zelensky+says+he+is+ready+to+sign+minerals+agreement&tbm=nws

[Joe_dallas]

Victor Hanson's observations on the oval office meeting and ukraine

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/03/hanson-goldman-on-the-oval-office-showdown.php

[SRG2]

He used to be an interesting conservative historian. Ah well.

[Sarcastr0]

This is the third time this got posted on the VC.

It's mostly just statements of opinion; it's not very good.

Dunno why it's being pushed so hard.

[Joe_dallas]

hanson has a very good grasp of the geopolitical issues, both short and long term.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's been posted multiple times, but he's still right about it all.

If Ukraine is ever going to get their lost territory back, it's not going to be this year or next, it's only going to be after Putin dies, and Russia stops being an aggressive authoritarian state, and decides they'd rather live at peace with their neighbors. Zelenskyy needs to have more reasonable expectations.

And saying that is NOT saying that Russia is in the right here. It's saying that when you're being mugged your priority needs to be getting out of the alleyway alive, not getting your wallet back.

[Sarcastr0]

Makes one wonder why you ever supported the US helping out Ukraine, if it was all doomed and Putin is too scary.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because for a while it very much looked like, if we made it painful enough, Putin would back down. But we placed too many limits on what Ukraine could do with our aid, enabling Russia to stick it out, and Russia is now absolutely committed to the war.

Sure, it's irrational of them, a perfect example of the sunk costs fallacy, but there you are. They're not going to yank back a burnt hand anymore, they're determined to take Ukraine or go bust. And Ukraine can't survive long enough to make them go bust with just munitions, we'd have to send troops.

[Sarcastr0]

Amazing that became clear to you right when Trump laid flat on the issue. Come off it, Brett. We know why you've changed positions.

Bottom line - nothing is certain in war. 3 years is way longer than I'd have thought, and it wasn't over yet. Russia was clearly having a lot of trouble in plenty of different ways.
Ukraine was right; they were not doomed, and we were right to provide them what support we did, and should have continued to do so.

But now it is over. Trump and Vance have made that very very clear.

That's Trump's fault. You just can't admit it.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, you were totally wrong 3 years ago wrt this war. Why are you right now?

[Kazinski]

Our aid helped Ukraine defeat Putin.

Do you think 20% of Ukraine after 3 years of war and 3/4 million casualties is a win for Putin?

Zelensky is trying to turn victory into defeat.

[windycityattorney]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/25/kremlin-disputes-trump-claim-russia-would-accept-peacekeeping-troops-in-ukraine

Seems like Putin rejects the idea of European troops being peacekeepers in Ukraine. Trump said he spoke to Putin and Putin agreed; then Putin quickly backtracks.

Perhaps this is why Zelensky doesn't trust Trump to leave Ukraine out of negotiations with Putin on ending the war. Trump inexplicably seems to think Putin is an honest statesman or is somehow trustworthy. Ukraine knows better.

[bernard11]

Trump said he spoke to Putin and Putin agreed;

Trump is lying.

[Kazinski]

Macron believed him.

Starmer believed him.

You got better sources than they do?

[Sarcastr0]

Those are awful sources! National leaders talking publicly about another national leader?

Their words are useful info, but not for the truth of the matter being asserted.

[David Nieporent]

None of them believed him. Why are you making shit up?

[Kazinski]

Both of you are idiots.

They flew all the way to Washington to have meetings, then met together in Europe, then flew home and then Starmer said in front of Parliament today:

"We agreed to develop a “coalition of the willing” ready to defend a deal in Ukraine…

And guarantee the peace. "

Because he didn't believe Trump?

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-statement-to-the-house-of-commons-3-march-2025

He also said:

"This week has shown with total clarity…

That the US is vital in securing the peace we all want to see in Ukraine."

Its almost like you want the war to continue in Ukraine because Trump may get credit for the peace he promised.

[Nelson]

No, decent people don’t want to force the invaded country to capitulate to the invader. You clearly don’t.

Maybe instead of sealioning about Ukrainian casualties, it should be left to them to decide what they’re willing to give to repel a brutal invader?

The insanity of saying that Trump knows better than Ukrainians what is and isn’t worth dying for is priceless, given he dodged the draft in his own country.

[David Nieporent]

Kaz, Zelenskyy destroyed any hope for a working r'ship with The Donald last Friday with his stupidity and hubris.

And that woman shouldn't have worn that short skirt if she didn't want to be raped.

[Kazinski]

CXY is wrong about that anyway, nothing Trump likes better is to have someone bend the knee after a disagreement, which is what Zelensky is going to do or he's out.

There are two alternatives to bending the knee to Trump:

Europe takes on the whole burden of sustaining Ukraine economically and militarily. And they have no appetite for that as Starmer showed this weekend.

Or Ukraine goes it alone and loses.

Zelensky's whole objection to Trumps ceasefire plan is he doesn't think European security guarantees are enough, so in response he's going to give up any help from the US at all?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why should Zelensky believe that any of those things won't happen if he does "bend the knee"?

[Reallynotbob]

If Lindsey Graham believed Russia to be a threat to US interests around the globe, it wouldn't matter much whether the president of Ukraine wore a suit or rolled his eyes.

BTW Graham actually did believe this, not so long ago.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lindsey-graham-senator-south-carolina-face-the-nation-transcript-06-09-2024/

But now, Russia has formed what appears to be a symbiotic alliance with the US Republican party and the Lindsey Grahams of the world no longer see an unchecked Russia as a threat.

[Nelson]

Lindsey Graham is only outweaseled by JD Vance in the “sure I said that before, but it’s different now” Olympics.

[Armchair]

Kaz,

That matches with one of my key questions...

"Why make the press conference between Zelensky and Trump public?" "Who is the audience?"

Typically these negotiations are private and not openly televised. That they were not means there was another intended audience. Was it?
1) Russia?
2) Europe?
3) The Ukrainian people?
---IE, might be time to replace Zelensky...

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair — Is it your impression Zelensky controls access to the Oval Office? It was public because Trump wanted it public. If he did not intend to attack Zelensky publicly, and thus sabotage a deal, it would have been private.

[Armchair]

"Is it your impression Zelensky controls access to the Oval Office? "
Of course not.

Ask...who was the press conference intended for? If Zelensky is the primary problem with a peace treaty, perhaps Ukraine should replace him.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'd bet Zelensky's "replacement" is pretty high on Putin's wish list...

[Frank Drackman]

Are you kidding??, every day Zelenski stays alive is a day closer to Roosh-un Victory, if I didn't know better I'd almost think Volodomir was an Agent Provocateur

[Stephen Lathrop]

Ask...who was the press conference intended for?

If I were a Trump supporter, I would steer clear of that question. All too high on the list of plausible answers is, "Vladimir Putin."

[David Nieporent]

If Zelensky is the primary problem with a peace treaty,

He's not. Putin is. HTH. There will be peace the moment he orders his troops to leave Ukrainian soil.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Indeed. There is one man who could have ended the Ukraine War in 24 hours--and his name is not "Trump".

[Armchair]

"Putin is. HTH. There will be peace the moment he orders his troops to leave Ukrainian soil."

I mean, this is a bit of a sham. You could say the same thing, that all Ukraine needs to do is surrender and then there would be peace.

There needs to be a certain level of realpolitik in any realistic peace negotiations, ones that take into account the actual situation on the ground. Russia has occupied parts of Ukraine for more than 10 years, while Ukraine has shown no capability to regain these pieces. Moreover, the West hasn't shown any real driving desire for Ukraine to "need" to get some of these pieces back. Ukraine lost Crimea in 2014, and there was no 200 billion $$ military aid package for Ukraine to take it back.

Facts of the matter are that any peace negotiation starts with the situation on the ground, and the current trend in the warfare. If Putin starts at the current battle lines, but Zelensky says "no peace unless we get everything back," Zelensky is being unreasonable, regardless of the legality of his position. It's just not going to happen, and Ukraine has no way to ensure it does. Likewise, if Ukraine demands 200,000 US troops as peacekeepers and Ukraine has nukes too for a peace agreement, it isn't going to happen. Ukraine doesn't have "any cards to play" to make sure it does.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If Putin starts at the current battle lines, but Zelensky says 'no peace unless we get everything back,'"

Zelensky's position is no peace until they can have confidence that Russia won't attack again at will.

It's possible that you and Zelensky simply disagree on what strategy is best for Ukrainians, but Zelensky is in a much better position to judge that than you.

[Stephen Lathrop]

You could say the same thing, that all Ukraine needs to do is surrender and then there would be peace.

That is stupidly different than the same thing. You insist (with Putin?) that Ukrainians leave Ukrainian soil?

[Mr. Bumble]

It was public because it was to cement a deal that was thought to have been agreed to which is why Macaroon and Herr Stormer had visited on the previous days.

[SRG2]

Then why did Vance suddenly start attacking Zelenskyy? That looked planned.and was obviously disruptive. Given the importance of respect and gratitude as far as Krasnov is concerned, his harangue must have come from Krasnov and were not Vance's own idea.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

(Please stop saying Krasnov.)

[Sarcastr0]

^

It's not very clever.

Neither was Drumph for the record.

[windycityattorney]

Nah. Code-name Krasnov can stop being used when Trump stops bending over backwards for Putin.

Because whether or not Trump is a long time Russian asset is immaterial when he keeps asking like he is in fact a Russian asset.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/03/02/russia-ukraine-trump-zelensky-clash

"The Trump administration’s rewrite of decades of U.S. foreign policy on Russia, laid bare in the Oval Office confrontation between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, is bringing Washington into alignment with Moscow, the Kremlin said Sunday." Ooofff. Code name Krasnov is earning his Rubles.

[Sarcastr0]

I think there are tons of legit arguments to be made that Trump is giving gift after gift to Russia.

A dumb inside-joke nickname isn't one of those. It just makes you look more partisan than thoughtful.

[SRG2]

I understand your point. I merely disagree with it. Is it pure partisanship to think that Trump's position in the supposed peace negotiations is suspiciously pro-Putin? I don't think so. When Trump shows by his actions that he's not following Russia's lead or is not behaving like a Russian asset, I will dekrasnovite him.

Plus who cares? It's not as if VC informs US or Russian policy?

[windycityattorney]

The MAGA freaks on this board already consider me beyond partisan simply with a username referencing Chicago.

Their MAGA leader calls every single political opponent some made up name or another. The list is too long to repeat in full here. From Sleep Joe to little Marco or lying Ted Cruz... or deranged Jack Smith even extending to the judges who presided over his cases while they were still active cases. When any of these fools would pretend to hold the commander in chief of all the armed forces and President of the United States to the same standards they hold an anonymous commenter on a blog perhaps I would entertain that their objection is serious. Until that happens, don't care.

I only do it on topics involving Russia/Ukraine because its most relevant. Otherwise he can be referred to as the 34time convicted felon dumpster fire rapist that he otherwise should be known as. *shrug*

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, if you wanna screw around on the VC I can't really argue much.

[SRG2]

Precisely so.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

There are precisely five people who know who you're writing about.

[SRG2]

Everybody who regularly posts on the VC knows, just as were I to talk about "that orange traitor" eveyrone would know. The question is how many agree with my use of the term, about which I care not.

[Kazinski]

Trump likes to have those "press availabilities" in the oval office, he seemss to have a few of them a week, he did the same with Macron and Starmer.

But the negotiations are private.

[Longtobefree]

In case your internet is not working, that was to be a signing ceremony following weeks of 'secret' (not open to the press) negotiations, not another negotiating session.
But it seems (well, if you read the NYT) the democrats got Mr. Z in a room and filled his head with Russian disinformation.

[Reallynotbob]

You say that, but what Zelensky told Bret Baier later that evening is that he went to Washington wanting to learn more specifics about the security guaranties the US would provide. There are some who wanted the trip to be a signing ceremony, but it appears the negotiations were not complete.

[DeAnnP]

The audience was the TASS reporter in the Oval Office that the White House claims somehow gained access without their knowledge.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Putin will come to the table when he realizes he cannot win, or cannot lose...

[Kazinski]

The stick to get Putin to the table is give Ukraine more advanced weaponry and allow them to start striking targets in Russia, as Putin has been using missiles to strike Ukrainian cities. And even harsher sanctions.

The stick to get Zelensky to the table is cut off military aid.

The tools are there

[Joe_dallas]

One take on the Ukraine

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/03/david-sachs-on-zelenskys-incentives.php

[Don Nico]

No one is going to approve of the Ukraine having nuclear weapons.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Certainly not anyone who says "the Ukraine"...

[Don Nico]

No one, buddy, no one.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Do you guys all say "Democrat Party", too?

I should probably invest in orange-tone bronzer...

[Don Nico]

Who said that Spam-O?
You have no response with content. Why do you bother except to waste time.

[Sarcastr0]

Vocab doesn’t cause anything, but it can be a cultural tell.

[Magister]

You might even say a shibboleth.

[Don Nico]

Especially the cultural tell is against a jerk who tries to read minds.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one that said "the Ukraine."

It's not mindreading to infer where you spend your time reading about The Ukraine.

[Josh R]

The Munich conference was most noted for Vance's bomb-throwing speech directed at our European allies. No agreement on a pathway to peace was announced. You are assuming something done in private that we cannot verify. Additionally, you are accepting Trump's word on what Putin has agreed to.

[David Nieporent]

There seems to be a lot of ignorance about what is going on with Ukraine and the US and the other primary players in Europe, mainly Starmer, Macron, and Putin.

Indeed there is — much of it perpetrated by you. Most importantly:

7. Trump was able to extract Putin's consent for UK and French peacekeeping troops, and he related this during his talks with Macron.

Once again: this is utterly wrong. (At least the first part; he might have lied to Macron in that fashion.) After Trump announced this — as I posted in yesterday's long thread about the war — Russia expressly said that there was no consent to any such proposal.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-rules-out-any-options-european-peacekeepers-ukraine-2025-02-26/

[Kazinski]

And yet yet, there were Macron and Starmer there in the Oval Office talking about using their troops as a security guarantee.

You know they've got there own channels to the Kremlin too, don't you?

Macron and Starmer are swallowing Trumps lies hook line and sinker, but you know the real truth?

[Josh R]

Macron and Starmer's comments did not imply that Putin has accepted European troops, nor that there is a secret agreed-upon plan that Trump, Macron and Starmer all are in agreement on.

[David Nieporent]

And yet yet, there were Macron and Starmer there in the Oval Office talking about using their troops as a security guarantee.

They are willing to do so. That does not mean Putin is willing to have them do so.

[Kazinski]

Wow your contempt for Starmer and Martin's naivety is stunning.

You see right through Trump's lies, yet they fell for it hook line and sinker.

[David Nieporent]

Your pretense that they said something they didn't, rather than admitting that you were fooled by Trump, is bizarre.

[Josh R]

Macron and Starmer agreeing to European troops was not dependent on them believing Putin has already agreed to it.

[Kazinski]

So it was was just cosplay?

[Josh R]

It's a policy they hope is one element of a deal that both sides will eventually agree to.

[TwelveInchPianist]

How much of a security guarantee can they be if their presence is contingent on Putin's consent?

What do they do if Putin withdraws his consent once they are there?

[myself]

This feels pretty spiny.

The main thing Ukraine needs is security guarantees, the Nuke talk is mostly to remind everyone that Ukraine gave up its Nukes in exchange for security guarantees from the US and Russia, guarantees that turned out to be worthless.

Without foreign troops Russia is going to attack again the moment it rearms, without enough foreign troops Russia may decide to start screwing around and escalate tensions with the hopes they back out.

Either way, the blow up was entirely on Vance deciding to start lying about the state of affairs to Zelensky's face.

[Michael P]

https://open.substack.com/pub/helendale/p/the-failure-of-economists is a good catalog of why a frivolous focus on certain economic numbers leads to bad analysis of mass migration and immigration.

[not guilty]

Garry Trudeau has some pointed commentary about Elon Musk.

https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2025/03/02

[Dr. Ed 2]

I once had a student named "Yellow" and his sister had an even weirder name.

Here's proof: https://www.themainemag.com/maines-inveterate-strategist/

Giving kids weird names is nothing new, nor is de-facto polygamy.

Personally, I think that Elon is immature as hell -- he's 53 years old -- and he's going to crash & burn before long. I also don't approve of his slave labor practices -- we have a minimum wage law in this country for a reason.

But these women aren't being raped and de-facto polygamists are by no means uncommon. Elon's just not sticking the taxpayer with the cost of raising his children.

[Frank Drackman]

I remember one funny Doonsebury right before the 1980 Erection, Zonker joins a Football Huddle, "Hey guys, I got the Erection results!"
BD (the guy who always wears a Football Helmet) "Don't tell us, if Carter won we'll be too depressed, and if Reagan won we'll be too excited"
Zonker: "It was Anderson!"
BD "WHAT!!!!????"

[Brett Bellmore]

Doonesbury stopped being entertaining decades ago.

[Mr. Bumble]

I'll bid 1000 Doonesbury panels for one Calvin & Hobbes.

[Frank Drackman]

I'll challenge you to a game of "Calvin Ball" for those panels, loser has to sing the "I'm very sorry" song

[Frank Drackman]

So funny I forgot to laugh, seriously, one of those “Family Circus” cartoons showing Billy’s 20 things he does when Mommy asks him to get the mail (National Lampoons Version Billy buys a bag of Heroin, Shoots up, Diddles Dolly….) is funnier

[Moderation4ever]

Garry Trudeau is an American treasure. He resides with other of America's great cartoonist like Charles Addams, Charles Shultz and Theodor Geisel, to name a few. And he deserves a Noble Prize for his body of work.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right next to Obama's peace prize, I guess.

Doonesbury used to be entertaining at one time, enough so that you could enjoy it even if you didn't agree with Trudeau's politics. But he became a tiresome political nag decades ago.

[SRG2]

Obama didn't deserve a peace prize (nor do I think he thinks he did). After I speculated that Krasnov's anger and frustration at Zelenskyy was partly due to his thinking that his shot at a Nobel had disappeared, it was reported that Krasnov had shouted at his staff complaining about this very thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, just drop the "Krasnov" business, it makes you look like an idiot.

[SRG2]

I can live with that

[Mr. Bumble]

From the looks of your comments you have been living with it for most of your life.

[SRG2]

Yes. It is often the fate of the smart to be thought an idiot by the idiots.

[Moderation4ever]

Or he looks like a prophet. Maybe the problem is you are seeing him as Cassandra.

[Sarcastr0]

It's cringe, but not even the worst cringe posted on here today.

[Joe_dallas]

Garry Trudeau is not a good source for a sane comment on Musk

[Sarcastr0]

This just in: the guy who did In Search of Reagan's Brain isn't a sober analyst.

Trudeau's not my style either, but the number of right-wing partisans announcing he's lost it may not understand how humor works.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Lost in all the Putin paranoia is the fact that Iran reportedly now has 6 nukes. This is not good...

[Frank Drackman]

I’m more worried that France has them

[Martinned2]

Reportedly by whom? I don't think the CIA knows how many nukes Iran has, so I very much doubt that Breitbart does.

[John F. Carr]

Iran thinks Israel has spies in Iran. Maybe it does. Maybe Israel shares nuclear intelligence with the United States. Israel would like to scare Trump. On the other hand, Israel doesn't want Trump blabbing. "We know because there's a guy in Natanz. Very brave. I can't tell you his name of course. He is a technician who works the night shift shaping explosive blocks."

[Nelson]

They absolutely have assets inside the Iranian nuclear program. It’s Israel. They have the most impressive and effective black ops/espionage apparatus in history. I expect that someday soon every monitor in the Iranian nuclear program will explode, killing half their scientists. Those fuckers are amazing.

“ Trump blabbing”

Right? I imagine every serious intelligence operative has an autoship order for antacids since he took office. That idiot is the definition of a security hole and no one can prevent him from seeing anything because he’s the President.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Reportedly, it is the IAEA -- the UN...

[apedad]

No they don't.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its enough enriched uranium for 6 bombs, not the bombs. And it was the IAEA that reported it. Who knows if true.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Victor Davis Hansen on Obama & Trump:
https://choiceclips.whatfinger.com/2025/03/02/victor-david-hansen-discusses-how-when-obama-got-into-the-white-house-he-let-go-of-every-single-person-and-put-his-own-people-in-place-elon-musk-posted-it-2-6-million-vies-at-posting/

[Dr. Ed 2]

An interesting take on how the US DEMOCRATS sabotaged the Ukrainian peace deal. https://www.foxnews.com/video/6369535906112

[Martinned2]

There was no Ukrainian peace deal, and if there was the people who don't run either house of congress or the white house sure wouldn't be in a position to sabotage it.

[Krayt]

And if they could sabotage it because they convinced a few Republicans to vote with them, that would be the same democracy argument currently being used to help revitalize a former dictatorial empire.

[Frank Drackman]

Med School “K type” Exam question

Which of the following Groups played at Woodstock?
1: Crosby Stills Nash and some Prick we don’t need around any how
2: The Rolling Stones
3: The Jefferson Airplane
4: The Doors
A= 1,2,3
B= 1 and 3
C= 2 and 4
D= only 4
E = 1,2,3,4

[Kazinski]

B.

[Frank Drackman]

Correct-o-mundo!, and which groups played at Altamont, a few months later, and for the Bonus, what song was playing when a guy in the crowd pulled a revolver and was stabbed to death by the Hells Angels?

[Kazinski]

I only knew because I wasn't there.

Anyone who was there doesn't remember.

[not guilty]

"[A]nd for the Bonus, what song was playing when a guy in the crowd pulled a revolver and was stabbed to death by the Hells Angels?"

Without having googled it, I think it was Sympathy for the Devil.

[Commenter_XY]

Is this actually legal?

https://www.jns.org/ny-state-bill-display-terror-flag-get-4-years-behind-bars/

A New York State bill has been introduced that would criminalize the flying of terrorist groups’ flags, imposing penalties of up to four years behind bars.

The “Stand Against Flags of Enemy Terrorists Act” would “expand the definition of aggravated harassment in the first degree — a class E felony — to include instances when a person displays a symbol of a foreign terrorist organization with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten or another person,” The New York Post reported on Sunday.

This cannot possibly be constitutional, can it?

I would despise anyone flying a hamas flag on my neighborhood block, but I certainly would not toss their ass in jail for it.

Can a lawyer or law professor make the argument that this law DOES pass constitutional muster?

[Frank Drackman]

There's laws against Jerking Off in public, Smoking in public, Fucking in public, are they unconstitutional?

[Armchair]

Cross burning is illegal...

[Commenter_XY]

Suppose I choose to fly a JDL flag. Is that OK with NY?

[Armchair]

Depends.

[Magister]

Contestant: What does Donald Trump wear under his suit?
Jeopardy host: Correct!

[Sarcastr0]

No, it is not. Not on its own without proof of intent to intimidate.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-1107

[Commenter_XY]

How do you prove 'intent to intimidate'?

[David Nieporent]

The same way you prove any other intent.

[Frank Drackman]

Harry Callahan:
Well, when an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard. That's my policy.

The Mayor:
Intent? How did you establish that?

Harry Callahan:
When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher's knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross

The Mayor:
He's got a point.

[Brett Bellmore]

The linked article SAYS, "with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten or another person". So, yes, you'd have to provide such proof, because it's an explicit element of the crime.

[Sarcastr0]

Armchair said: "Cross burning is illegal..."

That's not true.
It's a really important case in free speech!

[Frank Drackman]

and it's actually a "Cross Lighting" goes back to early Christianity (and that Madonna "Like a Prayer" video)

[Armchair]

"Armchair said: "Cross burning is illegal..."
That's not true."

It is in the context that was presented. Which was an analogy to terrorist flags being used to intimidate people. Likewise, cross burning to intimidate people is illegal.

In that context, it didn't mean that if you take a little wooden cross and burn it in your little shed in the backyard, that would be illegal, anymore than having a picture of Hamas's flag in a textbook would be.

But try burning a big 50 foot wooden cross outside an African American church or waving a big Hamas flag with a crowd outside a Jewish temple...and the threat is clear. Both are illegal (or the latter will be in NY).

[Dr. Ed 2]

Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Sounds like it is a violation of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul to limit it to a "foreign terrorist organization."

[Sarcastr0]

I actually Googled 'RAV v. Black' looking for the precedent.

Been a while.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Klan is not a designated terrorist group..

[Nelson]

Which says something about America.

[Drewski]

There's no way to know without seeing the text of the bill, which I can't easily find. However, if carefully-drafted I see no reason it could not be constitutional. The article suggests a specific intent requirement that I think would save it: Similar laws regarding swastikas and cross burning have held up.

Look at it this way: If you took on a course of conduct to harass someone that included displaying a terrorist flag, that flag's display could be used against you under current harassment laws. This would say that use of a terrorist flag is extreme enough to constitute criminal harassment on its own.

Someone flying a Hamas flag on your block would not trigger the law as described in your article. What might do so is hanging it on the door of a Jew as a threat.

Personally I would expect such a law to primarily get pulled out only as a wellspring for probable cause and when they want to overcharge someone for other conduct.

[Commenter_XY]

This was very helpful = Someone flying a Hamas flag on your block would not trigger the law as described in your article. What might do so is hanging it on the door of a Jew as a threat.

It was a good 'real world' example that is plausible.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it's not constitutional to flatly ban display of a terrorist flag.

To ban display of a terrorist flag "with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten or another person"? Yeah, maybe that would be constitutional, in some applications.

[Frank Drackman]

I believe it's constitutional to shoot Terrorists, and if you're waving a Terrorist flag, it's a reasonable assumption that you're a Terrorist.

[Brett Bellmore]

You could just be an idiot. All terrorists are idiots, but not all idiots are terrorists.

[tylertusta]

A law that prohibits speech with the "intent to harass, annoy, threaten another person" is unconstitutional.

The first amendment protects my right to annoy someone, full stop.

The provision on harassment and threats would have to be specifically defined to comport with the 1st Amendment jurisprudence.

[Nelson]

I hate that Tyler and I agree, but he’s right. People being butthurt by someone else’s speech is exactly what the First Amendment is there to protect. Threats, harassment, and intimidation are not.

As an aside, I would note that from the Illinois Nazis to the pro-Hamas flagwavers, Jews are often the target of hate. When they were helping blacks during the Civil Rights era it was even worse.

[not guilty]

Without having seen the text of the proposed bill, I cannot imagine how it would pass First Amendment muster under Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

The strongest argument in favor of the proposed statute would be that Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 363 (2003), upheld a ban on cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate as being proscribable under the First Amendment, so long as the prohibited act itself is not considered as evincing such an intent to intimidate. (The conviction of Mr. Black was reversed because of the burden shifting presumption.)

[Super Scary]

"The “Stand Against Flags of Enemy Terrorists Act” "

SAFETA? Come on, they were pretty close to an actual word. Back the drawing board, NY!

[Nelson]

Yeah, they definitely failed the “misleading acronym” test. Do better next time, guys.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems as if today's comments are going to be deja vu all over again.

[Frank Drackman]

Nobody comments anymore, there's too many comments

[Bwaaah]

A mangled Berraism?

[Frank Drackman]

Yesterday the 63rd anniversary of Wilt the Stilt's 100 point game, interesting that a career 51% from the "Charity Stripe" he made 28 of 32 Free Throws that night.
I'll leave mention of Wilt's other "Record" for another day

[Martinned2]

Meanwhile, Israel is (again) trying to starve Gaza into submission.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/israel-cut-off-supplies-gaza-means-119349009

For the record, this is what it says in the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949, ratified by Israel on 6 July 1951.

Article 23 - Consignment of medical supplies, food and clothing
Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary. It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases.

The obligation of a High Contracting Party to allow the free passage of the consignments indicated in the preceding paragraph is subject to the condition that this Party is satisfied that there are no serious reasons for fearing:

(a) that the consignments may be diverted from their destination,
(b) that the control may not be effective, or
(c) that a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy through the substitution of the above-mentioned consignments for goods which would otherwise be provided or produced by the enemy or through the release of such material, services or facilities as would otherwise be required for the production of such goods.

The Power which allows the passage of the consignments indicated in the first paragraph of this Article may make permission conditional on the distribution to the persons benefited thereby being made under the local supervision of the Protecting Powers.

Such consignments shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible, and the Power which permits their free passage shall have the right to prescribe the technical arrangements under which such passage is allowed.

[Michael P]

Neither Gaza nor Hamas is a High Contracting Party to any of the Geneva Conventions.

[Mr. Bumble]

They are hardly a party to the human race.

[Martinned2]

Israel insists that Gaza, Hamas, or anything else to do with the Palestinians isn't a state. If that is right, they also can't be a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions, making everything to do with the Palestinians a non-international armed conflict, to which the Geneva Conventions also apply. You can't have it both ways.

Incidentally, the State of Palestine purported to ratify the 4th Geneva Convention on 02 April 2014.

[Michael P]

"the State of Palestine"

I was waiting for that bit of fan fiction.

[Mr. Bumble]

Martinned2 has become a day drinker.

[Martinned2]

Maybe look up the word "purported", before you start claiming that I believe things I don't believe.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe you meant the "purported" State of Palestine?

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe next time don't massacre thousands of people in your neighboring country who's got a much more powerful military than you do.

[John F. Carr]

Nothing is going to happen with Trump in power. On policy towards Israel I think he does represent the American people. On Ukraine he is in the minority.

[Frank Drackman]

Minority where? the only Native You-Kranian in the Congress, Vicki Spartz didn't even support $$$ for You-Krane, or Zelenski either.

[Martinned2]

On policy towards Israel I think he does represent the American people.

For sure. Different rules for friends of the US than for everyone else, as we saw last year when the OTP sought arrest warrants in relation to the situation in Palestine.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Retaliation"?
Strange choice or maybe not.

[santamonica811]

Mart,
I didn't get the sense that John was giving a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down...merely that he was stating a fact. Which (for good or for bad) is accurate, IMO.

[Don Nico]

Do American want US boots on the ground? Do you think another massive UKR aide bill could pass in Congress

[Stephen Lathrop]

Two questions. Apparently unrelated.

[Don Nico]

Stephen only unrelated to the too casual reader. Both signal unwillingness to engage in a deepening military morass.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, this morass shows every sign of continuing to deepen, whether it is Ukraine struggling in it, some other party, or us. Indeed, it is the nature of a morass to sink strugglers.

For now, an unpredictable future for the Ukraine crisis is what we have. Thus, the first priority for the U.S. must be to decrease struggle, while doing whatever it can to retain maximal influence over whatever contingencies lie ahead.

Predictably, that means Trump's number one priority will be an attempt to escape responsibility, by ending every personal connection, and thus to avoid blame for mistakes. That has been Trump's pattern in multiple crises, always to our nation's detriment. He is doing it again. That is not a formula to decrease struggle in Ukraine. It is the opposite.

All I can hope is that a leader so feckless will prove inadvertently wise. When he takes flight, he at least takes with him his uncommon capacity to goad crisis into catastrophe. Perhaps Zelenski and the EU can find accord to sideline the U.S., and manage their way to success on the basis of a new model, with our nation out of the picture. I wish I had more faith that will happen.

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
I think that you are dead wrong. Trump's interest is not to hold a losing hand. That is what his whole life has been; you're correct about that. But Biden's policy was a failure in Ukraine, in Iran, in China and in the Middle East.
You seem not to understand that NATO is a band of pacifists, and the UK is no longer Great Britain. They have no leverage at all to bring Putin to the table.
I don't know if Trump can stop the fighting but Starmer and Macron definitely cannot.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump did this. He didn’t have to. Biden didn’t force him into it.

He did this.

Quit blaming Biden. It’s pathetic.

[Don Nico]

It is not pathetic. Bidenand Obama opposed weapons to Ukraiine when it counted, and then Biden forced him into rejecting the Turkisk deal. Crawl out of you bubble. You are pathetic.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Quit blaming Biden. It’s pathetic."

Biden is absolutely to blame. By failing to do enough to provide a decisive outcome, and by allowing Putin to dictate how much military support, what kind of military support, and how our military support could be used.

If you have a strategy that costs a lot and doesn't show measurable progress or a clear path to success, you lose support. And that's exactly what happened.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, do you think it is out of the question that the EU collectively could muster financial aid for Ukraine to match the value of this nation's erstwhile contribution? If they could, and did, how does Trump fare politically if Zelinsky brings the money to the U.S., to pay cash on the barrel head for the arms he needs?

Do you foresee Trump acting to block that? What mid-term political outcome do you think that would deliver?

[Kazinski]

US boots on the ground is a non-starter.

Another massive bill could pass Congress, but only under two conditions:

1. Zelensky agrees to Trump's ceasefire framework, and the minerals deal.

2. Putin rejects the ceasefire.

[Don Nico]

No kidding

[Nelson]

“ Do American want US boots on the ground?”

Virtually no Americans support that, up to and including the last President. And no President (or anyone running for President, for that matter) has ever suggested otherwise.

“ Do you think another massive UKR aide bill could pass in Congress”

Not with the Neville Chamberlain caucus of the GOP in control. But that is the majority opinion of Americans, by a lot, because we aren’t ignorant of how brutal Putin and Russia are. Plus we don’t like to see bullies and invaders get rewarded for causing hundreds of thousands of casualties.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Nothing is going to happen with Trump in power. "

No joke, Trump has written the blankest of blank checks.

[Don Nico]

And he just paused US aid to give Starmer and Macron to play their hands.

[Commenter_XY]

Under letter (a), Israel has no obligation to let through humanitarian aid, since there is extensive documentation that hamas steals the aid and resells on the black market.

[Bob from Ohio]

"this Party is satisfied that there are no serious reasons for fearing:
(a) that the consignments may be diverted from their destination,"

Since there is plenty of video showing Hamas [or other "fighters"] stealing truck loads, seems the closure does not violate this section.

[Martinned2]

Meanwhile, in foreign radical right politicians backing away from Trump, here is Dame Priti Patel, the Conservative shadow foreign minister:

Nigel Farage is completely wrong. President Zelenskyy is a hero, who has stood up to Putin's aggression, and led his country's defence against their barbaric and illegal invasion over the last 3 years - and it is troubling to not hear the Leader of Reform say that.

For Nigel Farage to sit there pointing the finger at Zelenskyy is both morally wrong and diplomatically counterproductive. At this uncertain and dangerous time, one would hope that MPs of all stripes would be putting our national interest first, rather than playing politics.

But sadly, it is not surprising. Like Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of Reform UK seems to have history equivocating over Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine.

https://x.com/pritipatel/status/1896539706290294980

[John F. Carr]

The American right is split about evenly on Ukraine. Half of Republican and leaning Republican people polled thought there was too much support for Ukraine.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Did they think that support was "$350bn"?

[John F. Carr]

This is my source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/14/americans-views-of-the-war-in-ukraine-continue-to-differ-by-party/. It does not say.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Conservative shadow foreign minister" "Dame"

That is a "radical right politician"?

[santamonica811]

Lech Walesa (the former President of Poland) wrote the following letter to Trump. Well worth reading, if you happen to be a person who cares what the world thinks about the United States. (And many posters here don't give a fig, I acknowledge.)

"Your Excellency, Mr. President,
We watched the report of your conversation with the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, with fear and distaste. We find it insulting that you expect Ukraine to show respect and gratitude for the material assistance provided by the United States in its fight against russia. Gratitude is owed to the heroic Ukrainian soldiers who shed their blood in defense of the values of the free world. They have been dying on the front lines for more than 11 years in the name of these values and the independence of their homeland, which was attacked by Putin’s Russia.

We do not understand how the leader of a country that symbolizes the free world cannot recognize this. Our alarm was also heightened by the atmosphere in the Oval Office during this conversation, which reminded us of the interrogations we endured at the hands of the Security Services and the debates in Communist courts. Prosecutors and judges, acting on behalf of the all-powerful communist political police, would explain to us that they held all the power while we held none. They demanded that we cease our activities, arguing that thousands of innocent people suffered because of us. They stripped us of our freedoms and civil rights because we refused to cooperate with the government or express gratitude for our oppression. We are shocked that President Volodymyr Zelensky was treated in the same manner.

The history of the 20th century shows that whenever the United States sought to distance itself from democratic values and its European allies, it ultimately became a threat to itself. President Woodrow Wilson understood this when he decided in 1917 that the United States must join World War I. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt understood this when, after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, he resolved that the war to defend America must be fought not only in the Pacific but also in Europe, in alliance with the nations under attack by the Third Reich.

We remember that without President Ronald Reagan and America’s financial commitment, the collapse of the Soviet empire would not have been possible. President Reagan recognized that millions of enslaved people suffered in Soviet Russia and the countries it had subjugated, including thousands of political prisoners who paid for their defense of democratic values with their freedom. His greatness lay, among other things, in his unwavering decision to call the USSR an “Empire of Evil” and to fight it decisively. We won, and today, the statue of President Ronald Reagan stands in Warsaw, facing the U.S. Embassy.

Mr. President, material aid—military and financial—can never be equated with the blood shed in the name of Ukraine’s independence and the freedom of Europe and the entire free world. Human life is priceless; its value cannot be measured in money. Gratitude is due to those who sacrifice their blood and their freedom. This is self-evident to us, the people of Solidarity, former political prisoners of the communist regime under Soviet Russia.

We call on the United States to uphold the guarantees made alongside Great Britain in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which established a direct obligation to defend Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for its relinquishment of nuclear weapons. These guarantees are unconditional—there is no mention of treating such assistance as an economic transaction.

Signed, Lech Wałęsa, former political prisoner, President of Poland"

[Nelson]

From someone who remembers the horrors of the Soviet Union to someone who admires the Communists’ showing strength.

That such an eloquent and on-point appeal will fall on deaf ears is a foregone conclusion.

[hobie]

I don't think Trump was very honest on the campaign trail. All he said was that he'd end the war in the first 24 hours. I think voters, including conservatives, would have liked to know that he intended to support Russia and not Ukraine. Aren't lies by omission still a lie?

[Krayt]

If he had just said, let's freeze things as they are, everyone go away, that would be a position. I wouldn't think it a good one, but it's honest.

Blaming Ukraine though? That's a Russian talking point. Something else is going on here.

[Don Nico]

Yes, he blamed Zelensky for being a sucker and caving to Biden and BoJo when the war could have been over a week. Evidentally Zelensky had agreed on that deal until BoJO was sent on his mission.

[David Nieporent]

Again: the timeline is wrong and your claims have exactly one source: Vladimir Putin.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure why you think anybody cares about your "Assume the worst of Trump" shtick.

You know, all along there have been plenty of things you could legitimately criticize him for. But you people can't be content to attack him in ordinary ways. No, he's got to be ultra hyper Hitler. And that just causes the whole "cry wolf" thing to kick in.

[Bwaaah]

Shtick is the right word.

You may have missed it, but just last week, the world order collapsed three times.

At the end of every day, my son asks me after work, "Did anything happen in the news today?"

I answer, "The world ended."

Seriously, it's quite possible to me that Trump is a very destructive force. But if anybody is looking for a canary in the coal mine, all they'll find in Democrats is an annoying bird that hasn't shut up for 9 years. It's like having a parrot whose only word is "Nazi."

[santamonica811]

Very charitable of you to excuse the inexcusable.

[Krayt]

One of the big lessons from WWII was that appeasement does not work, does not end things, with an aggressor.

Pardon us for likening Putin to Hitler when he uses Hitler's exact argument, saving one's ethnic budz, and by extension, those who seem to be supporting Putin using some of the silliest arguments out of state-run Russian TV.

[Brett Bellmore]

I am perfectly fine likening Putin to Hitler. That's not what I'm complaining about. It's pretending that Trump is acting to support Russia, rather than just declining to risk WWIII in order to support Ukraine.

[Sarcastr0]

This flip of yours remains naked and shameful.

Putin's been threatening WW3 since the beginning of this whole thing. Becoming suddenly worried about it is some odd timing.

And the about-face on Ukraine sure looks like it's supporting Russia. Russian media thinks so. And Trump's rhetoric is giving them a lot to crow about.

Best of luck in your future endeavors to thread the needle of 'Putin is like Hitler but Trump's treatment of him is good.'

[Don Nico]

What actions are you advocating? Do you want the US to go to war against Russia? Do you think that young Europeans want to fight and die in Ukraine?
Be honest and specific. Skip repeating the slogan, "appeasement does not work"

[Sarcastr0]

The status quo was causing plenty of trouble to Russia. I mean, North Korean conscripts? Not a great sign!

But Trump's decided to stop bothering Russia.

[Commenter_XY]

It caused RUS so much trouble that they have successfully taken 20% of UKR in 3 years.

[Magister]

"Another such victory and I am undone" - Pyrrhus of Epirus

[David Nieporent]

They took essentially none of Ukraine in 3 years. Virtually everything they gained was at the outset of the war, in early 2022, before Ukraine started receiving significant amounts of military support. Since then Russia lost a bunch of the territory they had held to a Ukrainian counteroffensive, and it's otherwise been a stalemate with the Russians gaining a few inches of soil at the expense of its military capabilities.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that Ukraine occupies some of Russia, as well.

[Don Nico]

I guess, David, your position is let them all keep raising those casualty statistics.
You're brave being 5000 miles away.

[Bob from Ohio]

DN is quite willing to fight to the last Ukranian.

[Commenter_XY]

See, that is the problem I have.

If the strategy is to fight RUS down to the last UKR soldier, to forestall a RUS attack on America, that is some badass strategy. That is evidently what David and his compatriots advocate for.

The war never should have started.

[David Nieporent]

If the strategy is to fight RUS down to the last UKR soldier, to forestall a RUS attack on America, that is some badass strategy. That is evidently what David and his compatriots advocate for.

Should all Israelis Jews leave the Levant to prevent any more from being kidnapped or killed by Hamas?

The war never should have started.

Yes. And the blame for it starting falls solely on the one who started it: Putin. Not Biden, not Zelensky, not Boris Johnson, not Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama. Vladimir Putin.

[David Nieporent]

I am willing to let Ukraine fight as long as it's willing to fight, instead of pretending to care about Ukrainian welfare by urging them to surrender to Russia.

[hobie]

XY, the Ukrainians WANT to fight. They have to get their children back. They just need aid

[Don Nico]

Sure David, Hamas should never have started the war. I agree with you.

[Nelson]

“ I guess, David, your position is let them all keep raising those casualty statistics.”

No, that choice should be theirs. They are the ones defending their homeland against a brutal invader. As long as they want to fight, we should arm them.

[Don Nico]

Just like expected of you. No answer. Just a snark.

[Sarcastr0]

1. "The status quo was causing plenty of trouble to Russia" is not snark.

2. Your position seems to be that supporting a war without yourself fighting in it means you're a coward. How does that apply to Israel?

[Commenter_XY]

re 2...It doesn't. Did you forget the judeocidal terrorists took Americans hostage? And killed many more Americans? We have skin in that game.

[David Nieporent]

Do you think Russia didn't kill any Americans when it invaded Ukraine?

[Don Nico]

My opinion? NO that is your opinion.
Again, you always lie in your responses. Be honest for a change. It will do you good.
As for Israel, I am pleased to see a better response from this administration when the IAEA's report last week is chilling.

[Sarcastr0]

“ I guess, David, your position is let them all keep raising those casualty statistics.
You're brave being 5000 miles away.”
Own your positions.

[Don Nico]

Look who is talking the guy who only snarks and is dishonest.

My position is that Zelensky show have been gracious signed the deal and argued in private and he is a fool to think that the EU is going to save him without America's full help. I do own that position.

Thank god you're not in the diplomatic core.

[Don Nico]

Do you have the names? Citations please.

[Nelson]

“ What actions are you advocating?”

Giving Ukraine arms and training them on them. Removing the prohibition against attacking inside Russia. Publicly calling out Russia as an aggressor and the sole cause of the war.

Now you go. What are you advocating for? Giving Russia everything it wants as a reward for causing hundreds of thousands of casualties?

[bernard11]

How is claiming he was dishonest during the campaign calling him "ultra hyper Hitler?" You accuse Democrats of calling Republicans Hitler at the slightest criticism.

Besides, it's hardly inaccurate to call Trump dishonest. The man lies like he breathes, and it's no secret that he's a grifter and a deadbeat and an adulterer.

Besides, you're happy to scream and yell when a Democrat lies, but for Trump you make every excuse imaginable, and some that aren't.

[Frank Drackman]

Like when people lie about military service, et tu, Hobie?

[SRG2]

Krasnov might have lost what was after all a close election had he said in advance he favoured Putin but he wouldn't have lost any core support because that's how the cult works. FB is already being flooded by posts about how corrupt, dictatorial , and murderous Zelenskyy is, and virtually implying how fortunate it is that Putin is intervening on our behalf to defend Western principles, etc etc

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Cults do culty things--film at 11...

[David Nieporent]

I think voters, including conservatives, would have liked to know that he intended to support Russia and not Ukraine.

I mean, who didn't know that?

[Krayt]

Interesting headline on Drudge this morning:

ZELENSKY FINDS OPEN ARMS
EUROPE TO FIGHT PUTIN WITHOUT TRUMPSKI?

Still a ways to go before that happens, but I wonder, if it looks like it will happen, will Trump get in the way? Will be very telling.

[Don Nico]

Will Trump get in the way?
Why should he when he can leave the EU on its own?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Would be amusing if Zelensky proposed to repay support from Europe with rare earth minerals. You think Trump wouldn't try to find some way to disrupt that? Maybe tell Putin to prevent it.

[Don Nico]

If Zelensky can cut such a deal, more power to him.

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
Putin has an obvious way to prevent it: Keep attacking Kyiv.
Think about whether you really want NATO forces in Ukraine it Russia is still in full attack mode. That is a powerful game of chicken that would obatin.

[Bwaaah]

[ReaderY]

I previously questioned Justice Alito’s practice of expansively applying “animosity” jurisprudence to religion cases. I suggested that opposition to others’ religious beliefs and practices is part of religion itself, as normal a part of how religions have historically conducted themselves as animal sacrifice. Thus while Justice Alito may dislike it, he has no legal basis for seeking to prohibit or condemn it; it’s as protected a part of religious liberty as anything else.

If we follow this line of reasoning, it seems to me that Lukumi Babalu Aye would come out differently. It would become an Establishment Clause case rather than a Free Exercise one. Instead of inhibiting the Santareans’ free excercise due to animosity, the evidence that the City of Hialeah council members based their ordinance on religious objections to Santarea indicated they attempted to establish anti-Santarean beliefs. The result is pretty much the same: government can’t establish one belief system over another. But it avoids introducing the concept of animosity into the analysis. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the council members’ religious beliefs that animal sacrifice is bad; they simply cannot use government to establish those beliefs. I think that difference, which avoids condemning others and merely applies neutral principles of law to resolve a case, important.

I recognize that in doing this I am proposing jettisoning a significant counterweight to Smith. But I think the habit of declaring ones political opponents to be bigots and haters is something the Court should go out of its way to avoid. I think the way Brown v. Board of Education was handled is instructive; the Court continued to accept that racial segregation had a rational basis, but resolved the case by applying the concept of heightened scrutiny.

I continue to think courts should do this more generally, and I in particular think they should do so in religion cases.

This view has led me to some very controversial opinions. I’ve said for example that so far as constitutional law is concerned, it is no more inherently wrong for people to want to work or study with members of their own sex than to want to sleep with them. While they may have very different effects on society, and people may have different moral views of them, there’s no legitimate basis for judges to decare that, as a matter of constitutional law, men who want to work with members of their own sex must somehow necessarily hate women, while people who object to those who want to sleep with members of their own sex must somehow necessarily do so based on hate. I see no legitimate basis for judicial attribution of hateful motives in either case as a matter of constitutional law.

I would decide all of these questions in a way that avoids tarring the losing side in a judicial dispute as being hateful people.

I think the tendency to tar people in this way has greatly coarsened our political discourse. Tarring people as essentially anti-American means they don’t have to be reasoned with. They can be dealt with by force. I think the introduction of animosity jurisprudence has tended to destabilize and to promote violence in our society. Instead of seeking to resolve political disputes, people now seek ever more frequently to bypass the political process by labeling their opponents haters whose opinions can and should be crushed by force.

Too much of this and you get civil war. The Judiciary should avoid going down this path at all costs. We may already have gone too far down it to be able to save ourselves. In some respects, the Right has simply returned fire on the Left’s animosity jurisprudence, declaring the Left to be a bunch of anti-American haters whose views can and should be shut out of political discourse by force.

What has been sown, has been reaped. And the harvest has been very, very bitter.

[Commenter_XY]

Didn't Justice Kennedy use the 'animosity' jurisprudence in Masterpiece? Is that what needs to go away?

[ReaderY]

Kennedy took the view the commissioners didn’t provide due process - they were discourteous and seemed to have judged the casse before the hearing started.

I think if Alito view were applied, it would be that the substance of tbe underlying law was animosity based - “gay rights” is just an excuse people who hate conservative Christians use to torment and harass them because of their religious beliefs and in particular to keep them from making a living.

As I sometimes point out, it was absolutely obvious to John Calhoun that opposition to slavery was animosity-based, due to irrational hatred of people for no other reason that they are different.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ReaderY, for what it may be worth, you are in agreement with Ben Franklin on that. Franklin insisted that national sovereignty depended on respect for diversity of opinions, regardless of agreement with them.

That tendency made Franklin also an opponent of reliance on advocacy for rights—but paradoxically an advocate to support insistence on respect for rights advocacy, as a matter of respect for opinion. If Franklin had not turned out in fact to be one of the most persuasive people in the history of both civil organization, and of statecraft, you might wonder if he was chopping that logic too fine.

[ReaderY]

Could you explain, perhaps give some examples of, how Franklin was “an opponent of reliance on advocacy for rights”? I may not be understanding what you mean by this.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ReaderY — As with everything regarding Franklin, subtleties abound. To give you the explanation you deserve is beyond anyone's capacity to do here. I suggest you read historian Edmund Morgan's biography of Franklin. It is both scholarly, and enjoyably readable for any educated person. Inexpensively available online.

The theme you ask about is one of Morgan's central points about Franklin. It gets copious illustration throughout Morgan's account of Franklin's astonishing life.

[DaveM]

Couldn't agree more. Once you allow animosity into a discussion, you've abandoned reasonableness and it just devolves into an "is-not, is-so" exercise.

[Artifex]

Consider the situation: An aggressive dictator marches across an agreed-upon border to seize the territory of a democratically governed country, with ambitions of taking it all. The democratic country, while deeply corrupt, does not embrace the dictator’s ruthless “ends justify the means” ideology. Some Americans view the dictator’s conquest as another domino falling, making further warfare inevitable. Meanwhile, the victimized nation had received guarantees of aid from the U.S.—only to see those promises later revoked. Do you support the victim against the dictator?

I am, of course, talking about Vietnam. I fully understand the perspective of ardent pacifists and American isolationists who see both the Vietnam War and the war in Ukraine as examples of reckless U.S. intervention. I also understand the neoconservative position—the instinct to always hold the line against aggression when American interests are at stake. What I struggle to grasp, however, is the logic of those who once cheered on figures like Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda while chanting “Give peace a chance,” yet now demand unwavering support against Putin.

For many on the left, it is an article of faith that Vietnam was an unjust war in which the U.S. had no business intervening. But is there any way to justify the stark contrast between the pacifist stance on Vietnam and the call for active defense in Ukraine—aside from sheer tribalism? I am genuinely interested in hearing from someone who holds these views and can walk me through the reasoning behind why one is a "bad" war and the other a "good" war.

[not guilty]

When was South Vietnam "a democratically governed country"? The Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. Such elections never took place.

[Artifex]

While the election of Ngô Đình Diệm in 1955 had it's issues with widespread claims of voter fraud, and more votes than registered ballots, I thought you and your team blue compatriots were on board for that. The official explanation for more votes than registered ballots was "refugees from the north", not a problem for you to believe correct ?

The Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. Such elections never took place.

I am unsure if this is Nieporent style dipshit pedantry or ignorance. If ignorant - South Vietnam did indeed have elections (what I was discussing), even during the conflict with Nguyễn Văn Thiệu winning in 1967 and another in 1971. If you are playing the dipshit pedant game of arguing that elections that would combine South and North Vietnam did not take place, I concede they did not. Are you suggesting we should take a vote of the combined Russian and Ukrainian population to determine if they should be Russian or Ukrainian ?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Artifex, you conflate today's Russia with Vietnam more than a half-century ago. They are little alike.

The Vietnamese, both North and South, turned out to be both communist ideologues, and committed nationalists. The North Vietnamese conducted both their war and their statecraft in heavy reliance on popular support for both principles—and that support proved well-founded, both in the North, and in the South.

That made futile the American attempt to overturn communism in Vietnam, whether or not most Americans opposed communism, which of course they did. Ultimately, what Americans opposed more was deadly futility. It was that which ended the war.

Today's Russian oligarchy, even in Russia itself, enjoys nothing like the nationalistic idealism which characterized Vietnam. Nor are their respective histories at all similar. Ukraine is not in the least analogous to South Vietnam.

And of course your remarks about, "teams," mixes up everything. In Vietnam—assuming you do analogize South Vietnam and Ukraine—the U.S. was all in to support the South Vietnam regime, but in the present instance, U.S. policy is actively on the attack against the Ukrainian regime. And it is a U.S. attack not only against the government of Ukraine, but also against the popular will of the people of Ukraine, who do stand by their government. And the Ukrainians' ardent nationalism is not directed—as it was in Vietnam—in favor of the invader, but against the invader.

Thus, when the U.S. did arm South Vietnam, to defend itself against the North, it did not work. In the history of the Vietnam war, no signal example of South Vietnamese self-defense using U.S. arms is to be found. When the U.S. likewise armed Ukraine, to defend itself against Russia, it did work. The Ukrainian defense has been dogged, heroic, and successful, despite a lack of U.S. forces alongside them. Quite a contrast to Vietnam.

With so little other basis in sight for your advocacy, I conclude the teams part is where your advocacy actually comes from. As so often when that happens, the question why that advocacy arises remains a mystery.

[hobie]

You win the whatabout trophy for today, Artifex. For the purposes of our little drinking game here, we usually just say Biden. Occasionally Obama. The Vietnam war is way, way back. I doubt any of its opponents are still alive to give you an honest answer

[SRG2]

Jane Fonsa is still around, (or possibly an AI-driven plastic simulacrum.)

[Michael Ejercito]

They had no problem with Putin until they needed someone to blame for Trump's 2016 election victory.

That alone explains hostility against Putin and Russia.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yup.

Hillary's "reset" button. Obama mocking Romney.

[David Nieporent]

That is, of course, a lie, and thus to be expected from the source. Democrats didn't have a problem with Putin — if by "didn't have a problem," you mean "thought he was an ordinary adversary rather than a top threat" — before he invaded Ukraine in 2014. 2014 was, of course, several years before Trump's 2016 election victory.

Don't you even remember the MAGA conspiracy theorizing about how the U.S. fomented a "coup" in Ukraine in 2014 to bring a pro-western, anti-Russian government to power? It's not true, but the U.S. certainly welcomed the Revolution of Dignity, because it did in fact have a problem with Putin.

[Don Nico]

"remember the MAGA conspiracy theorizing"
You are a terrible theorist David. You think it is not true, because your puppet masters told you to think that. Read commentary outside the US and outside the team-D bubble.

[Sarcastr0]

David Nieporent has puppet masters?

Read commentary outside the US and outside the team-D bubble.
This exact type of condescending confidence in being an educated free thinker talking to a sheeple is quite common on both the left and the right.

It emanates from the most close-minded ignoramuses of whatever doctrine.

[David Nieporent]

Don, if you're not smart enough to tell reliable from unreliable sources, that's on you.

[Sarcastr0]

"guarantees of aid from the U.S." ended up being pretty different in Vietnam than in Ukraine.

[Longtobefree]

And of course, the same US political party was in charge both times.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Perhaps you should repeat this post on a leftist forum?

[Artifex]

The question works perfectly well in the reverse mode as well. If you were a red blooded "stop the commies" and don't abandon Vietnam type of guy, what logic would allow you to now be in favor of Trump abandoning Ukraine ? I would be interested in hearing it.

It is simply not as interesting viewing the team red side. Most of the voices there would either be consistently in favor of both struggles or consistently against. What is more interesting is that the entire peace wing of the progressive movement seems to have vanished like snow in the Sahara. Why is that ? I am not hearing any arguments other than tribal ones.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, one obvious reason that there's far less opposition to U.S. support for Ukraine than for South Vietnam — one you seem to have inexplicably overlooked — is that 60,000 Americans haven't died in Ukraine.

[Artifex]

So war is good if Americans are not dying and we can pursue the battle to the last Ukrainian ? That's a nice "Libertarian" viewpoint, but I suppose it is the honest one that I am going to get.The funny thing was that at the end in Vietnam the agreement made was:

* $1.6 billion in military aid (1973).
* Ongoing shipments of aircraft, tanks, and ammunition.
* Economic assistance to stabilise the government.

This was the plan along with the agreed US troop withdrawl and encouraging Thiệu to accept the Paris Peace Accords (1973) which he resisted because he feared allowing Northern troops to stay in the South would destabilise the country. I would suggest you read the arguments made by the Democratic majority when they refused further aid and guaranteed the fall of South and tell me why the arguments then for cutting funds do not apply now.

[Michael Ejercito]

What were these argumemts?

[Artifex]

Senator George McGovern (D-SD) stated: “The people of this country have made it clear that they want no more American involvement in Vietnam, whether by troops or by dollars.”

Senator Frank Church (D-ID) stated: “No amount of American dollars can buy courage, unity, or legitimacy for a government that cannot stand on its own.”

Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) said, “It is time to end this tragic mistake and invest in America’s future instead of Vietnam’s past.”

Senator William Proxmire (D-WI) argued: “The war ended with the Paris Agreement. If the South Vietnamese cannot defend themselves now, no amount of American money will change that.”

More generally the team blue line was:
* Spending more on Vietnam while Americans were struggling financially was irresponsible.
* The U.S. had already spent over $140 billion on Vietnam.
* Cutting aid would allow more funding for healthcare, education, and economic relief.

Are these invalid today for some reason ?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Are you really disputing that popular sentiment about Vietnam would have looked a lot different if our contributions had been exclusively in the form of money and materiel?

[Artifex]

By 1974/5 our contributions to Vietnam were exclusively in the form of money and material. The last US combat troops left March 29, 1973. A legislature controlled by Democrats scuttled the aid funding that was suppose to replace US troops with arms for the Vietnamese directly leading to the fall of the South and the political murder of some 400,000 to 2,500,000 Vietnamese (as estimated by R. J. Rummel). This is quite a bit nastier than anything Putin has accomplished so far. By communist standards, he is a bit of an amateur.

I am disputing nothing about popular sentiment. I am simply doubting that an honest principle exists that simultaneously excuses the Democrats in 1974/5 and convicts Trump in 2025 (or vice versa).

[Michael Ejercito]

I would ask this.

What strategic value does the Ukraine have to Americans that South Vietnam did not?

[Nelson]

“ So war is good if Americans are not dying”

No one is saying war is good, period. Defending your country against an invader is, however. As long as Putin doesn’t go home the war, awful as it is, will continue.

[Michael Ejercito]

The Vietnam War stopped despite the North Vietnamese not going home.

[Nelson]

Vietnam is their home.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Or Israel. They don't want to talk about that, either.

[Don Nico]

Spam-O, mind reading again

[Nelson]

“ For many on the left, it is an article of faith that Vietnam was an unjust war in which the U.S. had no business intervening.”

You are falsely conflating Vietnam (American soldiers fighting against North Vietnam) and Ukraine (American weapons supplied to Ukrainians who are fighting Russia.

Until there are American boots on the ground (a situation opposed by Biden, Trump, and the vast majority of American politicians and citizens), there is no similarity between Vietnam and Ukraine. Arming others isn’t fighting a war against Russia.

[Michael Ejercito]

American combat troops left both North and South Vietnam by March 29, 1973.

American weapons were supplied to South Vietnam until Congress cut off funding in 1975.

[Nelson]

After 8 years of American boots on the ground. As compared to zero years of American boots on the ground in Ukraine. If you can’t see the difference, it’s because you don’t want to.

[Michael Ejercito]

Those eight years were over by January of 1975.

[apedad]

South Carolina governor declares state of emergency amid wildfires across state

Gov. Henry McMaster has declared a state of emergency as 175 wildfires scorch thousands of acres across South Carolina, forcing evacuations and stretching resources.

https://www.dailyfly.com/2025/03/03/south-carolina-governor-declares-state-of-emergency-as-wildfires-erupt-across-south-and-north-carolina/

Guess he won't be asking FEMA for assistance.

[Commenter_XY]

FEMA was sent to the woodchipper last week. Only wood chips remain. Given FEMA performance of late, letting SC handle it seems infinitely smarter.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, one of my co-workers had to have the fire department out to his place over the weekend to put out a fire in his woodlot. His best guess is that it was started by some crackheads who have been seen in the area lately, but it was not easy to extinguish given the winds.

Thankfully we're due for some rain tomorrow and Wednesday.

[hobie]

'This is what happens you have a democrat government. It's so sad. Very sad. They haven't raked up and bagged all the leaf litter in their 24,000 acres of forests. Just like the failed state of California didn't do. They're only interested in boot-scootin' and wearing jeans. This is very disrespectful to me and my office.'

[Bob from Ohio]

"Guess he won't be asking FEMA for assistance."

FEMA doesn't fight fires, you dope.

[Magister]

Over the past four years, FEMA has responded to 278 major disaster declarations including hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and wildfires.

But sure, going forward, no assistance for wildfires, Sharpies on maps for hurricanes, and bupkus for blue states.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, they "respond" with some money and housing, still don't fight fires.

[Magister]

They provide assistance, which is what apedad said, and which you mocked because you are evidently unable to read a comment despite quoting it and too stupid to stop digging the hole deeper.

[apedad]

Bob, stop living up to our expectations of you.

No one (and certainly not me) said FEMA fights fires.

[Bob from Ohio]

The implication was SC needed FEMA to fight the fires. Did you read the article you posted?

BTW, you are using a potential tragedy to make a Trump slam so spare me the lecture.

[Brett Bellmore]

At Supreme Court, Mexico to Offer Culprit for Cartel Violence: Gun Makers

The lawsuit will be heard tomorrow. If it's decided strictly on the law, the Supreme court will throw it out so fast it will achieve escape velocity... I'm sure, however, there will be at least three votes to let it proceed.

Even if Mexico's claims were true, (And there is little reason to believe they are.) the lawsuit would be barred by the Lawful Commerce act, since it's not being alleged the gun manufacturers and stores being sued are actually doing anything illegal. They merely have some general knowledge that a fraction of their product eventually ends up in Mexico, much as your average gas station knows a fraction of its gasoline is purchased by arsonists.

[tylertusta]

The questions presented are:
1. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the "proximate cause" of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico.
2. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to "aiding and abetting" illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked

I'm looking forward to tomorrow's oral arguments.

[Brett Bellmore]

Given those "questions" it would seem a slam dunk for the manufacturers.

1. Only somebody who didn't know the definition of "proximate" could rule that it was.

2. This is exactly the sort of claim the Lawful Commerce act prohibits.

But 3 of the justices would rule in favor of any gun control law short of summary execution for displaying finger guns, they're so hostile to the 2nd amendment, so it's not going to be 9-0 the way it should be.

[Michael Ejercito]

Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to "aiding and abetting" illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked

By this rationale, anyone would be liable for anything through a chain of ForWantOfANail events.

[tylertusta]

Indeed. Mexico's chain of liability is unworkable as a matter of Federal law and would probably be unconstitutional in the 2nd Amendment context.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't see why contributory negligence doesn't apply?

Mexico was negligent in (a) not stopping the guns at the border (b) not enforcing its gun control laws, and (c) not incarcerating the cartels. El Salvador doesn't have a MS-13 problem anymore...

[tylertusta]

The petitioners made those very arguments in their briefs, and I agree with you on what the result should be.

The 1st Circuit really screwed this one up, but it's no shocker. The 1st is only behind the 9th in their hostility to guns, gun rights, and gun manufacturers.

I reserve judgement on what the court's liberals will do until after I've listened to oral arguments.

[Commenter_XY]

And hostility to parental rights, as well = First circuit

[Michael Ejercito]

I wonder why they thought they could win damages without at least alleging that the gun manufacturers violated some legal duty.

[tylertusta]

Well, they managed to convince a 1st circuit panel. Granted, the brain rot runs deep in the 1CCA, but still.

[Michael Ejercito]

Apparently, the 1st Circuit interpreted "aiding and abetting" beyond any reasonable foundation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because they not unreasonably assumed that a lot of judges would be looking for an excuse to let them. I mean, the 1st circuit did, after all!

[Sarcastr0]

Is the Lawful Commerce act in the briefs?

[tylertusta]

PLCAA, yes.

[Sarcastr0]

Should be a fun time one to see come out, then.

[Longtobefree]

Only US gun manufactures have the technology to create guns that sneak themselves across international borders, jump out of the box, load themselves, and go track down victims and shoot them without the trigger being pulled by a human.

[hobie]

Now then, since Jan 20th, I know how sensitive you rubes get when a sitting president is denigrated. But when Krasnov takes the dais for his address to Congress, expect the largest sustained booing ever recorded. Not the kind of razzle Boebert did as she sprung from her theater seat, pearly tears in her hair and all. Will you tough, mask-fearing patriots be able to weather the slight?

[apedad]

Reminder....

Last week I had the over/under on Nazi salutes at 25 during the State of the Union address (all attendees).

[hobie]

Will Elon be there? Yeezee? There's a lot of antisemites in this administration. 25 may a low number

[Bob from Ohio]

"Krasnov"

The idiocy spreads.

[santamonica811]

When it gets to the 13,928,812th mention (like "Let's go, Brandon"), then let's talk. 🙂

[bernard11]

Don't forget "heels up" Harris and all the crap they called Biden and Obama, but insult the Leader and they bitch.

Fuck 'em.

[David Nieporent]

Will the Dems even show up? I can imagine them not, and then a whole lot of pearl clutching from the GOP about this lack of respect.

[santamonica811]

I hope it's not booing. Or heckling. Respect the office, even as we hate Trump.* Sit silently. Or turn your backs. Or don't show up. Or show up, and then symbolically leave. All perfectly fine. But don't boo/heckle.

*(My opinion only, natch)

[santamonica811]

I was overlooking that this is not a State of the Union address. So, the "rules" for Dem's speaking out are a bit different. I imagine Trump will be blathering on, telling one lie after another. So, maybe Dem's will be justified in *some* reaction. (I still hope for no booing or heckling, for already-stated reasons.)

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is a column by Jack Marshall.

https://ethicsalarms.com/2025/03/02/ethics-alarms-generally-ignores-michael-moore-but-a-quote-this-unethical-and-cretinous-warrants-an-exception/

“Who’s really being removed by ICE tonight? The child who would’ve discovered the cure for cancer in 2046? The 9th grade nerd who would’ve stopped that asteroid that’s gonna hit us in 2032? Do we care?”
Yes, activist communist and has-been documentary-maker Michael Moore really and truly made that head-explodingly stupid argument, my candidate for the most ridiculous rationalization for allowing illegal immigrants into the U.S. yet, even topping the “But that poem on the Statue of Liberty!” excuse.

It is so stupid that the theory would be a valuable diagnostic tool on IQ tests. If someone checks the “Sounds good to me!” box, that test-taker’s cognitive ability should automatically be judged as “dangerously impaired.”

As we have explained here many times, consequentialism is the ethical theory for dolts, the concept that a decision or action is right or wrong depending on what happens as a result of it. Moore is saying that an action is unethical or wrong if anything good might have happen if a different choice had be made. I hesitate to give this walking, talking ethics corrupter credit, but he just has to be smarter than to believe that. As usual, Moore is trying to con the dimmer members of the public, a large contingent among Americans who still pay attention to him.

One wag on social media responded to Moore’s insulting question with “Now do abortion.”

Bingo.

[tylertusta]

Michael Moore stopped being relevant after Citizens United.

[Sarcastr0]

Jack Marshall has never been relevant, but ME loves the guy.

[David Nieporent]

Fortunately for Marshall, anyone can call him- or herself an ethicist without any training or expertise, because Marshall's conception of it is, "If I don't approve of something, it's unethical."

Does one have to like consequentialism? No. Does one have to subscribe to it? Of course not. Does that make it "stupid"? Well, Jack Marshall may fancy himself smarter than Jeremy Bentham, or John Stuart Mill, but there's no evidence for such in the real world.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think I've ever seen a professional "ethicist" who wasn't an ethical nightmare from a normal perspective. Especially once they start hyphenating it.

Is consequentialism stupid? Maybe not in very clear cut situations, where the causality is direct and reliable. In the larger universe of cases, represented by utilitarian theorizing? Yup, because you generally won't have the data or the computational capacity to do anything with it, so it just becomes a way to rationalize doing what you want.

[santamonica811]

Your "nuanced consequentialism" seems pretty reasonable. Of course, Michael E thinks you're mentally retarded, but opinions are like noses.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"opinions are like noses"

Everybody got one, and they all smell?

[santamonica811]

heh

[Kazinski]

Well to be fair the only person on earth who could possibly stop an asteroid before it hits earth in 2032 is an immigrant, but a legal one.

[M L]

I've noticed a lot of Trump haters are suddenly into hawkish foreign policy.

Becoming a neocon warmonger to own the Trumpkins.

[Sarcastr0]

If anyone talks about the US going on ME adventures, let me know.

But other than that, your definition of hawkish is kinda bullshit.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Does Gaslighto remember how we got into Vietnam?

[Michael Ejercito]

Or even what the Vietnam War was about?

[Longtobefree]

Wasn't it about some kind of mad conspiracy theory involving dominos?
That turned out to be correct, like all facts put forth by the right and labeled conspiracy theory by the left?

[Magister]

So, you're saying Vietnam War good, and promoted by the right, and opposed by the left? Please make this the major campaign issue for 2026.

[Longtobefree]

No, I said the domino theory was correct. Nothing more.

But if you need more, Vietnam (and Ukraine) were creatures of the left.

Eisenhower put 900 advisors in Vietnam, and by November 1963, Kennedy had put 16,000 military personnel there. On 8 March 1965, 3,500 U.S. Marines were landed near Da Nang, South Vietnam. This marked the beginning of the American ground war. The Marines' initial assignment was defense of Da Nang Air Base. The first deployment was increased to nearly 200,000 by December (Johnson was President)

Ukraine, of course, belongs entirely to whoever was running the country when Joe Biden was sitting in the oval office.

[Kazinski]

"Ukraine, of course, belongs entirely to whoever was running the country when Joe Biden was sitting in the oval office."

Not quite, you are forgetting the Crimean and Donbas invasions of 2014, that wasn't all Biden's fault, But it didn't help.

Biden became Obama's "point man" in February 2014, the Donbas invasion was 2 month's later, but the Crimean invasion was before Biden became the point man.

[Magister]

OK, following the Wikipedia page as you are:

The Kennedy administration remained committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations.

Johnson knew he had inherited a deteriorating situation in South Vietnam, but adhered to the widely accepted domino argument for defending the South

The domino theory called for the Vietnam war. The right was more into it and the war than the left. Calling Kennedy and Johnson the left is laughably stupid. Plenty of Democratic presidential primary candidates in 2020 were to the left of Joe Biden, too, but it's Putin that owns that one.

In October 1969, Nixon had ordered B-52s loaded with nuclear weapons to race to the border of Soviet airspace to convince the Soviet Union, in accord with the madman theory, he was capable of anything to end the Vietnam War.

OK, Trump is not the first insane Republican president, but Nixon was just pretending, at least at that point.

[tylertusta]

Let's be real: they lost their minds when Trump won in 2016, and anything remotely connected to contributing to his victory became a Problem To Be Dealt With™. Russia was put on that list due to Russiagate and the hysteria surrounding it.

Democrats went from 'Reset Buttons,' 'Peace In Our Time,' and 'Crimea River Ukraine' to 'Russophobes starting a new red scare' so fast that Joseph McCarthy would be proud.

[Michael Ejercito]

Yes.

Who was it that said, "“The 1980's called and they want their foreign policy back because the Cold War has been over for twenty years.”?

Now they want to refight the Cold War, just because they blame Russia for Trump winning.

[tylertusta]

That was Obama, who said it to Mitt Romney during the 2012 debates.

[Michael Ejercito]

And everything changed with the 2016 election campaign.

[tylertusta]

Bingo. Democrats were pissed at having lost the election in 2016 due to them thinking that they had it in the bag. They lashed out at anything that they could conceivably blame: Russia, 3rd parties, fake news, social media generally, and IT companies specifically.

The most insidious was them going after 'disinformation,' which then morphed into them going after 'malinformation.'

[David Nieporent]

Was 2012 before, or after, 2014? Was 2016 before, or after, 2014?

[santamonica811]

David,
Why bother trying? These chat-bots are the same ones blaming Ukraine for starting the war. A generation ago, I'm sure they were blaming the US for terrorists flying airplanes into our buildings.

[Sarcastr0]

Irrational hate of Russia is really a problem on the left...?

It's almost as though Russia did something since the Obama admin that's changed normal people's current thinking.

Meanwhile, we have MAGA is like 2 months away from Russia is the new leader of the free world.

[tylertusta]

It's almost as though Russia did something since the Obama admin that's changed normal people's current thinking.

Yes. The original sin which you blame Russia for was Trump's election victory in 2016.

I already said this. Please keep up.

[Sarcastr0]

The original sin which you blame Russia for was Trump's election victory in 2016.

I of course refer to the invasion of Ukraine.
Seems everything revolves around Trump for you. That's a you problem; don't project it onto the rest of us.

The shift I saw was *under* Trump, in 2017. The foreign policy folks went from an anti-terrorism multipolar world to a return to a cold war-ish great power competition with China as a peer competitor and Russia as an asymmetric threat.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/subversive-statecraft

Do you think Russia isn't a threat?

[tylertusta]

When someone starts an accusatory sentence with "Seems everything" then it's safe to assume you can ignore anything that they have to say.

[Sarcastr0]

You dropped this turd: "The original sin which you blame Russia for was Trump's election victory in 2016."

I called you on it and now you get huffy.

I also provided examples of how your reductive partisan view is just flat wrong.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I of course refer to the invasion of Ukraine."

The 2014 one?

[tylertusta]

Funny how they forgot about that one.

[David Nieporent]

No, funny how you did, because it utterly undermines your weird notion that 2016 was the genesis of liberal antipathy to Putin.

[Bob from Ohio]

"weird notion "

Your memory is getting foggy. The US response to 2014 was some blankets and MREs, a few facebook ads in 2016 really set your friends off.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I of course refer to the invasion of Ukraine."

Retro-causality: The left turned anti-Russian in 2016, not 2022.

[bernard11]

You know, that's about the time the right started loving Russia.

[Frank Drackman]

Roosh-a can't invade Sovereign Countries!
Only WE can invade Sovereign Countries!

[Don Nico]

"Do you think Russia isn't a threat?"
Do you?

[Sarcastr0]

Take it up with tylertusta.

[Bob from Ohio]

"since the Obama admin"

During, you mean. Russia seized the Crimea in 2014.

[Frank Drackman]

"Seized" sounds so umm, war-like
"Annexed" is so much nicer

[hobie]

To be fair, Russia broke into Hillary's email upon command, swinging the election. I think Trump owes them one. And here it is

[tylertusta]

To be fair, Russia broke into Hillary's email upon command

You're confusing Clinton's email server with the DNC server hack.

The DNC hack also occurred well before Trump's joke on the Russians having Clinton's emails.

swinging the election

Among many more significant reasons as to why Clinton lost, that people insist it was primarily because of the DNC server hack never ceases to amuse me.

Unless the Russians also prevented her from campaigning in Wisconsin, that is.

[Mr. Bumble]

By the way, who killed Seth Rich and why?

[M L]

Just a robbery gone wrong. The robber forgot to take his wallet though, and by coincidence shot him twice in the back like a professional assassin.

[Sarcastr0]

You a Clinton Death List guy too?

[M L]

Lighten up, buddy. I haven't heard of whatever you are talking about. The commenter above asked who killed Seth Rich and why. I am trying to help inform. In case you didn't know, Seth Rich was killed by a robber. That's the who. The why, is because the robber wanted to rob him. But the robbery went wrong. For one thing, the robber forgot to take the wallet. I can understand this, even though I am pretty good at remembering, even I forget things sometimes.

[tylertusta]

Thanks, M L. I had a good laugh at this comment.

The official story is so full of crap that even what you state it with a straight face the left still calls you a conspiracy theorist.

[David Nieporent]

The conspiracy theory is so fucking stupid and evidence free that Fox News had to pay millions of dollars to the Rich family for promoting it.

[Mr. Bumble]

From NPR:
"Neither side disclosed whether Fox had made a payment to the Riches or had apologized to them."

[ThePublius]

David, I mean Mr. Moderator, you are using that tired liberal progressive trope of "evidence free," or "without evidence," when, in fact, facts inconsistent with the immediate apparent cause of the homicide are indeed evidence that it wasn't what was assumed. The fact that Seth's wallet and (expensive) watch weren't taken, that nothing was taken, and that he was shot in the back are evidence that this wasn't a robbery. So, what was it? It was obviously an assassination, but why? One's not a conspiracy theorist to ask and to wonder why.

[bernard11]

Seth's wallet and (expensive) watch weren't taken, that nothing was taken,

Seth? He was a big buddy of yours, was he?

[David Nieporent]

From NPR:
"Neither side disclosed whether Fox had made a payment to the Riches or had apologized to them."

Yes; and? I never said they admitted making a payment. From Yahoo News: "Fox paid seven figures to settle lawsuit over bogus Seth Rich conspiracy story"

[David Nieporent]

David, I mean Mr. Moderator, you are using that tired liberal progressive trope of "evidence free," or "without evidence," when, in fact, facts inconsistent with the immediate apparent cause of the homicide are indeed evidence that it wasn't what was assumed. The fact that Seth's wallet and (expensive) watch weren't taken, that nothing was taken, and that he was shot in the back are evidence that this wasn't a robbery.

As far as I can tell, you've made up the "expensive" watch claim, and that's evidence that it wasn't a successful robbery, not that it wasn't a robbery.

So, what was it? It was obviously an assassination, but why? One's not a conspiracy theorist to ask and to wonder why.

That's literally a conspiracy theorist thing to do.

1) There is no evidence it was anything other than an attempted robbery. It was in a high-crime neighborhood where a number of similar robberies had taken place in recent weeks.
2) Why would someone "assassinate" a low-level staffer?
3) Why would assassins not take the guy's wallet, if for no other reason than to make it look like a robbery?

[Magister]

Police were alerted to gunfire at 4:20 a.m. by an automated gunfire locator. Less than one minute after the gunfire, police officers found Rich conscious with gunshot wounds. He was taken to a nearby hospital, where he died over 1+1⁄2 hours after being shot.

You can find references for these assertions and other details at the Wikipedia page. That police found him within a minute after the gunfire suggests that the robber(s) ran away rather than be found there grabbing his wallet and watch. That he didn't die more quickly doesn't seem consistent with an assassination, but is consistent with robbers who threatened him with a gun and abandoned the robbery attempt after he fought back and they shot him.

Bumble is wrong about what NPR has said.

Fox reportedly paid the Riches a multimillion-dollar settlement.

[Mr. Bumble]

You're projecting again.
The question was; Who killed Seth Rich and why?

[David Nieporent]

A mugger, because he was trying to mug him.

[ThePublius]

The Seth Rich killing was obviously an assassination, not a robbery. That the D.C. police were apparently not the least bit curious about who killed him and why is - curious. It is a mystery that will persist, like the JFK assassination, and those of RFK, MLK, Jeffery Epstein, and the Butler, PA attempt on Trump.

What I find remarkable on an almost daily basis is the people who seem to believe, or pretend to believe, that there is little or no corruption in the world, regarding money or murder. Perhaps it's my point of reference, having grown up in NYC, and having had exposure to, knowledge of, and dealings with organized crime, corrupt police, corrupt politicians, corrupt business people, corrupt clergy, and so on. Corruption is endemic to the human condition, and to ignore or deny it is naive at best.

[Sarcastr0]

This handwaiving tin foil is basically a QAnon-level conspiracy machine.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure it is Douche. So who killed Seth Rich and why? Who planted the pipe bombs in DC on Jan. 5/6? Who mailed anthrax after 9/11?
How was Thomas Crooks almost able to assassinate candidate Trump? Who killed Jeffery Epstein?
Who shot cock robin?

[Frank Drackman]

People do have a way of getting dead around them

[SRG2]

It seems that the intersection between those who think that the US should stay out of the conflict and those who approve of Krasnov's siding with Putin is close to 100%.

[Krayt]

America will help you surrender to tyranny.

Hey! It just occurred to me. Americans also eat cheese. I guess we're Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys.

[hobie]

As a young man I remember a Thomas Sowell opinion after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He wrote that Reagan had 'bankrupted' communism. This made a lot of sense to me vis-a-vis the easy collapse of the empire. It wasn't ideology or coersion that won. Reagan outspent their third world economy on military and space and they couldn't keep up. Now WE cannot afford to fight them, and Russia has the might to rally 5 axis nations to pound Ukraine. Sad

[Brett Bellmore]

We could easily afford to outspend Russia IF it weren't for all the other crap we're spending money on.

That's the thing about unnecessary expenditures: They leave you too over-extended to handle emergencies.

[hobie]

Of course we can afford this. Reagan spent trillions. We could have ten times the effect for a few hundred billion

[Don Nico]

Sowell was correct. That policy was Nelson Rockefeller's. Gorbachev's inner scientific circle convinced him that the USSR could not outspend the US on Starwars and that there were better opportunities at hand, hence glasnost and perastroika

[apedad]

In case anyone is trying to keep score: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/tracking-trump-in-court-the-scope-of-executive-power-tested-1

[Commenter_XY]

Impressive, and informative.

[not guilty]

The Department of Justice has sent out a memorandum to curtail enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. https://www.justice.gov/media/1386461/dl This memo directs that until further notice, no new abortion-related FACE Act actions--criminal or civil--will be permitted without authorization from the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.

The self-styled "pro-life" movement has long had an active domestic terrorist wing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence Nothing good will come from pandering to these thugs.

[tylertusta]

Going after Antifa's thugs is a far better use of our federal resources.

[Sarcastr0]

Antifa was a twitter brand.

Going after a now-defunct brand is not a great use of DoJ resources, actually.

Do you think Antifa is our doing militia exercises or Proud Boy restraint invasion or Nazi tiki protests?

I don't even know what you're envisioning here.

[tylertusta]

Antifa was a twitter brand.

It's a loose cell-based network of agitators, protestors, and terrorists. I admit that not everyone are terrorists, but the number is definitely not zero. They've lost their political support for now, but they are still out there and deserve to be brought to justice before they receive a new influx of political and financial support from left-wing sources.

The building block of antifa is what's called an affinity group, people you live and work with and trust and know in real life. All the planning is done within that closed bloc, and they don't let everyone know [what they're going to do]. I didn't know that they were going to burn the Portland Police Association when I joined. What they did was put a call out that said, "Anyone show up in black that night at this place, and you can join the action."

https://reason.com/2020/10/02/the-conservative-trans-woman-who-went-undercover-with-antifa-in-portland/

Nazi tiki protests?

Ah yes, the Democratic-funded and aligned Lincoln Project's 'Nazi tiki protests.'

One operates by day, the other by night, so it's not inconceivable that there's overlap in membership.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Unite the Right wasn't a false flag.

2. Some 2020 Reason interview may not be your best source on what Antifa is, for a number of reasons.''

3. 'They are still out there' is not a great argument for resource allocation.
It is a great argument if you just want to use law enforcement to police state it up against people you don't like.

[tylertusta]

for a number of reasons.

Reasons I'm sure you will now tell me.

It is a great argument if you just want to use law enforcement to police state it up against people you don't like.

"They are still out there" is the same argument that Democrats used to haul in J6 protestors, who had no "Jan 6" moment when the date turned into January 7th. Going after "people you don't like" is the reason why the Biden DOJ targeted pro-life protestors, Catholics, and parents who disagreed with the sexualization of minors.

Goose. Gander.

[Sarcastr0]

Whattaboutism is a fallacy. But also

J6 people had
1) actual crimes
2) they'd committed recently
3) on camera.

So pretty different, actually.

Going after "people you don't like" is the reason why the Biden DOJ targeted pro-life protestors, Catholics, and parents who disagreed with the sexualization of minors.
Using the right wing persecution complex to excuse your own bad behavior is indeed how you get to be a police state-supporting authoritarian.

[tylertusta]

Whattaboutism is a fallacy.

In an argument about how to allocate finite resources, "whataboutism" is not a fallacious argument. It is the argument starting with Mr. Guilty's very first comment in this thread where he wants to go after pro-life "thugs."

So pretty different, actually.

Anitfa meets all three. So by your criteria, Antifa is a worthy target of our law enforcement.

Using the right wing persecution complex to excuse your own bad behavior is indeed how you get to be a police state-supporting authoritarian.

When you launch a personal attack against me, you're not only being a douche, but I stop reading anything you write after that point. You might as well save your time.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Noooo, "antifa" is just a right-wing conspiracy! It's not an official, legal registered organization. It's just a bunch of independent people who were "antifa" uniforms and do "antifa" stuff and identify as "antifa" and organize and communicate as "antifa".

[not guilty]

No, tylertulsa, I have not engaged in tu quoque. I have never suggested that violent crimes committed by murderers who call themselves "pro-life" excuse or justify the vandalism and arson committed against so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" by abortion rights advocates. Each deserves to be prosecuted.

Indeed, I have suggested on prior threads following the execrable Dobbs decision that the group calling itself "Jane's Revenge" should be investigated for criminal RICO prosecution, with multiple acts of arson furnishing the predicate felonies.

[David Nieporent]

Anitfa meets all three. So by your criteria, Antifa is a worthy target of our law enforcement.

J6 were specific people who committed specific crimes, on a specific date at a specific location. That's the difference between that and "Antifa." Nobody suggested going after a J6 ideology or movement.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Antifa was a twitter brand."

Really? The Dem Mayor of Portland seemed to think they were a real group doing large amounts of damage.

[Bob from Ohio]

"no new abortion-related FACE Act actions--criminal or civil--will be permitted without authorization from the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "

Excellent. A unconstitutional law [aimed at speech liberals finf "bad"] despite what the supreme court said. Maybe we won't go down the UK's path to arrest people silently praying.

[David Nieporent]

FACE bans the blocking of clinics, which is conduct, not speech.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Wyoming Passes Bill Barring State from Requiring Employees to Use Preferred Pronouns of Other Employees"

Nod to the Republican governor's non-signature letter that this is a gratuitous message bill.

https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2025/02/wyoming-passes-bill-barring-state-from.html

[not guilty]

The text of the bill is here: https://www.wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2025/SF0077

Insofar as it applies to employees of the state and its political subdivisions, the government as employer has some latitude under the First Amendment. Subsection (a)(ii), however, provides that "The state and its political subdivisions shall not compel or require an employee to refer to another employee using that employee's preferred pronouns . . . [a]s a condition of receiving a grant, loan, permit, contract, license or other benefit afforded by the state or a political subdivision[.]"

I wonder if application of that provision to government grantees, contractors and license or permit recipients runs afoul of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. If the bill were construed to require private parties to restrict their own employees' speech as a condition of receiving governmental benefits, that would be problematic. I surmise that the bill will be interpreted not to require that.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Assuming that the bill does extend to private employers seeking government benefits (which seems like a strained reading of an admittedly poorly-written provision), in what wet would that require restricting anyone’s speech? It doesn’t forbid using anyone’s preferred pronouns, it just says that people can’t be required to.

[not guilty]

My hypothesis is that if the bill were construed to make available grants, loans, permits, contracts, licenses or other benefits afforded by the state only to beneficiaries who agree to impose the government's preferred pronoun restrictions (which I do not think is a reasonable construction), that would be problematic, like the California tax provisions challenged in Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958).

[Noscitur a sociis]

I guess I’m asking in what way you see the bill imposing a restriction on what anyone can do or say with respect to using pronouns.

[Don Nico]

Mayor Pete has announced he has removed pronouns from his CV.

[santamonica811]

I don't get it???? (I imagine you tried to make a funny comment. But it makes no logical sense. I have no pronouns in my CV. My professor sister has no pronouns in her CV.) Literally the only people on Earth that I can even imagine having pronouns in their CVs are Donald Trump and the King of English...since they often speak about themselves in the 3rd Person.)

[edit: I Googled after posting, and I see that it's a real story. You were wrong about the CV part, and so my response was accurate. You would have been correct if you had said, "...removed from his social media account(s)." At least that does make logical sense--although I think it's a silly thing for him to do.]

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The collaboration between Israeli and Palestinian filmmakers follows activist Basel Adra as he risks arrest to document the destruction of his hometown at the southern edge of the West Bank, which Israeli soldiers are tearing down to use as a military training zone. Adra’s pleas fall on deaf ears until he befriends a Jewish Israeli journalist who helps him amplify his story.

“We made this film as Palestinians and Israelis because, together, our voices are stronger,” said Israeli journalist and filmmaker Yuval Abraham. He used his acceptance speech to call out his country’s government for what he called “the atrocious destruction of Gaza and its people.” And he urged Hamas to release all Israeli hostages.

https://apnews.com/article/best-documentary-2025-oscars-f589d9ed361df2220a1f0e122fe9f84b

(No Other Land won Best Documentary)

[Bob from Ohio]

Pali propaganda. I guess Jews don't control Hollywood anymore.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Israeli and Palestinian filmmakers"

"Adra’s pleas fall on deaf ears until he befriends a Jewish Israeli journalist who helps him amplify his story."

Jewish voices count even when they address Palestinian concerns.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Jewish Israeli journalist"

Collaborator with evil.

4-6 words about October 7 hostages don't wash away the rest.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

What is "collaboration with evil" now? Any criticism of Israel's policy?

[Bob from Ohio]

Read the acceptance speeches. Lie after lie.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

You first made a snide comment about Jews not controlling Hollywood. It was flagged that the documentary included Jewish and Israeli support. Then, it's that it was a collaboration. Now, we have to parse the acceptance speeches,* which don't cover every Israeli/Jewish person supporting the documentary.

==

* The replies so far don't make me too comfortable about this parsing being done too well.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, my chief criticism of Israeli policy is that they are not killing more hamas members faster. And hunting them down worldwide.

Aside from that, Israel's taxation scheme is truly something to behold. The Chief Rabbinate moves way too slowly on agunot cases.

Plenty of Israeli policies to criticize.

[hobie]

American Jews vote Dem so they ain't Jews no more. That's what your boy said, anyway

[JasonT20]

When my mother was telling me about the Oscars and its relative lack of politics compared to some years, she did mention that the "Gaza" documentary won. I'm not sure how to respond to that...

[santamonica811]

I was shocked at the relative silence about Trump and his atrocities during the Oscars. Barely a mention. And, when alluded to, only in indirect ways that didn't mention Trump by name. (I wasn't glued to the TV, so it's entirely possible that I missed some or all direct references, if they did happen.)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I think the birthright citizenship issue has been well covered at VC, but notable about this article is that one of Randy Barnett's co-authors of a book about the original understanding of the 14A takes part in the takedown. A footnote suggests that if the op-ed authors' names were redacted, the co-author would be shocked if told that Randy Barnett was involved in the op-ed.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5162760

[M L]

Ukraine has been recognized as a bastion of corruption for some time. It seems that includes being a center for global arms trafficking. Here's an old PBS frontline story from 2002:

"During the past decade, Ukraine has gained a reputation as one of the world's most active suppliers of illegal small arms. It is one of several Eastern European countries that has turned to arms dealing as a source of much-needed hard currency. Between 1997 and 2000, the Ukrainian arms industry grew tenfold and exported $1.5 billion worth of weapons. While Ukraine's legal arms industry has boomed, the international small arms black market may have proved far more lucrative. Ukrainian arms have been linked to some of the world's bloodiest conflicts and most notorious governments, including the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, and, until recently, the Taliban in Afghanistan."

https://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/sierraleone/context.html

Back in June, this article dared to venture into the topic in the context of the war, and of the US and other nations shipping hundreds of billions in weapons to Ukraine: https://hir.harvard.edu/facts-or-false-alarms-the-state-of-illicit-arms-in-ukraine/

Currently, Tucker Carlson is making some waves alleging that the arms being sent to Ukraine are being sold on the black market. Personally, Tucker Carlson saying something doesn't move the needle for me, it is just illustrative of the public conversation happening. However, this certainly seems like the sort of thing that could very plausibly be happening.

[Sarcastr0]

22 years ago I was a bastion of being a physicist living in a commune.

Old stories and Tucker Carlson...man you're sad.

Tan your balls yet?

[hobie]

Lot of bots out today

[Frank Drackman]

But they're "Hillbilly" Bots, go ahead and steal their Valor too.

[M L]

The Harvard article says, "the extent to which equipment remains solely in control of the Ukrainian military is unclear. This uncertainty raises questions about what is happening to the mass amounts of weapons the United States and NATO allies have distributed and sold to Ukraine in the past two years . . . The illicit nature of banned weapons and the potential for weaponry theft and circulation on the black market raise genuine concerns about the security of arms sales to Ukraine."

But now SEVERAL of the dumbest internet shills around have assured us that there's nothing to see here! What a relief. Glad to know everything's good on this issue.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And now Gaslight0 is a parasite instead.

Been DOGE'd yet???

[Don Nico]

Speaks the saddest. Corruption persists there even during wartime

[Sarcastr0]

You really do like the Putin talking points, eh?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Old news. You might remember international pressure resulting in them cleaning up their act.

[Krayt]

I was about to say, black market is always a concern, the solution is to tighten things up, not abandon.

[ThePublius]

Oh, Ukraine cleaned up their act, no long corrupt? I didn't hear that.

[Frank Drackman]

No I don't remember that, got a reference to back up your ass?

[David Nieporent]

Ukraine has been recognized as a bastion of corruption for some time. It seems that includes being a center for global arms trafficking. Here's an old PBS frontline story from 2002:

Ah, 2002. When Friends was the top rated TV show in the country, Tom Brady had just won his first Super Bowl, the U.S. hadn't yet invaded Iraq, and Ukraine something something.

[ThePublius]

Ah, thanks David, I mean Mr. Moderator, for telling us that a tiger has changed its stripes.

It's amazing how Ukraine could go from being a bastion of corruption 23 years ago to an exemplar, corruption free state now. But, seriously, how did they do it? And what can we learn? Did they have a DOGE?

[M L]

Great point. I cited that 2002 story because it's the last one about this, not because it was the oldest/first I saw, and there's definitely not continuous sources about it between then and now. Now if you can add your name to the list of internet commenters assuring us that there's no problem here, that will help us sleep even more soundly. So glad there definitely won't be a story in a couple years "Whoopsie, look who got their hands on some American made weapons somehow.."

[Krayt]

A man is known by the company he keeps.

North Korea sends troops and missiles to help Putin.

For the "I like Putin" types around here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Franklin Roosevelt sent tanks and bombs and bullets to Stalin.
So there....

[Sarcastr0]

So this crypto reserve thing.

Trump is picking the funds that go in it? Or at least announced it on TruthSocial.

Good grift, especially if you got a heads-up.

I am glad we don't have a lot of crypto-bros on here, but this seems pure grift. Can a national tulip reserve be far behind?

[Commenter_XY]

You and I agree on this, but for very different reasons.

The tulips had actual bulbs. Crypto has....?

[ThePublius]

Two "unbelievables" for me:

1. "Tonight, a knife-wielding attacker tried to kill multiple people in Boston. Police stopped the threat and shot them. @MayorWu went on television offering condolences—to the criminal. Unbelievable. This city cares more about protecting criminals than residents."

2. California: a bill criminalizing the use of deadly force in defending one's home against intruders. "This bill would eliminate certain circumstances under which homicide is justifiable, including, among others, in defense of a habitation or property."

We are becoming more like the U.K. every day. When will we have police knocking on our doors for posting criticisms of politicians on FB, or for praying for aborted fetuses in our own homes? (Both of which happen in the U.K.)

[Frank Drackman]

Kentucky is a little different
from USA Today 2-18-2025
"A child in Kentucky shot and killed two men in self-defense after they allegedly tried stealing firearms from a safe within a home, police said.
The Manchester and Kentucky State police departments are investigating the home invasion that occurred on Saturday around 4:24 a.m., according to a Facebook post shared on Sunday. Manchester police officers responded to the child's home in Clay County and found two men who had been shot, the social media post says.
Kentucky State Police troopers, who were called by Manchester police to assist in the investigation, determined the two men injured men forcibly entered the home intending to steal the guns from a safe, the department's Facebook post reads.
It is unclear if any other adults were present in the home at the time."
Don't want to sound like Hobie, but when I googled the bad guys names, first thing I get is a mugshot of one of them for Meth Possession,

Frank

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

1. "And I'm also thinking of all the people who were impacted here today in one of the busier parts of the city with this tragedy."

"I'm glad that the officer is safe and very grateful for a quick response from all of our first responders here again," she said.

Did you leave that part out because you didn't think we'd look it up, or because you didn't look it up?

[ThePublius]

No, I think it's inappropriate to express condolences to the family of a deceased violent perpetrator in the same breath as expressing wishes for the people who ended the crime.

[bernard11]

So she extended condolences to the criminal's family, not to the attacker himself, unlike the lie that Publius told.

[David Nieporent]

I think it's inappropriate to express condolences to the family of a deceased violent perpetrator

Why? The family (as far as I know) did nothing wrong. And they suffered a loss.

[Jmaie]

I do have to wonder at the mayor’s political instincts, choosing to send condolences to the deceased’s family first thing out of the box…

[Frank Drackman]

Those are her supporters, same way Parkinsonian Joe went down on Floyd George's Mammy

[David Nieporent]

Police stopped the threat and shot them. @MayorWu went on television offering condolences—to the criminal.

That's a lie, of course. She offered condolences to the family of the ohwhybotherwithalleged criminal.

2. California: a bill criminalizing the use of deadly force in defending one's home against intruders. "This bill would eliminate certain circumstances under which homicide is justifiable, including, among others, in defense of a habitation or property."

I am opposed to this bill, but that is not exactly accurate. More to the point, it's a bill introduced by a single legislator with no co-sponsors at this time, who announced an intent to amend the bill when there was an outcry against it. The number of stupid, crazy, outrageous bills introduced by isolated Democratic and Republican state legislators alike is too large to count. Only a tiny percent are even considered, let alone become law. I find it tiresome when leftists say, "Republicans want to outlaw divorce!" because one legislator somewhere introduced a bill that if you squint might do that, and I find it tiresome when right wingers nutpick Democratic legislators, also.

[John F. Carr]

Mayor Wu is far left. She may try to move back towards the center now that opponents have appeared in this year's mayoral election. She recently ordered a review of bike lanes. Progressive dogma says drivers are the enemy and that was her policy. Now she is listening to resident complaints.

Municipal elections in Massachusetts are nonpartisan. The presumptive challenger in November is also a Democrat.

[Don Nico]

But she plays the piano well. Brava!

[bernard11]

I don't live within the city limits, so I guess it doesn't matter, but I'm not big on either Wu or Kraft, though in the latter case that may reflect my negative views of his father.

Wu is OK, I suppose, but when someone starts talking about rent control as a solution to housing problems they lose me.

[Sarcastr0]

So TP posted 2 'unbelievable' and it turns out he was badly mistaken on the facts of both, and the law on the second one.

Accuracy is not required if your main purpose is to stay mad at libs libs libs.

[Sarcastr0]

1. ""I'm glad that the officer is safe, and very grateful for a quick response from all of our first responders here in such an active part of Boston," she said.
Cox commended the police officer.
"We don't look for loss of life," Cox said. "Our condolences go out to the family of the individual. We are also proud our police officers, whether on-duty or off-duty, who activate themselves to help save lives."

This is a fine sentiment. Stop looking for shit to get mad at.

2. For a long time property defense not being an excuse to use deadly force was baseline criminal law. Hell, I didn't go to law school *that* long ago and it was taught to me as baseline.
States have moved away from that, but hardly all of them.

You can think it should be otherwise, but it's hardly unbelievable that a state takes that line.

[ThePublius]

1. "Stop looking for shit to get mad at." Don't tell me what to do, O.K., and I won't tell you what to do or think or how to feel.

2. The issue with home invasion is that you don''t know what the intention of the invader might be, or how they might act and what they might do when confronted. People have been killed by home invaders. Better to dispatch them and let God figure it out. Making it criminal to defend your own home is - criminal. This is not simply "property defense" as you minimize it, it's personal defense. Have you not heard of castle doctrine? It's not like shooting someone in your driveway who's trying to steal your car.

[David Nieporent]

The issue with home invasion is that you don''t know what the intention of the invader might be, or how they might act and what they might do when confronted. People have been killed by home invaders. Better to dispatch them and let God figure it out.

Which in fact the bill — if enacted according to its original text, which it wouldn't be — still allows.

[Commenter_XY]

Hell TP, in the People's Republic of NJ we have a duty to retreat. Somebody breaks into your house, you gotta leave, not the criminal. Because if you shoot his criminal ass, it is 5 years in the slammer.

[David Nieporent]

You shouldn't be giving legal advice without knowing the law. That is, of course, totally false as a statement of NJ law, which — like every other state — has a Castle Doctrine law, which abrogates the duty to retreat when one is in one's home.

[Brett Bellmore]

NOT "every other" state.

As of 2023, anyway, 13 states still had "Duty to retreat".

[Estragon]

None of those laws apply the duty to retreat in the scenario being described:

“Somebody breaks into your house, you gotta leave”

As far as I am aware. Can you provide a citation to the contrary?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Try reading the whole comment before getting mad about it.

Even the jurisdictions that have a duty to retreat have an exception to the duty for people in their home.

[David Nieporent]

No, every other state. That chart is incorrect. (I mean, do you honestly believe a state like North Dakota would not have the Castle Doctrine at least? In fact, it has a SYG law, which is even stronger.) For example, it claims that Delaware is a "Duty to retreat" state, but 11 DE Code § 464 (e)(2)(a) says

(e) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:
(2) The defendant knows that the necessity of using deadly force can be avoided with complete safety by retreating, by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that the defendant abstain from performing an act which the defendant is not legally obligated to perform except that:
a. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's dwelling;

46 states have codified the castle doctrine, and the other 4 have it in their common law.

[Estragon]

“Somebody breaks into your house, you gotta leave, not the criminal.”

Was that your impression of the actual state of the law, or something you repeated without thinking because it confirmed your priors?

If it’s the former can I ask where you got that impression? I am quite curious

[Commenter_XY]

Pull out your gun and shoot them in your home. See what happens.

Suppose I am a 79 year old lady in Camden, NJ who lives in a tenement home. Two young males, uninvited, start breaking down my door at 11pm. I loudly announce I'll shoot to kill if they come through that door. They continue to advance through the doorway, say 2 feet. I then shoot and kill them.

NJ will put me in jail.

[Estragon]

Again I have to ask you where you are getting that impression?

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/title-2c/section-2c-3-4/

[David Nieporent]

To be sure, if the gun was possessed illegally, NJ may rush to put the person who used it in self-defense in prison for that. But not for the self-defense itself.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That appears to be incorrect. N.J. Stat. § 2C:3-6 authorizes the use of deadly force if you reasonably believe that the “person against whom the force is used is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery or other criminal theft or property destruction” and that using “force other than deadly force to terminate or prevent the commission or the consummation of the crime would expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger of bodily harm.” It also creates a presumption that you have the latter reasonable belief if you are in your home.

[not guilty]

"Hell TP, in the People's Republic of NJ we have a duty to retreat. Somebody breaks into your house, you gotta leave, not the criminal. Because if you shoot his criminal ass, it is 5 years in the slammer."

What is your authority for that, XY? I haven't done a deep dive into New Jersey law, but based on some cursory research I don't think that is correct. N.J. Stat. § 2C:3-4(c) provides:

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S. 2C:3-5, N.J.S. 2C:3-9, or this section, the use of force or deadly force upon or toward an intruder who is unlawfully in a dwelling is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself or other persons in the dwelling against the use of unlawful force by the intruder on the present occasion.
(2) A reasonable belief exists when the actor, to protect himself or a third person, was in his own dwelling at the time of the offense or was privileged to be thereon and the encounter between the actor and intruder was sudden and unexpected, compelling the actor to act instantly and:

(a) The actor reasonably believed that the intruder would inflict personal injury upon the actor or others in the dwelling; or
(b) The actor demanded that the intruder disarm, surrender or withdraw, and the intruder refused to do so.

(3) An actor employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, withdrawing or doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action. [Emphasis added]

[Commenter_XY]

(2) A reasonable belief exists when the actor, to protect himself or a third person, was in his own dwelling at the time of the offense or was privileged to be thereon and the encounter between the actor and intruder was sudden and unexpected, compelling the actor to act instantly and:

What is 'instantly'? If it isn't 'instant' there is no reasonable belief, correct?

I am the 79 year old lady who screamed for 15 seconds not to come through that door or I'll shoot to kill. After 30 seconds, the young males finally broke down the door. I plugged 'em both. They're dead. Is 15 seconds instantly? How about 30 seconds?

[not guilty]

So your legal authority is the noted scholar, Otto Yourazz?

Questions of reasonableness are determined by juries, except where the facts are so one sided that no rational person could decide differently. In the case of a true ambiguity as to the meaning of a statute, it must be construed strictly against the government and in favor of the accused. Such true ambiguities are quite rare, though.

[Commenter_XY]

That was hilarious = Otto Yourazz. 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

1. You posted something that was basically not true as an example of something that made you mad at the libs.
Now you're mad I thought maybe get mad about true things?
OK, weirdo.

2. Juries get to decide about self-defense as per normal. Did you read what you quoted in your OP? It wasn't about self defense.
"Better to dispatch them and let God figure it out" is a tell you are more into blood than self defense.

[ThePublius]

Again, don't tell me what I'm into or not into.

If someone invades your home, while you're home (!) I think it's safe to assume that your life is in danger. So defending one's occupied domicile is the same as defending ones' self, in my view. Unfortunately these lib states, my own included, would have you retreat from your own home rather than stand your ground. Shameful.

[Sarcastr0]

Admitting you like to believe lies is a choice, I suppose!

You can think lots of things; insisting every state in the union pass laws to instantiate your personal take is just buying impotent anger.

[Estragon]

“would have you retreat from your own home”

I would really be interested to see an example of a law stating this.

[David Nieporent]

So defending one's occupied domicile is the same as defending ones' self, in my view. Unfortunately these lib states, my own included, would have you retreat from your own home rather than stand your ground. Shameful.

There. Are. No. States. That. Require. That.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Unfortunately these lib states, my own included, would have you retreat from your own home rather than stand your ground.

If you live in Massachusetts, you are mistaken. There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force in defense of yourself or another in your own home. 278 Mass. Gen. Laws § 8A.

[ThePublius]

Let me ask, what would you do? You're sitting in your living room some evening, with your wife and child, and some guy with two accomplices kicks in your door and enters; one makes his way towards you, another dashes upstairs and the third goes to another room in the house. You happen to be armed. What do you do?

(I know, it's not likely you, of all people would be armed, but let's say you have a pistol stashed somewhere within reasonable reach. I am usually armed when home alone. I live in a nice neighborhood, but it's in a relatively high crime city, and there have been home invasions not far from me; probably people known to each other and drug trade related, but all the same.... People breaking in to your house are generally not nice, peace loving people.)

[Estragon]

This elaborate hypothetical scenario (fantasy?) notwithstanding I would be very interested in seeing a statute that extends the duty to retreat to one’s own dwelling. I am not aware of any state where that is the case but I am quite willing to be shown to the contrary. A citation would be especially helpful:

[ThePublius]

I am not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that Massachusetts' and other states laws require you to retreat, even in your own home.

"In Massachusetts and in a handful of other states, one has a “duty to retreat” first, depending on the circumstances.

“That means that if somebody breaks into your house and they’re menacing and threatening you, and you’re by the back door, you have a duty to run out the door before you use deadly force,” said Elizabeth Quigley, a Pittsfield-based defense attorney."

https://www.berkshireeagle.com/news/local/how-duty-to-retreat-and-stand-your-ground-fit-into-the-bednarz-case-what-is-massachusetts-stand-your-ground-law/article_0dc798e4-0c4d-11ee-8318-ff64b2daf7e4.html

[Estragon]

Here you go. Go ahead and point to the part that says you have a duty to retreat from your dwelling:

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleII/Chapter278/Section8A

[ThePublius]

IANAL, and I just posted the analysis of a criminal defense attorney in MA saying:

“That means that if somebody breaks into your house and they’re menacing and threatening you, and you’re by the back door, you have a duty to run out the door before you use deadly force,” said Elizabeth Quigley, a Pittsfield-based defense attorney."

What do I know?

[Estragon]

“IANAL”

Yeah but come on, you can read! It’s one measly paragraph:

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleII/Chapter278/Section8A

Just point out the duty to retreat from your own dwelling.

“What do I know?”

In the words of a very famous person from Brooklyn:

“If you don’t know— now you know”

[David Nieporent]

You don't know not to quote a statement from a newspaper article, I guess, even one by a lawyer. Elizabeth Quiqley is just plain ol' wrong. Or was quoted out of context. Massachusetts law says:

"Section 8A: Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense

In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling."

To be clear: the Castle Doctrine does not (formally) say, "You can shoot anyone in your home." One still has to have a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to protect oneself or someone else. So if the neighbor's 8 year old is in your home in the middle of the afternoon, don't shoot him and cry "castle doctrine!" But you can reasonably assume that a burglar willing to break into your home at night poses such a threat, without waiting to give him the opportunity to attack you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If the 8 year old is carrying a handgun and has already discharged one round at me, I'm firing unless I can secure the weapon some other way.

Better example, 8 year old is violently out of control and waving a knife in my close presence. Or MY 8 year old.

Bang.

Sorry....

[Estragon]

Ed. Can I ask you a personal question? Were you touching yourself when you typed this?

For the life of me I will never understand the fondness of certain conservative commenters around here to type out these violent, lurid fantasies. In this case it is about KILLING A CHILD.

Seriously—is it sexual? It’s like everything is a Charles Bronson movie with you people.

[bernard11]

Don't bother, David.

He's going to continue lying about it. He got riled up by some crap he heard on the radio and won't give it up no matter what.

Besides, he has Brett and XY cheering him on.

[Estragon]

“I just posted the analysis”

Well you seemed quite exercised about this supposed duty to retreat from your own home! One might have thought you would have looked into it a bit more, particularly since it seems like you spend a lot of time fantasizing about home invasion scenarios (see above).

But instead, you posted this one article from a small-town newspaper that had a one sentence quote that seemed to confirm your priors and that was the extent you were willing to give it any thought at all.

I would urge you to keep in mind the wise words of Judge Judy: “if it doesn’t make sense, it’s probably not true.”

At any rate, perhaps you have learned something today?

[David Nieporent]

I would urge you to keep in mind the wise words of Judge Judy: “if it doesn’t make sense, it’s probably not true.”

I've commented before on how gullible MAGA is. Obviously many of the people posting the Outrage Du Jour are knowingly lying. But many of them are reacting in good faith. But IME well north of 90% of the time, the thing they're posting is so obviously crazy that there's no reason any sane person would believe it to be true, and 5 minutes of research would reveal that it's distorted or a fabrication.

[ThePublius]

David, why do you have to be so insulting? What does gullibility and "MAGA" have to do with this, at all? Why do you refer to me, and to a group of people as "MAGA?" Is that some way of marginalizing people, the way the Nazis marginalized Jews, or non-Arians? Holy cow. We're just talking about home self defense here, aren't we?

I'm not advocating shooting anyone who comes into your house, or who you find in your house, I'm just saying that if someone forcibly enters your house you really don't know what their intentions are, or their future actions might be, and you should have a right to act as you see fit. The duty to retreat from your own house is wrong. That's all.

[David Nieporent]

David, why do you have to be so insulting? What does gullibility and "MAGA" have to do with this, at all?

I was going to apologize and say that I wasn't really referring to you and your specific comment about self-defense when I posted that, but just making a more general observation about MAGA. But then I scrolled down to your "Zelensky is keeping the war going because he's embezzling from the aid and getting rich," and I decided you don't actually deserve an apology.

[Estragon]

“The duty to retreat from your own house is wrong.”

Luckily that is not an obligation in any of the fifty states!

“Unfortunately these lib states, my own included, would have you retreat from your own home rather than stand your ground. Shameful.”

So it turns out that you’re mad at the perfidious “shameful” libs in your head because of something that is completely not true.

Where did you get this idea? Is it because you read a local mass paper two years ago and took a one sentence quote, possibly out of context, from some lawyer you’d never heard of as the gospel truth? That seems like brain-dead confirmation bias or a complete lack of common sense and curiosity to me.

Or did you get this information from somewhere else? Instapundit or similar? Does the falsity of that information transmitted to you give you occasion to question what else you know about “shameful” libs that might not be accurate, strictly speaking?

It’s just a total lack of intellectual accountability. Gullible is the least of it— or maybe the wrong word for it. But it’s both amusing and frustrating to watch unfold.

And when you get called out on it all of a sudden you’re whining about David being mean!

[ThePublius]

Fantasy? This stuff really happens. Even in my city.

"TAUNTON — Police reports reveal harrowing new details about an armed home invasion in Taunton that was part of a violent rampage that started in New Bedford, police said.

The suspect allegedly shot a man in New Bedford and then less than an hour later shot his brother in Taunton, while looking for a third brother, police said.

The mother of the two men who were shot, called Taunton police saying someone named "Chapo" had just shot her son in New Bedford and was heading to Taunton to shoot her other son, police said.

A woman present at the Taunton home invasion — who eventually stopped the suspect by hitting him over the head with a gun so hard that the gun broke in half — told police the suspect burst into the apartment wearing a bullet proof vest and brandishing a handgun, screaming, "I will kill you all," the police report said."

https://www.berkshireeagle.com/news/local/how-duty-to-retreat-and-stand-your-ground-fit-into-the-bednarz-case-what-is-massachusetts-stand-your-ground-law/article_0dc798e4-0c4d-11ee-8318-ff64b2daf7e4.html

You don't have to look far to find this kind of thing.

[Magister]

Your article from 2023 had to look to cases from 2004 to find that kind of thing, noting that "In Massachusetts, incidents like the one in Adams on Feb. 9 have been uncommon, based on an Eagle survey of the state’s 11 district attorney offices." It also says

A 2023 study from the journal JAMA Network Open found that states with stand your ground laws had increased homicide rates from 1999 to 2017, resulting in nearly 700 more gun deaths annually.

[Frank Drackman]

Such Bullshit 1: as dead Criminals are counted as "Homicides", and 2: JAMA's been total Bullshit for the last 30 years

[Dr. Ed 2]

maybe the increasing crime is why the stand your ground laws were passed???

[bernard11]

And what does that have to do with your BS claims about "duty to retreat?"

[Noscitur a sociis]

The issue with home invasion is that you don''t know what the intention of the invader might be, or how they might act and what they might do when confronted. People have been killed by home invaders. Better to dispatch them and let God figure it out. Making it criminal to defend your own home is - criminal. This is not simply "property defense" as you minimize it, it's personal defense. Have you not heard of castle doctrine? It's not like shooting someone in your driveway who's trying to steal your car.

I don’t support this bill and am glad it’s probably not going to pass. But even as drafted it would recognize as justifiable a homcide committed “in defense of a person of a person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein”.

[ThePublius]

I see your point and kind of agree with it, but my concern is that the home occupant can't know in advance how his actions will be judged after the fact, what force will be considered reasonable, and so forth. It would require predicting the future, both in terms of the perpetrator's intentions or inclinations, and that of law enforcement.

A black and white, predictable situation is more fair: someone enters your home uninvited and when confronted won't leave, you can shoot them. Of course, once they are incapacitated and the threat has ended, you can't execute them if they are still alive. And you can't shoot them as they are leaving, even if they are carrying your TV.

By the way I had a nightmare last night that my son had woken me and said "Dad, there's someone in the garage. In my dream I was conflicted - confront them, armed, or just call 911, or both? (It's a detached garage.) 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

This is true for every self-defense scenario.

Your idea of what's more fair leaves an important person out of the equation.

If you want to say the death of a home invader has no cost, then just say that and we can have an honest conversation.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It would require predicting the future, both in terms of the perpetrator's intentions or inclinations, and that of law enforcement.

A black and white, predictable situation is more fair: someone enters your home uninvited and when confronted won't leave, you can shoot them.

As I said, I support a broader authorization for the use of deadly force, including at a minimum terminating a burglary. However, any standard (including yours) still requires you to “predict[] the future”, inasmuch as you still have to trust that the police will believe that’s what happened when you tell them, won’t misconstrue the law and unfairly charge you anyway, etc.

[ThePublius]

Now I'm just confused. The law David quoted is crystal clear. Thank you.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/Partiv/Titleii/Chapter278/Section8a

In full:

"General Laws Part IV Title II Chapter 278

Section 8A: Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense
Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling."

But then why, when you search google for "duty to retreat Massachusetts" do you find so many law offices and newspapers saying you do have a duty to retreat?

I'd like to find some actual cases of this in Mass and read the outcomes and decisions.

Time to take some more training on self defense law in my state.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But then why, when you search google for "duty to retreat Massachusetts" do you find so many law offices and newspapers saying you do have a duty to retreat?"

Maybe it's like Florida, which was a stand your ground state going all the way back, but the judiciary didn't like to admit it. The state legislature ended up having to pass a law to put things back the way they'd been before, after the state supreme court up and decided that they had always been at war with Eastasia that the state was duty to retreat, and always had been.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Sort of. Massachusetts still has common law crimes, and its did decide to impose a duty to retreat, including in the home. However, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the legislature eliminated the duty in the home by statute.

[David Nieporent]

But then why, when you search google for "duty to retreat Massachusetts" do you find so many law offices and newspapers saying you do have a duty to retreat?

As in about half the states, you do have a duty to retreat in Massachusetts. Just not in the home, where the Castle Doctrine applies, as it does in all the other states.

[apedad]

NY Court's Prenup Ruling Leaves More Questions Than Answers

In January, a New York court weighed these principles when a husband sought summary judgment, claiming that enforcement of his prenup would be unconscionable.

The facts of the case are instructive. Seven days before their wedding, the spouses signed a prenup. At the time, and throughout the marriage, the wife was the wealthier spouse. According to the husband, he wasn’t represented by counsel when he signed the agreement, and while he was told he could hire an attorney, he was also told that doing so was unnecessary. He claimed he signed under duress as he faced a take-it-or-leave-it situation where his future wife would’ve canceled the wedding if he refused to sign. The wife disputed those assertions and claimed she was willing to be married without a prenup if a postnuptial agreement was put in place after the wedding.

The court didn’t find any of those concerns sufficient to set aside the prenup, as they did not rise to the level of making the agreed-upon arrangement unconscionable. The court did, however, vacate one provision of the prenup, the waiver of spousal maintenance (also known as spousal support or alimony).

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/ny-courts-prenup-ruling-leaves-more-questions-than-answers

This time it's a guy looking for alimony and even though he "knowingly waive(d) his right to a payment . . . , (t)he court found that he could not (waive his right) without knowing how much money he was waiving his right to receive . . . . "

[hobie]

Jesus...
From Forbes...

"Forty-one percent of Republicans view Russia as either “friendly” or an “ally,” a CBS News/YouGov poll released Sunday found, as nearly half of Americans view President Donald Trump as backing Russia in its war against Ukraine—even before the president’s dramatic meeting Friday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy."

[Brett Bellmore]

CBS News Poll – February 26-28, 2025

35. Russia Friend or Enemy
Do you consider Russia an ally of the United States, friendly but not an ally, unfriendly, or an enemy of the United States?

By party ID
Ally: Dem 4%, Ind 3% Rep 4%
Friendly but not an ally: Dem 22%, Ind 26%, Rep 37%
Unfriendly: Dem 32%, Ind 37%, Rep 32%
Enemy: Dem 34%, Ind 47%, Rep 33%

Basically NOBODY thinks Russia is an ally.

I think the problem with this poll is it didn't allow a "neutral" response. My impression is that your average Republican doesn't think Russia is either an outright enemy OR a friend, they think Russia is of no particular consequence to the US, being essentially a third world county that is nowhere near us. (Personally, I'd put them in the "Whimpy enemy" bin, myself.)

You could have grouped together "unfriendly" and "enemy" and arrived at the same numbers for Democrats and Republicans.

[hobie]

The point is, 41% of you insurrectionists think Russia is our friend. What the fuck is wrong with you people?!

[M L]

And 28% of Dems

Remember, a lot of random people on the street barely know who the President is, can't find Russia on a map, don't know there's a war happening in Ukraine etc

[hobie]

In the before times it should have been 100% Republicans against Russia. How this-a happen?

[Brett Bellmore]

The point is, the poll doesn't allow you a neutral reply, so it's BS from the start.

[Sarcastr0]

I look forwards to you changing your opinion on this when it becomes required.

[hobie]

Or perhaps it is that anyone under forty never experienced the savage, imperialist Russia that the rest of us were rightly frightened of for a lot of our lives (you'd think the horrors inflicted on Ukraine would suffice, but maybe they haven't). But that excuse doesn't wash with all you old insurrectionists here in this blog. You should damn well know better.

[M L]

Totals seem kinda odd.

Dem 92%
Ind 113%
Rep 106%

[hobie]

I think it's adorable all you guys trying to pick apart the messenger and not the message

[ThePublius]

"YouGov plc is a British international Internet-based market research and data analytics firm headquartered in the UK with operations in Europe, North America, the Middle East, and Asia-Pacific." CBS is - well, CBS. So, take from that what you will. I don't trust polls, in general, and even less so from 'establishment' media outlets or UK or European pollsters, regarding matters in the U.S.

And, in any event, what does it matter? Let's just see what Trump does, not what people say about him.

[apedad]

Darn, I missed this from yesterday.

Snyder v. Phelps

Facts of the case

The family of deceased Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder filed a lawsuit against members of the Westboro Baptist Church who picketed at his funeral. The family accused the church and its founders of defamation, invasion of privacy and the intentional infliction of emotional distress for displaying signs that said, "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Fag troops" at Snyder's funeral. U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett awarded the family $5 million in damages, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the judgment violated the First Amendment's protections on religious expression. The church members' speech is protected, "notwithstanding the distasteful and repugnant nature of the words."

Question

Does the First Amendment protect protesters at a funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased?

Conclusion (8 - 1, Justice Alito dissenting)

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision in an opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. The Court held that the First Amendment shields those who stage a protest at the funeral of a military service member from liability. Justice Stephen J. Breyer filed a concurring opinion in which he wrote that while he agreed with the majority's conclusion in the case, "I do not believe that our First Amendment analysis can stop at that point." Justice Samuel Alito filed a lone dissent, in which he argued: "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case." (oyez)

They made the father pay for the Westboro's attorney fees too.

[David Nieporent]

Alito may detest gays, but he hates free speech more!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

From the opinion:

On the day of the memorial service, the Westboro congregation members picketed on public land adjacent to public streets near the Maryland State House, the United States Naval Academy, and Matthew Snyder’s funeral. The Westboro picketers carried signs that were largely the same at all three locations.

===

"all of Rev. Phelps’ 13 children went to law school"

He did civil rights work back in the day until he got into some legal difficulty himselff

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-court-rules-picketing-of-funerals-is-protected-speech

Also:

That plot was approximately 1,000 feet from the church where the funeral was held. Several buildings separated the picket site from the church.

Hateful speech in public areas is protected. The facts of the case would allow a buffer zone.

The most striking thing about the case, perhaps, is that the daughter (a lawyer) of the founder of the church argued the case in front of the Supreme Court.

As to attorney fees, that would depend on how the rules require paying of fees when a person loses a case. Some special dispensation for sympathetic people would not necessarily apply.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

(I edited this, and the edited portion next to the star was misplaced, and then the time for editing ran out)

[hobie]

Free NY Times article:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/03/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-drones-deaths.html?unlocked_article_code=1.1E4.l_AH.EsOFxRskfcUK&smid=url-share

Drones now account for nearly 80% of casualties and equipment destruction in Ukraine. Heavy weapons and transports, including battleships are now not only obsolete, but may just be liabilities. By necessity Ukraine and Russia are now the superpowers of low-cost tech warfare, pulling far ahead of all in the West.

[Bob from Ohio]

"battleships"

Been about 30 years since we last had a "battleship" and 70 since anyone else had one, So congrats in recognizing they are obsolete. Can't get anything past you!

[Dr. Ed 2]

NO, Battlerships were NOT obsolete -- the Israelis really need one for Gaza. They are highly effective gun platforms for shore bombardment. Highly accurate, too.

[Frank Drackman]

No, and No, they were only used for shore bombardment because there weren't any more battleships to shoot at, they fire with a flatter trajectory than regular artillery and are highly inaccurate (in case you haven't heard, the Earth IS round)

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, the war in Ukraine dramatically accelerated a trend that was already in progress. Going forward, the chief role of ships and large aircraft will just be delivering drones, and nothing will survive on the battlefield without a substantial screen of drones around it.

I assume that Taiwan has been paying attention to this. A proper investment in drones could turn the Taiwan strait into a killing ground for any attempted invasion. China can mess Taiwan up pretty badly with drones, but to take and hold it they will need troops, and I don't see how they get them ashore alive if Taiwan takes this to heart.

And with the potential to make underwater drones indistinguishable from marine life, you can pretty much kiss warships goodbye pretty soon. And I've heard that China has drones that are very difficult to distinguish from birds from a distance.

I see a future where airspace has to be totally locked down against unidentified drones as an essential security measure; Anything that doesn't return a friendly ID or do a VERY convincing imitation of a bird has to be toast, or you're just naked to any enemy.

And infrastructure really needs to be hardened better. Buried, not out in the open just asking to be sabotaged.

[Commenter_XY]

Back in 2019, NatSecAdv O'Brien told Taiwan to quickly 'become a porcupine'. Now Taiwan has the tools to do just that.

[hobie]

Your description reminds of an old Star Trek episode where a planet's population had all retreated underground and engaged in pushbutton warfare causing no damage, where both sides had agreed that any 'successful strikes' meant that population had to sacrifice a few thousand citizens. Or something like that

[Commenter_XY]

I remember that episode. The supercomputers that were linked.

[Frank Drackman]

"A Taste of Armageddon"

[Sarcastr0]

A Taste of Armageddon.

It was a pretty great sci-fi speculation.
Very sociologically of the 1960s early computers and a people scarred by war.

[Bob from Ohio]

Drones work in Ukraine because neither side has air superiority and tactics are new.

Defense always catches up with offense

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wildlife isn't going to do too well.

[ThePublius]

Drones are, of course, very important. But my intuition is that they are a relatively expensive way to deliver ordnance, and are incapable of delivering tons of ordnance at a time.

Know that the B-52 has been in continuous service for 70 years, and continues on a trajectory that indicates it will see its 100th birthday in service.

If you want to bomb a place back to the stone age, you need something like that.

[Mr. Bumble]

I don't think "bomb[ing] a place back to the stone age" has ever won a war.

[John F. Carr]

Five years after COVID started to make America crazy, Emily Spatz of the Boston Globe lists six big misconceptions promoted by experts in those early days:

COVID poses a low risk to the general public
COVID is not airborne
You need to wash packages and groceries
People don’t need to wear masks
Vaccines will take years to create
The pandemic will end when we reach herd immunity

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/03/03/metro/covid-anniversary-five-years-later/

I remember SNL's "Da Bears" skits where overweight football fans sit around a table casually having heart attacks. That's COVID now. COVID is passé. Long COVID is in fashion.

[Brett Bellmore]

"COVID poses a low risk to the general public"

Depends on how you define "low risk" and "general public".

If you were not either elderly or suffering from some co-morbidity such as diabetes, (Really, being elderly IS a co-morbidity!) the death rate was pretty low.

In New York, the general population, NOT excluding comorbidities, experienced an IFR (Infection fatality rate) of about 1.4%. But...

"When analyzing the breakdown of deaths by age and condition [source], we can observe how, out of 15,230 confirmed deaths in New York City up to May 12, only 690 (4.5% of all deaths) occurred in patients under the age of 65 who did not have an underlying medical condition (or for which it is unknown whether they had or did not have an underlying condition). "

"So far there has been 1 death every 1,166 people under 65 years old (compared to 1 death every 358 people in the general population). And 89% of the times, the person who died had one or more underlying medical conditions."

Bottom line: If you weren't sickly or elderly, (But I repeat myself...) it might as well have been a regular flu season. If you were in bad health already, though, it was pretty bad.

[SRG2]

It's fortunate that so few Americans suffer from the medical condition of obesity...oh wait...

[Commenter_XY]

True, being obese was a killer for the earlier forms of the virus. Particularly that first wave Jan-Apr 2020. Less of a complication later. Was that b/c of DNA drift, or we just got better at treating it, or both (I think both).

[Brett Bellmore]

We're not talking "Your BMI is higher than your doctor likes" levels of obesity. To significantly move the needle on Covid mortality, you needed to be clinically obese.

[SRG2]

which number is not small.

[Brett Bellmore]

The number of diabetics isn't small, either. I'm just saying that if you were in reasonable health, this bug wasn't any worse than a seasonal flu.

Number of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) deaths in the U.S. as of June 14, 2023, by age*

See that really steep drop off below 50 years of age? That absolute number of deaths kept going up with each decile, despite the number of people IN those deciles dropping rapidly?

The Spanish flu took people in the prime of their lives. If you were healthy, your odds of dying of covid were minimal.

[SRG2]

I'm just saying that if you were in reasonable health, this bug wasn't any worse than a seasonal flu.

And a significant minority of the US is not in reasonable health, so your point is weak.

[Brett Bellmore]

My point is about how people who weren't sickly or grossly obese should have reacted to it. For most of the population Covid was not a big threat, the vast majority of cases were so mild people didn't even realize they'd had it!. We should have targeted our efforts at protecting the minority who were at elevated risk, not doing stupid things like shutting down the economy.

I think they started out thinking that Covid was an escaped Chinese biowarfare agent, and totally freaked out, and by the time they knew better, it was too late to be reasonable, a moral panic had set in, and anybody who counseled moderation was accused of wanting to pile up dead bodies.

[Sarcastr0]

It's infectious, Brett.
That's a really important thing and you're leaving it out.

Your fan fiction in your second paragraph is as utterly unnecessary as is always is.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, of course it's infectious. So's the common cold.

[Sarcastr0]

It means your calculous of 'only address those who it is most likely to kill' has a huge analysis gap.

[David Nieporent]

the vast majority of cases were so mild people didn't even realize they'd had it!

Later variants, yes. Not the ones in 2020-2021.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And what is the Fentanyl mortality?

[John F. Carr]

At its peak COVID beat out all drug deaths. Now drugs are back in the lead.

[Mr. Bumble]

Covid death numbers are suspect, since they included people who "tested" positive at the time of their death but did not die from Covid.

[ThePublius]

"Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reacted publicly for the first time since his Oval Office blowup with President Donald Trump on Friday with a social media post thanking the United States.

"Thank you America, thank you for your support, thank you for this visit," Zelenskyy posted on X. "Thank you @POTUS. Congress, and the American people. Ukraine needs just and lasting peace, and we are working exactly for that."

The post was Zelenskyy's first comment since a meeting with Trump and Vice President JD Vance turned into a shouting match at the White House with the three leaders arguing over what "cards" Ukraine holds and whether Zelenskyy has shown enough gratitude to the United States. "

I think Starmer got to him.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/u-s-hitting-brakes-on-flow-of-arms-to-ukraine-980a71d1

Nice job, Volodymyr. FAFO.

[John F. Carr]

It's the military support that matters, not the shouting and press appearances.

[Commenter_XY]

The American military spigot is about to be turned off.

[Krayt]

The American military spigot is about to be turned off.

We know. We are lapdogs to aggressors in Europe. We blame the invaded for the war, a talking point from Russia, just as Hitler threatened with the Sudetenland.

I wonder if Russian state TV will give a giant "Thanks, Gramps!" to the US lackies a third time.

[David Nieporent]

Imagine hearing "Trump decided to sell out a friendly country because its leader wasn't sufficiently obsequious in a meeting" and thinking that this reflects badly on the leader rather than on Trump.

[ThePublius]

"wasn't sufficiently obsequious"

obsequious: obedient or attentive to an excessive or servile degree.

That's an exaggeration, Mr. Moderator. Trump wasn't seeking obsequious-ness. He was seeking someone who would acknowledge the position Ukraine is in, and respectfully accept what the U.S. has done, and will do for them. Zelensky was a disrespectful ass in that meeting. He expressed that he didn't want peace, he just wanted more U.S. money and weapons, and wanted to keep fighting. Trump just wants to end the fighting and killing ASAP, first, and then work from there.

[David Nieporent]

And that's Putin talking points. Of course Zelensky wants peace. Everybody wants peace. On the right terms. What Zelensky doesn't want is peace on Putin's/Trump's terms. Refusing to surrender doesn’t mean that one doesn't want peace. It means that there are things worth fighting for that are a higher value than peace.

[ThePublius]

No, Zelensky wants this thing to go on as long as he can keep it going, to continue to remain in power and enrich himself by siphoning off money from the U.S. and other countries' aid. He doesn't want peace, he is personally benefitting from the war.

[David Nieporent]

[Citation needed]

[SRG2]

Zerlenskyy has offered to resign if Ukraine can join NATO., That is inconsistent with your claim.

[ThePublius]

He might just as well have said he'd step down when pigs fly.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the guy that cries about the partisanship around here, right TP?

Maybe shit like this is part of the problem, eh?

[ThePublius]

I don't complain about partisanship, I complain about lack of civility.

What is partisan about what I wrote?

[Sarcastr0]

Decorum.

Yeah, you want people to kindly engage with your conspiracy theory about Zelensky and declaration that the UK is no longer a free country.

Nowadays it's a Godwin, but it's an old Internet maxim that decorous Hitler is still Hitler.

[Bwaaah]

Il Douche, always on point. Your turn.

[Sarcastr0]

Not the greatest technique to tone police, Bwaah.

[Bwaaah]

No, Il Douche, it's not.

Your turn, again.

[SRG2]

Good job Starmer. therefore.

[Estragon]

[M L]

"As often happens, Trump breaks with American presidential traditions more in style than in substance. In reality, the 45th and 47th president is in a tradition of realist presidents, going back to Theodore Roosevelt more than a century ago, who have viewed world politics as a great-power club, rather than an arena for idealism...

The ephemeral spasms of Wilsonian utopianism form the exception to the rule that American statesmen in every generation usually are guided by considerations of the national interest in their dealings with other major powers, including those whose internal regimes are repugnant to American principles. Uncle Sam may engage in flowery talk — but allies and enemies alike know that he drives a hard bargain."

https://unherd.com/2025/03/the-roots-of-trumps-realpolitik/

[SRG2]

Krasnov a "realist"? How's the acquisition of Greenland and the enstating of Canada going?

[Krayt]

A trip down memory lane. Remember when many Republicans liked it when someone shouted out "Liar!" at the state of the union?

Good times, good times.

More memories! Remember the "Coalition of the Willing"? It was for Gulf War II, where not all allies were jumping to join.

There's a new Coalition of the Willing. The UK and many European nations are setting up to help Ukraine fight. It might even include Canada and Australia.

They are arrayed against the Axis of Evil, Putin, the aggressor, and North Korea, who sends troops and missiles, and Iran, who sends drones, and the US.

Budda pish

[Krayt]

I give permission to SNL use this joke, if they dare.

[hobie]

"No Last-Minute Deal for Canada and Mexico to Avoid Tariffs, Trump Says"

Of course not. Who would ever in good faith negotiate with us again? Them tariffs are gonna be long and hard, baby.

I must say. All of this in the first six weeks. I'm actually starting to be happy again.

[ThePublius]

I'd like us to switch to tariffs and end the personal income tax.

And, at least, go to reciprocal tariffs, i.e., tariff foreign goods at the same rate they tariff our goods.

[bernard11]

I'd like us to switch to tariffs and end the personal income tax.

Among many other flaws, this plan won't work numerically.

And, at least, go to reciprocal tariffs, i.e., tariff foreign goods at the same rate they tariff our goods.

Let's not. Throwing a lot of rocks in our harbors won't do us any good.

[ThePublius]

So, you're fine with European countries charging higher tariffs for importation of U.S. goods than the U.S. charges Europe for goods imported into the U.S.?

If so, why?

[David Nieporent]

If so, why?

Because tariffs are taxes on one's own citizens. Do I think other countries should tax exports from the U.S.? No. On general principle I think lower taxes are better, and that tariffs are particularly distorting. But if another country does something stupid that doesn't mean we should try to out-stupid them.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Every country on the planet is too stupid to know tarrifs just hurt their own, except for the USA!

It's so obvious to us Americans, those universities in every country but ours must suck!

[Brett Bellmore]

The point of reciprocal tariffs is to encourage the other guy to lower his.

[David Nieporent]

And that might work, in much the same way that Cleavon Little holding a gun to his own head worked in Blazing Saddles,

[myself]

I'd like us to switch to tariffs and end the personal income tax.

Hmm, someone like recessions.

And, at least, go to reciprocal tariffs, i.e., tariff foreign goods at the same rate they tariff our goods.

WTF? You're aware that Canada and Mexico do not charge a 25% tariff on US good. We do, in fact, have a free trade agreement!!

[bernard11]

Trump confirms tariffs to go into effect.

Markets tumble.

[ThePublius]

Knee jerks.

Film at eleven.

[Kazinski]

Maybe they are just looking for an excuse to sell.

I posted this about a month ago:

"I was cautious about stocks just because it they're somewat overvalued, not because I thought the economy would do poorly, but just because it seems a little overvalued right now, because its done so well.

Jaime Dimon has a similar view:

Asset prices are kind of inflated, by any measure," Dimon told CNBC in Davos. He added that "they are in the top 10% or 15%" of historical valuations.

The S&P 500 is less than 1% away from hitting a record high, and elevated valuations have been a hallmark of the current bull market rally that began in October 2022.

The S&P 500 is trading at a forward price-to-earnings multiple of 21.6x, which is above its five-year and 10-year average of 19.7x and 18.2x, respectively.

Dimon said many things have to go right for the stock market to continue its record run.

"They're elevated, and you need fairly good outcomes to justify those prices. Having pro-growth strategies helps make that happen, but there are negatives out there, and they can tend to surprise you," Dimon said."

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jamie-dimon-sounds-alarm-stocks-233356983.html

[grb]

Kazinski : "Maybe they are just looking for an excuse to sell."

Geez. Trump's cultists have an excuse for EVERYTHING, don't they? The man bungles around breaking everything in sight - this nation's laws in particular. His bootlickers trail behind - happy little slaves doing their endless cleanup duty.

Meanwhile, back on the Planet Earth : Moody’s cut Q1 GDP growth projections from 2.3% to 1.2% in the last week. That's exactly what you expect given our mentally-ill president sees economic chaos as fun entertainment for his base and is too shit-for-brains stupid to know how a tariff works.

Trump's flailing "agenda" is almost perversely designed to bring economic calamity. Good thing everyone knows what an imbecile he is, otherwise the conspiratorially-minded might be tempted to believe he's destroying the United States economy on purpose.

(Well, if that dreamboat hunk Putin asked him nicely, Trump probably would....)

[Kazinski]

I said the markets were overvalued before the inauguration.

I restructured my portfolio a month after the election.

Nothing goes up forever, and that includes the market.

[Sarcastr0]

You are arguing the markets will ignore the tariffs threat, and any drop is just a regular readjustment that's been a long time coming?

That's really what you're going with?

[Kazinski]

Every weekday for the last 40 years and as the markets go up and go down they then explain why the markets went up that day, or went down, and 90% of the time they are full of shit.

Then we have periods like we are in now that are the "good news is bad news", because any good news means it's less likely that the fed will reduce rates, because that's the only thing the market wants to hear. But bad news is still bas news.

But in any case any one day news that moves the market should be ignored, but stable facts like interest rates, market PE, GDP growth, and inflation are what moves.the markets over months not one day news that can be completely different tomorrow.

[bernard11]

one day news that moves the market should be ignored, but stable facts like interest rates, market PE, GDP growth, and inflation are what moves.the markets over months not one day news that can be completely different tomorrow.

One day news can be about something that's going to have a longer term effect, like the imposition of ridiculous, destructive, tariffs. A trade war is not a blip, and further signs of complete irrationality by Trump are not encouraging.

[Commenter_XY]

Markets tumble? AYFKM?

The 60/40 investor barely felt a blip, unless you want to call 1% 'tumble'. Market corrections of 10% are not uncommon, it is a normal phenomenon.

CHN mkts are feeling the pressure, they're down around 3%.

Let's see where we are end of Q2.

[bernard11]

Questions, XY:

Do you think these tariffs are good or bad for the US economy?

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, it is too soon to tell. That is not a cop out.

What is the objective?
Keep in mind, the objective for tariffs wrt CHN are very different than the objectives for MX.

Tariffs are generally not helpful to an economy. It is a tax, and taxes are bad.

[myself]

This is insane.

The markets move on information all the time, especially giant trade destroying tariffs!

The only reason the markets aren't moving more is that people know that Trump is a joke and is likely to call off the tariffs the moment the market goes down too much.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sensible people understand that the goal of most of these tariffs, (Not the ones on China, though.) is to persuade the countries they're being levied against to drop their own tariffs against US goods.

Europe is highly protectionist, and Trump is trying to get them to lower their trade barriers.

[David Nieporent]

Sensible people understand that the goal of most of these tariffs, (Not the ones on China, though.) is to persuade the countries they're being levied against to drop their own tariffs against US goods.

So you're calling Trump a liar? Because that's not what he just said when imposing these tariffs.

[myself]

CANADA DOESN'T HAVE TARIFFS ON US GOODS

You know, as a Canadian, I have a love / hate relationship with Trump.

I hate him because he's waging economic war on Canada with the stated objective of annexing us.

I love him because he's made me hate the US as well, and he's destroying your country in the process.

[myself]

The only reason the markets aren't moving more is that people know that Trump is a joke and is likely to call off the tariffs the moment the market goes down too much.

Well that didn't take long.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, a word about valuation. Nobody today knows if the market is undervalued, overvalued, or priced just right. It can only be known (with certainty) in hindsight. I heard this in the 90's (when I began investing), in the 00's, in the 10's and now again in the 20's. A constant drumbeat of how overvalued the market is. No one knows, and I will illustrate.

Jan 1990 S&P 500 was: 340....and the market was overvalued!
Jan 2000 S&P 500 was: 1,426....and the market was overvalued!
Jan 2010 S&P 500 was: 1,124....and the market was overvalued!
Jan 2020 S&P 500 was: 3278....and the market was overvalued!
Todays S&P 500 is: 5,850....and the market is overvalued!

People making that 'market is overvalued' argument are talking pablum for the financial porn industry.

The market is fine. Invest according to your plan. But invest.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just like Nancy Pelosi.

[Martinned2]

Out of curiosity, do you know how much the S&P would go up if it was (say) 300 in 1990 and grew by (say) 8% per annum since? Compounding is hard...

[Mr. Bumble]

How about adjusting for the inflation ratchet?

[Commenter_XY]

Dude, try excel

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, I will have mercy since math ain't your strong suit.

If you count 340 as year 1, and your CAGR is 8%, at the end of 2024, the S&P 500 would be 4,655. Well behind what it is today.

The market has been 'overvalued' all this time. Despite the horrible overvaluation, I still made the two comma club (with 4 crashes!). My point is, nobody knows if the market was overvalued in real time. It is only is retrospect this can be known.

Invest in low cost index funds, and ignore the financial porn. Your time in the market is what matters, along with low cost.

[Kazinski]

Now do overvalued by PE. This is by current earnings a lot of analysts use forward earnings which would usually lead to a somewhat lower PE, like Jaime Dimon did in his analysis above

Jan 1, 2025 29.86
Jan 1, 2020   24.88
Jan 1, 2010   20.70
Jan 1, 2000   29.04
Jan 1, 1990   15.13

Now I hope I don't have to remind you what happened about the 2000 dot com market crash.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Buy toilet paper. It's all made in Canada -- they (Canadians) shut down all the mills in Maine.

[RedheadedPharoh]

If you let politics ruin your day routinely IRL, you should seek therapy .

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A list of good sports movies might include The Cutting Edge, which was on over the weekend. It is not one of the greats, but it was well done. Moira Kelly was very good.

As I noted before, I also liked the film Ice Princess, another skating film, which stars an actress who recently died.

[hobie]

Breaking Away!!!

[ThePublius]

I watched two movies in a row the other night, which is rare for me. First, The French Connection, prompted by Gene Hackman's death. And then The Seven Ups, which came on, on Amazon, right after. I have a connection to the latter, which made it that much more poignant. Both great movies, both had Roy Scheider, BTW.

[Frank Drackman]

Love those early 70's cop movies, you can almost smell New York like it was that "Smell-O-Vision" effect in John Water's "Polyester"

[ThePublius]

Indeed. I lived through it. I was born in the Bronx in the late '50's. Saw lots and lots of change, the sixties and seventies were a tumultuous period. I have several friends who became NYPD officers and detectives, one even working the undercover narcotic beat. The stories they told would make your hair stand straight up!

One of my Dad's friend was a brilliant kid, graduated from NYU with a degree in mathematics at age 17, and inexplicably became an NYPD homicide detective. When asked what it was like he said it was something like a cross of Kojak and Barney Miller.

[Bwaaah]

Coincidentally, I saw the The Seven Ups a few weeks ago. It so humors me to see how the cars back then performed. The cars seemed to undulate up and down at a frequency independent of the bumps that passed under them. And did anybody ask the question, "How well does it corner?" At the slightest bend or turn, the cars would roll onto the sidewalls of their tires and threaten to spin out. Not exactly what I'd call "performance."

I have a stark memory of having walked through the south Bronx in the early eighties. It looked like a war zone, after the war...hollowed out buildings and rubble piled lots.

I too have retired cop friends who worked in the 70s/80s. One of them drank a little too much one night and told a bunch of people one of his work stories. While he was laughing, everybody else was chilled by it for days afterward. It was a story that should never be told to anybody but a war buddy. The rules of the game and ethics have changed since then, for the better, I think.

For anybody who thinks things are getting bad: one need only refer to the past to find otherwise.

[Sarcastr0]

People here said the tariffs against Mexico and Canada were art of the deal wins for Trump.

Shortest trade war ever, they said.

Welp.

[Bwaaah]

Welp...how long's it been draggin' on for now?

[bernard11]

What deal? There's no deal. There's just Trump being stupid.

[ThePublius]

It wasn't a hollow threat.

"While President Trump gave both Canada and Mexico ample opportunity to curb the dangerous cartel activity and influx of lethal drugs flowing into our country, they have failed to adequately address the situation."

So, failure to take adequate action, tariffs go back on. Simple. It's not a trade war, it's an enforcement action on the Northern and Southern borders.

Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Proceeds with Tariffs on Imports from Canada and Mexico
March 3, 2025

[Sarcastr0]

It was a hollow declaration of victory. Which everyone pointed out except for the MAGA people who were sure Trump had strongarmed each country into doing stuff that was real big and significant.

This is proof he hadn't.

Good luck with the retcon. It won't be the last.

[Kazinski]

The FBI agent in charge of the NY FBI agent is not in charge anymore:

"The top agent at the F.B.I.’s New York field office said in an email Monday that he had been forced out of his job. His departure follows clashes with Justice Department officials over the Trump administration’s directives.

The agent, James E. Dennehy, was told Friday to retire from his role leading the F.B.I.’s largest field office, delivering another blow to the senior ranks of the bureau. Mr. Dennehy had been running the office since September, but had angered Trump administration officials by supporting bureau leaders who resisted turning over the names of personnel who had investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“Late Friday, I was informed that I needed to put my retirement papers in today, which I just did,” Mr. Dennehy wrote in an email to colleagues. “I was not given a reason for this decision. Regardless, I apologize to all of you for not being able to fulfill my commitment to you.”

I wonder if its because he pushed back against the directive to name the agents who worked on Jan 6th cases, or because he pushed back on releasing all the Epstein files, or both?

[Brett Bellmore]

Top F.B.I. Agent in New York Vows to ‘Dig In’ After Removals at Agency

"The top agent at the F.B.I.’s New York City field office vowed in a defiant email to his staff to “dig in” after the Trump administration targeted officials involved in the investigations into the Jan. 6 attack — and praised the bureau’s interim leaders for defending its independence.

“Today, we find ourselves in the middle of a battle of our own, as good people are being walked out of the F.B.I. and others are being targeted because they did their jobs in accordance with the law and F.B.I. policy,” wrote James E. Dennehy, a veteran and highly-respected agent who has run the largest and most important field office in the bureau since last September."

I'd say after that email surfaced, he was already a walking dead man. The Epstein file non-handover was just the last straw.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "The Epstein file non-handover...."

What Epstein file non-handover? The person claiming that was put in charge of DOJ by Trump because he successfully bribed her in the past. So here's your task, Brett:

1. Read-up on Special Agent James E. Dennehy.
2. Read-up on Bondi.
3. Forget you've abandoned your integrity & soul to be Trump's abject stooge.
4. Then decide who's lying.

The answer will surprise you. As for your latest fever-dream nonsense, here's the whole breathless tale from a MAGA "source":

"He added that Patel’s team traveled by helicopter to New York, landing at the Downtown Manhattan Heliport, from where they raced to the FBI offices on the 23rd story of 26 Federal Plaza. They put the floor on lockdown and implemented “secondary protocol,” which meant disabling the elevators and stationing men at stairwells to prevent anyone from entering or leaving the 23rd floor.

When they confronted the division’s boss, James E. Dennehy, a friend of the now-incarcerated Christopher Wray, and demanded he immediately surrender all digital and hardcopy data pertaining to the Epstein files, he excoriated them for intruding on his work and insisted he had already turned over all the FBI’s material on Jeffrey Epstein.

A belligerent Dennehy said he had nothing left to give Bondi, for she had the 300 pages of dirt the feds had on the sex offender and his associates. Per our source, Patel’s team was dissatisfied with Dennehy’s response and “detained” him while ransacking offices and accessing computer terminals. Following a three-hour search, the team left 26 Federal Plaza with several cardboard boxes, computers, and Dennehy—in handcuffs."

https://realrawnews.substack.com/p/internal-battle-at-fbi-over-epstein?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Heck of a story, eh Brett? They can really cook up the bullshit in MAGA-land! Stories so ludicrous only a zombiefied cultist can take them seriously. Only someone like you. As for me? I'll believe Dennehy over a sleazy huckster like Patel or corrupt pol like Bondi. The man stood up to Trump, so therefore this jokey smear was created from whole cloth. That's a little more plausible, isn't it Brett?

[Dr. Ed 2]

A belligerent and insubordinate former Marine -- I can see him in handcuffs until he could calm down.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, but that’s because you’re an idiot.

Real Raw News is a depository for Q Anon fan fiction. (Not surprised that you’re a fan.)

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-real-raw-news

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm going to say this again, very clearly, so you don't miss my point:

If you send out an email telling your department to dig in against the administration, expect the administration to fire your ass.

Anything beyond that would be redundant.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, he was allowed to retire, in consideration of his accomplishments prior. I think that works out for Dennehy administratively (retirement, versus termination for insubordination).

Yes, if one is insubordinate, which Dennehy was, you'll get shitcanned.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I hope it doesn't happen, for a variety of reasons, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him dead in the near future. His death might frustrate an investigation into others.

We live in interesting times...

[Kazinski]

BOOM.

US has paused all military aid to Ukraine.

[Kazinski]

Mark Theisen in the WaPo yesterday:

Zelensky must mend the breach with Trump — or resign
Zelensky's stubbornness has badly hurt Ukraine.
March 2, 2025 at 6:03 p.m. ESTYesterday at 6:03 p.m. EST
https://archive.is/jgurj

Trump gave Zelensky the weekend, with no signs he had figured things out today, its probably too late now for Zelensky, but not Ukraine.

[Vryedni]

Fuck Trump. And if you support his abandonment of our democractic allies, sucking up to our authoritarian, despotic enemies, and just generally undermining the liberal world order that's fostered 70 yrs of unprecedented growth of global democracy and living standards, not to mention American prosperity, then you can go to hell too.

[M L]

Who is "our"? Maybe you could go back to Ukraine and fight and fund your own war.

[Vryedni]

Keep fighting for Trump and Putin, and against everything decent this country has stood for for 250 yrs. I only pray your grandchildren despise you half as much as you deserve.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No injunction?

That is a first....

[Krayt]

Letting tanks roll through Europe unless Ukraine concedes to the dictatorial aggressor.

What an embarrassment. Well, we now know what he'll do to the question from earlier, if Europe picks up the pace. He'll get in the way before Europe can do anything, threatening to let Ukraine get taken by a military dictator.

Putin could end it all tomorrow. Today even. Why drag down the defender to concede to the aggressor?

[hobie]

Oh my god...

[hobie]

The people in Ukraine are going to be slaughtered. This is a disaster

[Kazinski]

What did you think would happen?

Trump told Zelensky he wanted him to agree to a ceasefire.
Zelensky said he wasn't ready for a ceasefire.
Trump said go away until you are ready for peace.
Rutte and Starter told Zelensky you have to mend your relationship with Trump.
Zelensky said today "An agreement to end the war is still very, very far away, and no one has started all these steps yet. "
Trump has suspended arms until Zelensky says he he ready for a ceasefire.

If you didn't see this coming then you haven't been paying attention.

In fact the most knowledgeable commenter here said 6 hours ago:

"The choice is either Zelensky agrees to ceasefire on current lines, European peacekeepers and security guarantees, or he loses US economic and military aid."

[hobie]

Dude, they have to keep fighting. 20,000 of their children have been kidnapped.

[Kazinski]

You can't get those kids back on the battlefield, they aren't there. The only way to get those kids back is at the negotiating table.

[Magister]

You can't get anything at the negotiating table if you don't represent a credible threat on the battlefield.

[Kazinski]

I guess you haven't been paying attention, Russia has been fighting 3 years, only has 20% of the territory, and has lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers, at least 2-3x what Ukraine has lost.

They already have credibility.

[Magister]

That sounds like a good reason to continue support of Ukraine. Pity that Donald Trump has squandered that credibility rather than invite Ukraine to his negotiation with Putin.

[David Nieporent]

They already have credibility.

Had. Not have. Those things are in the past. But leverage depends on future battlefield prospects, not past. And if Trump sides with Russia, then those future prospects look bleak.

[Kazinski]

I guess you missed this I posted yesterday morning:

"The stick to get Putin to the table is give Ukraine more advanced weaponry and allow them to start striking targets in Russia, as Putin has been using missiles to strike Ukrainian cities. And even harsher sanctions.

The stick to get Zelensky to the table is cut off military aid."

They still have credibility as long as they agree to the ceasefire. And the suspension of military aid is explicitly temporary, while Zelensky, or his successor decides what to do.

And I hope Zelensky does remain as President and agrees to the ceasefire because he has a lot of credibility as a fighter.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe they can trade some Roosh-un prisoners for them.

[Josh R]

Trump has not offered peace with security guarantees (stop it already with your secret Munich plan that Trump has communicated to Zelensky, but not the public). Zelensky is not, and should not, accept a ceasefire on those terms. They are Putin's terms. The Kremlin has been going ga ga over it since Friday.

Yes, Trump is withholding aid until Zelensky agrees to terms that heavily favor the Kremlin. Hopefully, the UK and EU can clean up Trump's mess.

[Brett Bellmore]

"that Trump has communicated to Zelensky"

I really don't know if there's some "secret Munich plan", but I'm pretty sure that you don't know either.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, they don't know. That is the bottom line. Anyone with functioning synapses saw this coming, post-Friday Zelenskyy diplomatic meltdown. How quickly they forget The Donald as 45.

SecDef Hegseth already made clear that EU troops in UKR are not a NATO mission, and article 5 won't apply. Europe is welcome to solve their own problem by fighting it out (if they so choose); Thale (EU defense contractor) awaits signed contracts.

The onus is now on Zelenskyy (where it belongs). America made it's position clear: Our American interest is in ending the killing, not moving further up the escalation chain, and funding a war ad infinitum. An armistice is in everyone's best interest.

[Josh R]

How nice of Hesgeth to negotiate on behalf of Russia. We are taking the wrong side.

[David Nieporent]

America made it's position clear: Our American interest is in ending the killing,

One can take the position that Ukraine isn't an American interest. It's a stupid position that only people who know nothing about international relations sincerely hold, but it's a position. One cannot take the position that Ukraine isn't an American interest but "ending the killing" is. Either what happens there matters, or it doesn't.

Also, you mean Trump, not "America."

[Commenter_XY]

I meant America, and use the entire quote.

[Kazinski]

It wasn't a secret plan. It was openly talked about, even though it.wasn't presented in public.

Here is.the Feb 6th headline in the Telegraph, A major UK.newspaper:

Trump’s plan to end the war in Ukraine

US envoy to announce peace strategy next weekend, which could include using British troops to enforce a ceasefire

That doesn't.seem like there is much of an attempt of secrecy to me.

And it was never said the US was going to offer the security guarantees, there it is the weekend before it was proposed it says UK (not US) troops would be involved. In fact Trump has been pretty clear he wants Euope.to be able to defend itself, which is reasonable against a 2nd rate power like Ukraine.

[Kazinski]

That last sentence should read:
"which is reasonable against a 2nd rate power like Ukraine Russia."

Ukraine is a third rate power, but theyve been punching above their weight.

[Josh R]

The secret is that the plan was offered at the Munich conference and more importantly agreed upon by the UK and EU at Munich (that's what you claimed).

Trump has been clear he wants his vision of peace to align with Russia's vision.

[Kazinski]

So this was all coincidence?

The Munich Security conference was Feb 12-14.

Marco Rubio headed a delegation that met with the Russians in Saudi Arabia Feb 18th.

Macron visits Feb 24th.

Starmer visits Feb 27th.

Zelensky visits Feb. 28th.

And its not my claim but I certainly believe it, the article I posted was Feb. 6th claiming Kellogg would present the plan, and there is no other explanation for the sequence of events other than the plan was presented, the Nato allies agreed, the Russians signed off on the plan, then Starmer and Macron came to iron out the details.

What's your explanation of what's happening in that timeline?

[Josh R]

Macron and Starmer came to discuss progress on peace. That in now way implies that they agreed to Kellogg's plan (I will assume he presented it as a starting point, but that is not required either), nor that Putin agreed to it (the Kremlin has denied agreeing to European troops).

Zelensky came to sign the minerals deal.

If you are right, Starmer and Macron would be persuading Zelensky to sign off and abandoning him if he didn't.

[David Nieporent]

What's your explanation of what's happening in that timeline?

"People meeting with each other means they agreed with each other" is not even a hackish take; it's just a weird one.

Here's an equally valid explanation that isn't actually contradicted by known facts: the plan was presented, the Nato allies agreed, the Russians rejected the plan, then Starmer and Macron came to discuss next steps. And then Zelensky came to the U.S. to sign an utterly unrelated minerals deal, and that blew up when he tried patiently to explain to Trump that a security deal was also necessary.

[David Nieporent]

Trump told Zelensky he wanted him to agree to a ceasefire.
Zelensky said he wasn't ready for a ceasefire.
Trump said go away until you are ready for peace.

This is of course a category error; ceasefires and peace are different things.

[Kazinski]

A ceasefire is peace for as long as it lasts, and if it lasts long enough, its a permanent peace

[David Nieporent]

No, a ceasefire is a pause in fighting that one intends to resume. Peace is an end to fighting.

[Commenter_XY]

Your both talking past each other; how about armistice?

[Kazinski]

A ceasefire with peacekeepers then deployed is the prelude to a permanent peace.

Miriam Webster

2. a suspension of active hostilities

which cites this in the usage examples:
"Negotiations to hammer out details of the second phase of the ceasefire deal were supposed to begin earlier this month.
—Hadeel Al-Shalchi, NPR, 27 Feb. 2025

As the first phase of the ceasefire is set to end soon, doubts are growing about the next phase and whether peace can be maintained.
—Josh Hammer, Newsweek, 15 Feb. 2025"

[Krayt]

And that, dear friends, is the choice consumate evil gives. Give up to the evil, or we will let them steamroll you.

This is what you're defending.

[Kazinski]

Peace = evil?

Trump has been clear he wants peace in Ukraine.

What do you think.will be accomplished by continuing the war?

[Sarcastr0]

"They make a desolation and call it peace”

[Kazinski]

It already is a desolation, but there is no peace.

Kind of funny, progressives has been calling for an immediate and unilateral ceasefire in Gaza for months, and then to have peace talks, even though Hamas wouldn't agree to a ceasefire.

And calling for cutting off weapons for Israel until they agree to a ceasefire, in fact Biden did hold back some weapons.

Trump calls for a ceasefire and says he will cut off weapons until Ukraine agrees.

And progressives are appalled.

[Sarcastr0]

You continue to pretend Trump has no agency, too no action, and everything was set in motion in 2014.

It such a silly take I find it hard to wrap my mind around it.

I'm not with the Gaza ceasefire folks; you'll have to take it up with them.

[Kazinski]

When have I said that?

Trump absolutely has agency, he is the president.

And he has decided he is going to focus that agency on a ceasefire.

[Sarcastr0]

You said it right above this, and every time you deflect to 2014 or Biden or Obama as the responsible parties for what Trump just did.

[Kazinski]

Quote me. I never said that.

[Sarcastr0]

Ukraine is Trump's mess, due to Trump's recent actions.

And yet here is you deflecting that to Obama and Biden on this thread:

'Ukraine, of course, belongs entirely to whoever was running the country when Joe Biden was sitting in the oval office.'

"Not quite, you are forgetting the Crimean and Donbas invasions of 2014, that wasn't all Biden's fault, But it didn't help.

Biden became Obama's "point man" in February 2014, the Donbas invasion was 2 month's later, but the Crimean invasion was before Biden became the point man."

[Commenter_XY]

If you didn't see this coming then you haven't been paying attention.

I would add to that
- a denial of the battlefield reality
- collective amnesia in forgetting how 45 addressed disagreement

[bernard11]

And where exactly is Putin on this whole ceasefire agreement?

As Mike Pompeo says, "Everyone wants a cease fire except Putin."

But somehow the lack of one is Zelensky's fault.

[myself]

Don't worry, Agent Kraznov is on the job!

[RedheadedPharoh]

When do the #AltGov insurrectionists start seeing the inside of a jail cell?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember the windmill that came apart last summer, dumping all kinds of sharp fiberglass into the oceans to kill the fishies and to drift ashore to get into the tourist's toes?

Well, it got hit by lightning last week. Damaged some more....

We had a drought last August, but in a traditional summer, they get a thunderstorm out there 3-4 times a week in August. Should be fun...

[SRG2]

If only windmills were as safe as coal mines. No-one ever dies from mining coal. /sarc

[Frank Drackman]

Or driving an 18 wheeler, fighting fires, being a cop, working at a Liquor Store, driving an Uber, 1/6 of US Electricity comes from burning Coal, 1/3 from Natural Gas, 1/10 from Nuke-ular, and the great thing is with those you can watch Television when the wind isn't blowing.

[ThePublius]

"On a million-megawatt-hour basis, the wind-energy industry has averaged 0.0220 deaths compared with 0.0147 for coal over the years 2003-2008. Even adding coal's share of fatalities in the power-generation industry, which brings the rate up to 0.0164, still leaves wind power with a 34 percent higher mortality rate."

Older report, 2010, and from the Heritage Foundation, so you will likely dismiss this due to the source, but here you go:

Wind Power is More Dangerous than Coal or Oil

[SRG2]

Have you noticed what's missing from your Heritage article that undermines its conclusions? Of course you didn't.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wind power, is there anything it CAN do?
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/03/a-battery-powered-future.php
"No wonder electricity prices are on an ever rising spiral. Instead of a small number of gas fired power stations giving us 24/7 available power we have this madness. We are building endless wind and solar projects that do not give 24/7 power but do at times over produce power and are paid huge sums to switch off. Hence the arrival of the latest subsidy seekers in the form of battery storage. Massively expensive and massively useless as 2 hours of power in mid winter means little when low wind periods could be 10 days. This is why we need to keep the gas fired stations for back up. This is economy destroying madness."

[SRG2]

Well, I: wouldn't trust a blog written by a non-science advocate that manifestly misses the point of wind and solar. YMMV

Can you answer my question above?

[ThePublius]

More:
Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data
to 31 December 2024

https://scotlandagainstspin.org/turbine-accident-statistics/

[SRG2]

Still not addressing my question.

[hobie]

Well, I'm ready to have a 'legitimate political discourse' at the White House. Walk around. Take away some keys. Anyone want to join me?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"[Carl] Dean kept a low profile since meeting Parton at a laundromat the day she moved to Nashville to pursue a career in music. They married two years later in Ringgold, Ga.

Dean, who ran an asphalt-paving business, was so rarely seen with her in public that the 2022 Rock & Roll Hall of Fame inducted musician joked with the Associated Press in 1984 that a lot of people don’t believe he exists."

Dolly Parton's husband has died. Mr. Behind the Scenes.

https://www.nydailynews.com/2025/03/03/dolly-parton-husband-carl-dean-dead-82/

[Frank Drackman]

He spent a lot of time motorboating.

[Michael P]

So many celebrity marriages burn out quickly. It's nice that they made theirs work for 60 years even with such different preferences about publicity.

[Martinned2]

.

[Frank Drackman]

That's the nice thing about owning numerous guns bought over the last 40 years from anonymous individuals with no records whatsoever (sometimes I even forget about a particular gun until it pops up somewhere).
If an intruder in my home didn't have a gun when he umm "Intruded",
He'll have one by the time the Police and Medical Examiner get there.
And I've watched lots of "Quincy", "Perry Mason", "Law & Order" and "Boston Legal"(Denny Crane!) I know all the tricks.

Frank

[ThePublius]

NYPD officers call such a gun a "plant," and many carried them. They usually acquired them by taking them off hoods and not turning them in as evidence.

[Martinned2]

That's going well...

(For context, The Sun is probably the very definition of what a Trumpist newspaper in England might look like. It's basically the English equivalent of the New York Post.)

Fury as JD Vance says UK ‘hasn’t fought war in 30yrs’ forgetting Iraq & Afghan… as Brit heroes say ‘wind your neck in’
Politicians of all parties joined with forces heroes in blasting the Vice President's remarks

US VICE President JD Vance was told to "wind his neck in" today after branding Britain “some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years”.

Some 636 Brits died fighting alongside the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the comments branded “deeply offensive.” (...)

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/33670530/fury-as-trumps-no2-jd-vance-mocks-uk/

[Michael P]

And you lot pretend to be shocked when Trump and Vance are offended when Zelenskyy shows up in soldier drag to pick a fight with the USA.

[Sarcastr0]

Getting a bit "I am the state, and the state is me" with Trump there, chief.

[Martinned2]

They were not offended.

[ThePublius]

Sez who?

[Bob from Ohio]

"They were not offended."

Right as usual!

"You're all dressed up today," Trump said as he greeted him, referring to Zelensky's military-style black sweatshirt, adorned with the Ukrainian trident."

[Bob from Ohio]

"soldier drag"

I don't know, maybe Ukraine has special designers for regular uniforms

"Meet the Designer Behind Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Viral Oval Office Outfit
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s viral Oval Office outfit sparked global attention, and became one of the most famous ensembles in history. Designed by Ukrainian designer Elvira Gasanova, the ensemble symbolised resilience and national pride. Read all about the force behind what is now one of the most famous outfits in history.
Authored by: Namya Sinha Updated Mar 3, 2025, 23:14 IST

[David Nieporent]

The Sun is probably the very definition of what a Trumpist newspaper in England might look like. It's basically the English equivalent of the New York Post.

The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Oh, and Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits.

[Bob from Ohio]

"branding Britain"

Did Vance mention UK in his comment?

[Frank Drackman]

OK, don't want to sound like a big meany here, but in the 80's the joke was Israel wanted the Iran-Iraq Wah to go one forever, like that huge storm on Jupiter, because every Iraqi/Iranian bullet fired there was one that couldn't be fired at an Israeli, but of course it was horrible to have millions of young Iraqui/Iranians killed (was it?)
And 2 years after the Ceasefire, So-damn-Insane needs something for his Repubiclown Guards to do, Iraq invades Kuwait, cue 30 years of continual wah.
Is it so bad if You-Crane and Roosh-a continue fighting for the next 50 years? I mean besides being bad for the You-Cranes and Roosh-uns

Frank

[tylertusta]

We may see another dumb instance of performative virtue signalling coming from everyone's favorite national Democratic Party:

Politico: Democrats Are Serious About a Shutdown

Senior House Democrats have spent recent days privately surveying their members about whether they’d be willing to shut the government down over DOGE cuts, according to multiple well-placed Democratic sources I spoke to over the weekend.

So far, they’re encountering little resistance.

Democrats of all persuasions, even some centrists who have long been firmly anti-shutdown, feel that voting for a “clean” spending bill would be tacitly blessing Musk’s controversial work. Denying Republicans the votes they’ll need to keep the agencies open, they believe, would be the lesser evil.

...

Perhaps most importantly, Democrats up and down the leadership chain are hearing not only from the liberal base but people they consider more mainstream — donors, strategists and constituents who believe they need to show some fight, and fast.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, of course they need to fight. They lose THIS fight, the federal government they fought so long and hard to turn into Leviathan could be smaller again for generations. And along with it all the money being laundered to keep their political ecosystem flush.

[Bwaaah]

Quick fun...If Trump plays his best game against the federal government, at the end of his term, what are the odds that the federal government will be:
1) larger
2) the same size
3) slightly smaller
4) much smaller
Please respond with a percentage for each.

[ThePublius]

You pose that as if you are a professor and the conspiracists here are your students. 🙂

'You have five minutes to complete this; cite percentages for each and show your work and references.' Ha, ha.

How about providing us with your assessment?

How do you measure size? Employees? Budget? Number of agencies?

What percentages align with slightly smaller and much smaller?

I'm going to say much smaller, with 20% fewer federal employees.

[Bwaaah]

I reject federal employee headcount as an acceptable overall metric, even though it would be a relevant one. Outsourcing is a mechanism to game that number (although by no means a bad one). Anyway, I think dollars spent is the most essential benchmark.

I worked in an industrial company where many employees proudly touted one year that our volume (i.e. units shipped) and revenue was up. At the same time, our net income was down. The cruel joke was, "You can't give 'units shipped' back to shareholders."

Similarly, a $2 trillion deficit is a $2 trillion deficit no matter how few employees you have. Still, I'd welcome the reduction in employees as a positive indication.

[Commenter_XY]

This is easy, Professor Bwaaah.

1 = 0.001%
2 = 0.009%
3 = 0.99%
4 = 99%

[Bwaaah]

1 = 20% (There's upward pressure on this number only because of debt service pressures)
2 = 70% (I don't underestimate the status quo, nor how widely distributed are voters' vested interests in it)
3 = 9% (I'm an optimist, even despite the status quo)
4 = 1% (There are powerful reasons why D and R politicians alike have been voting for more spending, and I don't see big changes in that calculus)

As for definition of "size," I'll be forgiving and go with total annual spending excepting debt service. "Much smaller" to me would be a 10% reduction in that number.

As for me sounding like a professor...it was just a question and you (ThePublius) don't have to be insulting about it. (lol)

[Commenter_XY]

I was thinking in terms of employees. 😉

[Bwaaah]

I was about to shoot you down. I'll let you live. (Good thing I did a final refresh before posting.)

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, there is a 99%+ chance we will have significantly fewer non-essential federal bureaucrats suckling at the public teat.

[Brett Bellmore]

1) ~30% Always a safe bet, right up until it suddenly won't be.
2) ~10%
3) ~40%
4) ~20%

[tylertusta]

I don't see how forcing a shutdown advances the Dems' goal of continuing to fund sex changes in Guatemala or DEI musicals in Ireland.

I think it gives Trump an even stronger hand in taking a wrecking ball to the federal workforce and in blocking the overseas payments.

[SRG2]

Well, of course the Democrats would not be shutting the government down. They are in the minority of both houses. A shutdown would be on the GOP. The issue is therefore should the Democrats co-operate with the majority of the GOP to avoid a shutdown, or should they not co-operate, and reap later political rewards as the electorate punishes the party in power come the next election? As the latter has been GOP policy for a long time, it would be the sincerest form of flattery for the Democrats to do the same.

[Bob from Ohio]

"reap later political rewards as the electorate punishes the party in power"

Largely a myth.

After the 1995-96 shutdowns, GOP lost 2 house seats but gained 2 senate seats.

After the 2013 shutdown, GOP gained 13 House seats and gained 9 senate seats.

After the 2013 shutdown, GOP gained 13 House seats, did lose 3 senate seats.

[Bob from Ohio]

Last should be 2019

[ThePublius]

About the tariffs.

I'm going to repost a reply down here so folks who miss it above might see it (apologies to repeat post police and self appointed moderators David Nieporent and Sarcastr0):

It wasn't a hollow threat.

"While President Trump gave both Canada and Mexico ample opportunity to curb the dangerous cartel activity and influx of lethal drugs flowing into our country, they have failed to adequately address the situation."

So, failure to take adequate action, tariffs go back on. Simple. It's not a trade war, it's an enforcement action on the Northern and Southern borders.

Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Proceeds with Tariffs on Imports from Canada and Mexico
March 3, 2025

[Sarcastr0]

Canada's dangerous cartel activity and lethal drugs?

I'm also not sure you understand what a trade war is. It's agnostic of the reason behind starting the tariff cycle.

[ThePublius]

You apparently didn't read the WH statement. Here's I'll excerpt it for you:

"There is also a growing presence of Mexican cartels operating fentanyl and nitazene synthesis labs in Canada.
A recent study recognized Canada’s heightened domestic production of fentanyl, and its growing footprint within international narcotics distribution.
Canada-based drug trafficking organizations maintain robust “super labs,” mostly in rural and dense areas in western Canada, some of which can produce 44 to 66 pounds of fentanyl weekly.
Last year’s northern border fentanyl seizures, though smaller than Mexico’s, could kill 9.5 million Americans due to the drug’s potency—proof of Canada’s growing role in this crisis.
Fentanyl seizures at the northern border in the first four months of this fiscal year are quickly closing in on what was seized the entirety of fiscal year 2022."

People are so quick to dismiss Canada as a source of drugs and other contraband, and illegal immigrants, but they are at best naive. I know, Canadians are "nice."

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't read it, ya got me.

I did know it'd by BS.

Here is a red flag: "could kill 9.5 million Americans due to the drug’s potency" is some very janky statistics. I count 2 errors.
1) taking the highest possible estimated number.
2) basing it on some undefined potency attribute.

"are quickly closing in" is also notably lacking in any numbers.

This is such obvious spin it should be insulting. But I suppose if their standard is convincing the likes of you...

[ThePublius]

O.K., then answer this:

1. is fentanyl coming into the U.S. across our Northern border, and is at least some of it produced in cartel labs in Western Canada? And is that a problem?

2. Are illegal aliens crossing our Northern border? And is that a problem?

And I would note, that just as you don't size a bridge by counting the number of people swimming across the river, you can't judge the amount of fentanyl entering the country strictly according to the amount seized at the border or through mail and other shipments. Obviously a lot is making it through.

"Fentanyl seizures at the northern border in the first four months of this fiscal year are quickly closing in on what was seized the entirety of fiscal year 2022."

I know you will simply dismiss anything the administration says that you don't like or don't agree with. That doesn't make it false.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Your standard is 'at least some?' By any rational policy analysis, that is not a standard, that's an excuse.

2. Same thing. Your utter lack of numbers or baseline is a tell.

This is the kind of extremely shallow analysis is the level you need to stick to if you're going to try and defend the administration's pretexts. It's not serious, and it's pretty openly so.

Hence: "Obviously" "a lot" "quickly closing in"

I'm not just dismissing, I'm pointing out the obvious pretense.

Just like I did the first go-round when folks like you declared Trump a tactical genius who had brought Mexico and Canada to heel.

[SRG2]

And is that a problem?

How much of a real problem is it?

To adapt a Mark Twain line, "he'd been kicked in the head by a horse when young, and believed everything that came out of the White House".

[David Nieporent]

1. is fentanyl coming into the U.S. across our Northern border, and is at least some of it produced in cartel labs in Western Canada? And is that a problem?

Probably some, probably not, and no.

2. Are illegal aliens crossing our Northern border? And is that a problem?

Probably some, and no.

But the whole thing is a pretext anyway. Trump loves tariffs because he's a fucking economic illiterate. He always has, and always has been. If the issue were actually any of those things, then we'd revisit in 2026 to see whether progress has been made — not in 30 days.

[ThePublius]

"Here is a red flag: "could kill 9.5 million Americans due to the drug’s potency" is some very janky statistics. I count 2 errors.
1) taking the highest possible estimated number.
2) basing it on some undefined potency attribute."

Well, you don't really know the truth about either of those.

The DEA says one kilogram of fentanyl can kill 500,000 people. That means it would take 19 kilograms to kill 9.5M. 19 kg is 42 lb., which is pretty darn close to what CBP says it seized last year at the Northern border.

(CNN: Of that amount, 43 pounds were seized at the Canadian border — about 0.2% — compared with 21,148 pounds at the Mexican border, about 96.6%.)

(BBC: US border agents seized 43lbs (19.5kg) of fentanyl at the northern border between October 2023 and last September, compared to more than 21,000lbs (9,525.4kg) at the southern border. Still, recent reports from Canadian intelligence agencies suggest a growing number of transnational organised crime groups are manufacturing drugs in Canada.")

"Fentanyl seizures at the northern border in the first four months of this fiscal year are quickly closing in on what was seized the entirety of fiscal year 2022."

This is true. I'm sorry I can't find the reference at the moment, but 1st quarter fentanyl seizures at the Northern border are about equal to the entire previous year's seizures.

[ThePublius]

DEA: https://www.dea.gov/resources/facts-about-fentanyl

[Sarcastr0]

So if every once of fentanyl is at maximum potency and distributed to exactly lethal dose and no more to a bunch of theoretical people, your number might be right.

Otherwise it's fearmongering bullshit.

Still, recent reports from Canadian intelligence agencies suggest
Reports we can't see, of course. But they suggest!

You're a gullible, gullible man.

[ThePublius]

No I'm not, you are a partisan afflicted with TDS. So, what if it was 4.5M people could be killed? Or 1M? Is that O.K. now?

[Sarcastr0]

I laid out the math of why that maximal number is disingenuous.

If you're just going to stamp your foot and cry TDS then we're done here.

[ThePublius]

"I laid out the math of why that maximal number is disingenuous."

Excuse me? You didn't lay out any math. I did!

Look, you're doing a typical liberal fallacious thing, which is to take everything your opponent says as literal and then argue it's alll a lie.

They clearly said, O.K., 43 lb. of fentanyl came in, it takes 2mg to kill someone, so it could have killed 9.5M people. Period. It's entirely true. And it's just a press release, not a scientific study.

Anything else?

[Sarcastr0]

You seriously don't get it.

Taking actual data and then getting a theoretical maximum from it is easy to calculate, but not a useful number in any real-world application.

Except, I guess, propagandizing those who want to believe.

[John 4]

"No I'm not, you are a partisan afflicted with TDS."

The irony.

[Voize of Reazon]

Publius, do you also support Mexico blaming the US for its gun problem, because that's where the guns come from?

Should they count each bullet that crosses the border as a potential Mexican death?

[ThePublius]

That's just silly.

[Voize of Reazon]

Sure it is, like counting each 2mg of "fentanyl" as a potential American death is silly.

Scare quotes because that 9500 kg of seized drugs, if it were pure fentanyl (where 2mg is potentially fatal) instead of heroin or some other drug with fentanyl added, would be over 4 billion fatal doses.

[ThePublius]

2mg is the DEA number.

[Sarcastr0]

The deployment of the number - i.e. "counting each 2mg of "fentanyl" as a potential American death" is the issue.

[ThePublius]

"It's agnostic of the reason behind starting the tariff cycle."

I confess I don't get that statement. Can you spell it out for me?

[Sarcastr0]

Saying "I didn't pass the tariffs to do trade protectionism I did it for this other reason" is immaterial to it's upshot.

[ThePublius]

Gotcha. I see it as somewhat nuanced because the reason for the tariffs wasn't just to raise revenue or retaliate against perceived unfairness in trade. It was very specifically related to securing the borders from illegals and drugs. (I don't know about China.) But if Canada and Mexico want to respond not by securing their borders but by retaliatory tariffs, so be it. They can't win this war.

[Sarcastr0]

No one wins a trade war.

[ThePublius]

Zelensky doesn't want a cease fire and apparently doesn't want peace, but wants to keep fighting.

The average lifespan of a Ukrainian soldier at the front lines is just 4 hours, according to some sources. Do you own research, it's hard to sort. But it's not a long time. The average lifespan of a Russian is one month.

Young Ukrainian men have been, and continue to flee the country to avoid conscription.

"Since the start of the war, thousands of Ukrainian men have illegally crossed the Ukrainian border to dodge conscription, despite a nationwide ban prohibiting men between the ages of 18 and 60 from leaving.

Attempts to flee the country are expected to increase after Ukraine’s recent adoption of new sweeping mobilisation measures, which allow the military to call up more soldiers and impose stricter penalties for draft evasion.

“I never thought about leaving until the mobilisation laws were introduced. But I can’t stay in my flat forever,” Dmytro said."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/29/i-am-not-made-for-war-the-men-fleeing-ukraine-to-evade-conscription

The average age of a Ukrainian soldier is now 43.

So, is it fair and right and just for the U.K. and potentially other EU nations to put their troops into the Ukraine war when the Ukrainians themselves will not fight?

And with such a dire situation, why won't Zelensky seek an immediate cease fire and ultimately peace, even if it requires conceding some territory? He's not going to get Crimea and the Donbas back, and will at best end up with a DMZ protected by U.S. mineral extraction activities.

So foolish.

[David Nieporent]

The average lifespan of a Ukrainian soldier at the front lines is just 4 hours, according to some sources.

See what I mean about gullible? That doesn't even pass a basic common sense math test. If Ukraine had to replace all its combat troops every 4 hours, it would be at negative troops by now.

So, is it fair and right and just for the U.K. and potentially other EU nations to put their troops into the Ukraine war when the Ukrainians themselves will not fight?

The Ukrainians themselves will fight. Are fighting. Have been fighting.

And with such a dire situation, why won't Zelensky seek an immediate cease fire and ultimately peace

Well, one possibility is of course that you've fantasized this "dire situation."

[ThePublius]

You don't think the situation in Ukraine is dire?

Ukrainians are fighting? What about all of those young 'recruits' who have fled the country or are hiding out, waiting to flee? You are ignoring that.

https://telegrafi.com/en/sipas-ushtarakut-amerikan-te-pensionuar-mesatarja-e-mbijeteses-se-nje-ushtari-ne-luftimet-ne-lindje-te-ukraines-eshte-kater-ore/

The four hour thing could be analogous to a phenomenon of WWI British aviators, where there was an enormous 'infant mortality rate' of recruits first arriving at the front, and average lifespan of two weeks, whereas if they survived that and gained some experience, they could go on much longer.

[David Nieporent]

You don't think the situation in Ukraine is dire?

Now that Trump has sided with his boss Vladimir Putin, yes. Not if our president weren't the biggest traitor to the U.S. since Jefferson Davis, no.

[ThePublius]

Hyperbole much? How do you expect people to take you seriously when you talk like that?

[David Nieporent]

You'd have preferred I said the Rosenbergs rather than Jefferson Davis? I can accept that.

[ThePublius]

O.K., let me pull the pin on this grenade: what has Trump done that's traitorous? (And I won't accept Jan. 6 as an answer.)

[David Nieporent]

Jan. 6

Also, sided with Russia against NATO.

[ThePublius]

When and how did he side with Russia against NATO?

[not guilty]

Even the Rosenbergs were not convicted of treason. Instead they were convicted of espionage -- at the time of their crime, the Soviet Union was an ally and not an enemy of the United States.

[ThePublius]

The situation is dire in Ukraine because Ukraine can't afford to continue to fight due to shortages of munitions and men, and their leader is apparently willing to fight to the last Ukrainian, UK, and European soldier, with little or no hope of whatever he thinks victory might be. It's a war without strategy, being run by an egomaniacal, corrupt 'permanent' president; no elections, took over the TV networks, suspended the activities of 11 opposition political parties, disallowed men 18 to 60 from leaving the country, and so on (all under the auspices of martial law).

[ThePublius]

BTW:
dire
/ˈdī(ə)r/
adjective
(of a situation or event) extremely serious or urgent.
"dire consequences"

[ThePublius]

Frontline Ukrainian soldiers’ life expectancy just ‘four hours,’ US Marine claims

https://nypost.com/2023/02/23/life-expectancy-on-frontline-in-ukraine-4-hours-soldier/

[Brett Bellmore]

War has been famously described as "long periods of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror"

I suppose if you elide the long periods of boredom, and just look at the moments of sheer terror, a four hour life expectancy might be plausible. It's just that practically nobody would be experiencing war that way.

[David Nieporent]

One random guy, talking about one particular battle, two years ago. (And pulling a stat out of his ass anyway; is he tabulating statistics or fighting?)

[ThePublius]

Yes, that is indeed so, I guess. But, that's not to say things are good on the front lines, either. Ukraine has about 70,000 killed and 120,000 wounded since Feb. 2022. That number of deaths far exceeds the total US troop deaths in 10 years of Vietnam.
(Ukrainian civilian deaths 12,605, injured 29,178.)

[John 4]

"Yes, that is indeed so, I guess."

You are a credulous fool who apparently relies on tabloids.

[SRG2]

I do not believe for a moment that you give a shit about Ukrainian soliders. If you did, you'd want Russia to withdraw. You have not, I think, expressed any such sentiment. You do appear to be blaming the victim.

[ThePublius]

I do give a shit about Ukrainian soldiers.

You remind me of an episode of Big Bang Theory, when Sheldon is going through some trauma and someone spooks him and he retreats to his room; and Sheldon's mom says "you don't hunt, do you?"

I'm not blaming anyone. I just know that different types of characters require different negotiating techniques. Zelensky craves the spotlight, and I'm sure the worst thing you could do with Putin is publicly embarrass or humiliate him. I'm sure Trump is trying to get Putin to agree to something, some of which will surely be a limited withdrawal. But there's no way Putin will give up Crimea or the Dondas. At least he hasn't reached Odessa yet.

[Bob from Ohio]

"want Russia to withdraw"

I do want Russia to withdraw. What's the plan to accomplish that?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And with such a dire situation, why won't Zelensky seek an immediate cease fire and ultimately peace, even if it requires conceding some territory? He's not going to get Crimea and the Donbas back, and will at best end up with a DMZ protected by U.S. mineral extraction activities."

Maybe he thinks a DMZ protected by US mineral extraction activities isn't an effective defense against Putin.

[Stephen Lathrop]

A question about Trump's tariffs. Do they empower (as a practical matter, for someone without effective legal constraint) a stream of funds Trump can access to do whatever he wants, without worry about the power of the purse?

[ThePublius]

I wouldn't think so. But then, I don't know how tariffs are collected and what agency does it. I have been wondering that.

I once imported some expensive guitars from Spain, and I recall that I paid CBP in Boston via a customs broker.

I would imagine tariffs go into the general fund.

Why, do you think Trump is doing this to skirt congress in getting funding for something?

[Commenter_XY]

Short answer: No

[SRG2]

In principle the Executive can only spend money allocated to it by Congress. He has no power to spend random arriving funds unallocated. But first, I doubr that Trump cares, second, I doubt Congress will do anything about it, third, the SC would rule 6-3 that either the president can spend unallocated funds if it's in furtherance of core executive power or other bullshit, or that whoever sued lacked standing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Vance’s Real Message to Europe: Give Up the Information War and GTFO

Another excellent essay at N. S. Lyons' "The Upheaval" Substack.

[ThePublius]

On tariffs. "Markets tumble" proclaims the NYTimes. I have no doubt they will recover. Some goods will go up in price or perhaps even become scarce.

You know what? I'm willing to take that hit if we can stem the flow of fentanyl and illegals across the Northern and Southern borders. I only wish Canada and Mexico had acted more swiftly and decisively to do so rather than simply impose retaliatory tariffs and actions.

Canada is now saying they will shut off electricity exports to the U.S. Talk about stepping on your own air hose! In the long run this will hurt Canada more than us. Electricity imports in the US form Canada are way, way down in the last couple of years and we are swiftly approaching energy export parity. Canada needs U.S. electricity for grid balancing in the West where much of their generating capacity is hydro, especially in periods of drought. I'm sure Trump will welcome this as a license to spur powerplant construction and ease regulatory hurdles under the auspices of emergency. Energy and electricity independence.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It’s like a death row pardon on your wedding day.

[Frank Drackman]

now that's really not Ironic

[Stephen Lathrop]

New England relies on a lot of hydro power from Labrador.

[ThePublius]

google AI result:

New England receives a relatively small amount of electrical power from Labrador, with estimates suggesting around 1% of its electricity coming from Newfoundland and Labrador, primarily through transmission connections to the New England grid.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What did the AI think, that Labrador electricity would be delivered to Boston in buckets?

Get a better source, or at least explain why electric utilities in New England claim appreciable reliance on hydro.

[ThePublius]

Minimum wage is bad.

I put it in the same category as rent control. Equally bad are laws and regulations requiring paid benefits for workers working a certain amount of hours per week (all kinds of negative effects for the workers, including reduced hours and the necessity to have multiple jobs, and manage the various schedules and transportation).

What I find interesting and frustrating are those who advocate for minimum wage laws. They think that pay will go up and all other things will remain the same, as if there's no consequence to and increased minimum wage save increased pay for workers.

“Unfortunately, the real minimum wage is always zero, regardless of the laws, and that is the wage that many workers receive in the wake of the creation or escalation of a government-mandated minimum wage, because they lose their jobs or fail to find jobs when they enter the labor force. Making it illegal to pay less than a given amount does not make a worker’s productivity worth that amount—and, if it is not, that worker is unlikely to be employed.”
― Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy

Look at these articles being hyped on Reason:

The Minimum Wage Is Terrible for America's Most Vulnerable Workers

A $15 Federal Minimum Wage Would Destroy Jobs and Hurt America's Poorest Workers

CBO Says Raising Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour Would Kill Jobs, Because Obviously It Would

New Study: Large Minimum Wage Hikes Especially Disadvantage Younger, Less Educated Workers

(Sorry for no links, but you can only put one link per comment anyway.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

It’s like ten thousand spoons in your Chardonnay.

[SRG2]

Minimum wage is bad.

This may or may not be true depending. It may be the case that at a certain minimum wage, it's good owing to positive feedback effects (an argument akin to that Henry Ford advanced when paying above market rate for workers - for which he was later successfully sued by the Dodge Bros). And at other levels, any positive feedback effects are more than offset by negative feedback effects.

Basically, in the absence of information, it is reasonable to think that a minimum wage is likely to be bad, but as with any theoretical economic claim, you need to go out into the real world to see whether it is always true. There is nothing paradoxical in thinking that lifting a minimum wage from say $7.50 to $10 may be good, and lifitng it to $15 would be bad. But you have to look to the real world and arguing that a raise to $15 turned out to be bad therefore a raise elsewhere to $10 would also be bad is to commit what I have termed the monotonic fallacy.

I am quite prepared to think that in most cases it's bad. But I want evidence before I: conclude that it's always bad - and IIRC a while back the EU found that indeed a raise from a small minimum wage did have positive effects.

[David Nieporent]

it's good owing to positive feedback effects (an argument akin to that Henry Ford advanced when paying above market rate for workers

That's not true; it's a myth that has somehow sprung up over the decades. Henry Ford paid higher wages than the market clearing wage because he found that it significantly reduced employee turnover, which was more costly.

[ThePublius]

Isn't that a positive feedback effect?

[David Nieporent]

That's not how I interpreted SRG2's use of that phrase. What I was reacting to was the common myth that Ford paid his workers more because that would ultimately create a more prosperous working class that could afford to purchase his cars. If that's not what SRG2 meant, then my response to him (while accurate) would not be a contradiction of what he wrote.

[tylertusta]

Zelensky's office has put out a new statement:

I would like to reiterate Ukraine’s commitment to peace.

None of us wants an endless war. Ukraine is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace closer. Nobody wants peace more than Ukrainians. My team and I stand ready to work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts.

We are ready to work fast to end the war, and the first stages could be the release of prisoners and truce in the sky — ban on missiles, long-ranged drones, bombs on energy and other civilian infrastructure — and truce in the sea immediately, if Russia will do the same. Then we want to move very fast through all next stages and to work with the US to agree a strong final deal.

We do really value how much America has done to help Ukraine maintain its sovereignty and independence. And we remember the moment when things changed when President Trump provided Ukraine with Javelins. We are grateful for this.

Our meeting in Washington, at the White House on Friday, did not go the way it was supposed to be. It is regrettable that it happened this way. It is time to make things right. We would like future cooperation and communication to be constructive.

Regarding the agreement on minerals and security, Ukraine is ready to sign it in any time and in any convenient format. We see this agreement as a step toward greater security and solid security guarantees, and I truly hope it will work effectively.

[ThePublius]

Wow. Thanks for sharing.

The only sticking point in this is the last paragraph, speaking as if the mineral deal and security guarantees are inexorably tied, and that the later is specific. I think Trump rejected this.

But otherwise, Zelensky has come around. I'm sure this has to do with Trump's suspending of aid.

[Commenter_XY]

Zelenskyy came to his senses, no doubt aided by UK, FR and his own advisors.

[ThePublius]

You think Trump cutting off the aid wasn't the primary driver?

[Commenter_XY]

TP, I have no doubt that the aid cut-off was the coup de grace. I just don't know that the military spigot ever gets turned back on. Zelenskyy does not realize the gravity of the mistake he made.

POTUS Trump will have some things to say about it this evening. I anticipate even more news being made. 😉

[SRG2]

I am waiting for Putin's comments. I haven't heard anything from Krasnov or Vance about what Russia should be doing at this point.

Amazing how you lot are so willing to see Ukraine coerced and threatened.

[ThePublius]

I just want to see the killing end. I don't really care about one side or the other. Trump is negotiating with Putin, just not out in the open. I'm sure Putin's personality ha a lot to do with that.

[tylertusta]

I'm also interested to see what Russia does next. Russia would be mistaken to think that Trump has no tools in his toolbox to bring them to the table as well.

[ThePublius]

Coordinated messaging from Democratic Senators. Who's writing the script?

UPDATE: An ASTOUNDING **22** Democrat Senators have uploaded videos of themselves reading off an identical cringey script bashing Trump and Musk

This is a REALLY tough watch

Just remember: the Democrats think you’re all stupid.

https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1896965590788829288

[ThePublius]

"Top Democrats humiliated as their attempt at edgy social media videos revealed as heavily scripted DC stunt"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14460399/chuck-schumer-elizabeth-warren-cory-booker-scripted.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=social-twitter_mailonline

[Sarcastr0]

I don't trust a rando twitter link, or you, or the daily mail. But I'm sure it's all true and quite cringe.

Only the Daily Mail would think 'Congressional Dems to a cringe' is news.

[ThePublius]

It's not a matter of trust, you can go to the "rando twitter link" and watch the videos these fools recorded.

[Sarcastr0]

As I said, I don't need to check; I'm sure the Dems did another cringe.

Solid 10's across the board and best in show in cringe, that's the Dems since 2016.

Not great, but not worth any all caps with breathless a *astounding* headline either.

[ThePublius]

What all caps?

[Sarcastr0]

"UPDATE: An ASTOUNDING **22** Democrat Senators have uploaded videos of themselves reading off an identical cringey script bashing Trump and Musk

This is a REALLY tough watch"

[ThePublius]

Oh, gotcha. I didn't think that counted as "all" caps. 🙂

[Brett Bellmore]

Supreme court hearing the Mexican gun case

Sounds like the 'liberal' justices are desperately trying to save Mexico's lawsuit. If I understand what they're getting at; Counsel for the gun manufacturers is having real trouble understanding what they're getting at, too.

[ThePublius]

Listening now. Note to others, this is a 1:31:27 recording of oral arguments in this case.

[tylertusta]

This one is harder to discern from the audio, but I think the most likely outcome is a 7-2 (conservatives + Jackson) or a 6-3.

But I acknowledge my speculation is very tenuous on this.

[Brett Bellmore]

The news reports all seem to agree it looks like Mexico is losing. It seemed to me that the real question was whether it would be on narrow grounds or generally spiking this whole genre of lawsuits. (As a lot of amici representing other industries advocated; Everybody knows that if this is permitted, it won't just be gun manufacturers in the cross hairs.)

I'm hoping it's a general ruling. The reasoning Mexico is advocating would be incredibly destructive if permitted any traction at all.

[ThePublius]

I was pleasantly surprised at KBJ's comments.

[Mr. Bumble]

The other day I asked "who killed Seth Rich and why?
...and today, this.
Why won't the FBI release the files?
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/03/kash-patel-pam-bondi-will-learn-about-this/

[ThePublius]

Best guess:
Clinton cartel, to silence him.

No, it wasn't a robbery. 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

...or suicide.

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha. 🙂

Yea, shot himself in the back twice on a D.C. street. That could happen!

[ThePublius]

A little poll, for the defensive-use revolver enthusiasts here:

speedloaders or moon clips?

[Frank Drackman]

A well placed head shot, as far as reloading, the fastest reload is a second gun