Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Steven Miller has told ABC News:

Well, the Constitution is clear. And that, of course, is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So that's an option we're actively looking at. Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not. At the end of the day, Congress passed a body of law known as the Immigration Nationality Act which stripped Article III courts, that’s the judicial branch, of jurisdiction over immigration cases. So Congress actually passed what’s called jurisdiction stripping legislation. It passed a number of laws that say that the Article III courts aren't even allowed to be involved in immigration cases.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kT8nQPgp_A

The President has no power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus; the Constitution at Article I, § 9 addresses the power of Congress to do so and further limits Congressional authority to cases of rebellion or invasion [when] the public safety may require it. The existence of a rebellion or invasion is only the first step of the inquiry; the requirements of public safety are a separate inquiry.

"No matter the context, the President's authority to act necessarily 'stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.'" Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, ___, 144 S.Ct. 2312, 2327 (2024), quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952).

It won't happen with the current Department of Justice, but if President Trump and Stephen Miller are conspiring for Trump to unilaterally suspend the writ of habeas corpus, Miller deserves to be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 241.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty — In any future where the Supreme Court would not block that prosecution, Miller would be joined in the dock by multiple members of Trump's cabinet, and at least several members of the current Court. No realignment of the nation's polity to deliver power sufficient to make that happen seems likely. Thus, your comment—although legally interesting—seems not really a practical pointer toward what might happen to deliver relief from this nation's ongoing Constitutional crisis.

I suggest concentrating instead on what measures can be mobilized quickly to goad the Congress and the Court into united action to check Trump's rampage—perhaps unprecedented action, but hopefully with arguable Constitutional merit, and some show of related precedent. I have been trying to suggest such actions without success, or even much show of interest or suggested improvements in response.

There seems a notable tendency of commenters here to keep their heads down and stay out of traffic. The preference seems to be for vain hopes of unlikely outcomes, from repeated applications of conventional legal tactics which no lawyer might be blamed for choosing. That does not seem to me to be response sufficient to match the challenge this historically unique moment presents.

[Kazinski]

Brett was wondering the other day how any poll could come up with such a high percentage of people to favor a Bill of Attainder against Elon Musk.

Now he knows, just poll Lathrops.

I'm not saying the problem is just confined to the left, but there are certainly a large cohort of people including Not Guilty that think anyone who is for what they are against must be criminals.

I don't think Trump suspending habeas would be upheld by the courts, but Lincoln did it, and I don't remember anyone going to jail then.

[Brett Bellmore]

"and I don't remember anyone going to jail then."

What about Merryman? I'm pretty sure he went to jail.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, as a person who combines ignorance of Civil War era history, with anti-Constitutional advocacy, I am not surprised you offer nothing to ease a national Constitutional crisis you seem actually to favor. Why you would favor it remains the mystery.

[Mr. Bumble]

When everything is a "Constitutional crisis" nothing is.

[Kazinski]

Now I don't consider myself a civil expert, but I have read Grants Memoirs, twice, and Sandberg's Lincoln, but only the first two volumes.

But here's this:

"April 27, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln instructs General Winfield Scott to suspend habeas corpus as necessary to keep vital transport and supply lines clear in Maryland. This action kicks off a legal dispute with the Supreme Court.

One month later, on May 25, 1861, John Merryman, a state legislator from Maryland, is arrested for attempting to hinder Union troops from moving from Baltimore to Washington during the Civil War and is held at Fort McHenry by Union military officials. His attorney immediately sought a writ of habeas corpus so that a federal court could examine the charges. However, because President Lincoln had suspended the right, the general in command of Fort McHenry refused to turn Merryman over to the authorities."

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/april-27/president-lincoln-suspends-the-writ-of-habeas-corpus-during-the-civil-war

Two years later Congress did pass a statute, and he suspended it again for 6 months.

[Martinned]

Lots of things happened back then that should have gotten people arrested. That's not unusual for (US) wars.

[Kazinski]

I certainly agree with you there. Most people before 1960, let alone just war leaders, would end up in jail for a lot of things that seemed perfectly normal.

Spanking kids, misgendering, not wearing seatbelts, drinking and driving, racial slurs, blaspheming other religions, but at least they didn't have to worry about getting arrested for social media posts.

[Sarcastr0]

Weird comment.

You're mixing speech that doesn't get anyone put in jail today either (misgendering, racial slurs, blasphemy), and spanking which is also legal today.

And then you go after seatbelt laws, drinking and driving laws which are pretty popular.

And you ignore the civil rights laws, which for most people represent the big 1960s advance re: liberty.

All told, you are wrong about a lot, advocating for the return of bad stuff, and ignoring good stuff.

[Brett Bellmore]

And a lot of people got arrested for things that should never result in arrest. Lincoln was a straight up tyrant, Booth had that much right.

Executive Order—Arrest and Imprisonment of Irresponsible Newspaper Reporters and Editors

"Major-General John A. Dix,

Commanding at New York:

Whereas there has been wickedly and traitorously printed and published this morning in the New York World and New York Journal of Commerce, newspapers printed and published in the city of New York, a false and spurious proclamation purporting to be signed by the President and to be countersigned by the Secretary of State, which publication is of a treasonable nature, designed to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and to the rebels now at war against the Government and their aiders and abettors, you are therefore hereby commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison in any fort or military prison in your command the editors, proprietors, and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers, and all such persons as, after public notice has been given of the falsehood of said publication, print and publish the same with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy; and you will hold the persons so arrested in close custody until they can be brought to trial before a military commission for their offense. You will also take possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce, and hold the same until further orders, and prohibit any further publication therefrom.

A. LINCOLN."

[Brett Bellmore]

I should be obvious that even if there was actionable fraud involved, (And perhaps no more than the media committed against Trump in his first term.) the courts were fully functional, and there was no justification for stepping outside the normal legal process.

Except that Lincoln wanted his political foes silenced.

[bernard11]

If he was such a tyrant, why did he feel it necessary to run for re-election in 1864?

if there was actionable fraud involved, (And perhaps no more than the media committed against Trump in his first term.)

Oh for Pete's sake. What does it take for you to stop this shit, and what "actionable fraud" did the media commit against Trump? Reporting accurately is not fraud.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As an aside -- what a lot of people don't realize is that there was no B&O tunnel -- and trains were not allowed to go through Baltimore. and to this day all the rail to DC from the north & west goes through Baltimore.

So they had to march men and haul equipment with horses through Baltimore, one Massachusetts regiment had to shoot its way through the city.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Include every law professor in the country while you are at it.

All Miller has done is TALK ABOUT what is a defensible interpretation of Article III. He hasn't done anything, and his argument is defensible, which doesn't mean you have to agree.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, if I'm understanding this, the administration's complaint is that Article III courts should not, legally, be taking these immigration related cases, because Congress stripped them of jurisdiction over them.

Now, I personally think, (I know this is a minority position, but it does have some support from the founding era.) that the language Congress appeals to when jurisdiction stripping was really about Congress having the power to move topics from the Supreme court's appellate jurisdiction to its original jurisdiction, and while the lower courts can be subject to jurisdiction stripping, the Supreme court can't.

And the whole idea of non article III courts, outside of the military, is pretty dubious to begin with.

But if you grant the legitimacy of both Article II courts and jurisdiction stripping, the administration does have a point here. It does look like Congress spent many words trying to keep the courts from hearing exactly these sorts of cases.

Maybe, just maybe, they're stupidly talking about suspending habeas when they really mean enforcing jurisdiction stripping.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Past tense -- stripped.

SCOTUS can grant cert.

[ReaderY]

In referring to prosecuting members of the Trump Administration, you are assuming the Republic survives Trump and there is a future non-MAGA President. Otherwise you are simply engaging in fantasy.

[Brett Bellmore]

I will confidently predict that the Republic will survive Donald Trump, AND there will be a future non-MAGA President.

And if the Republic does not survive, it's more likely to be brought down by the efforts to get at Trump, than by Trump himself.

[Martinned]

I will confidently predict that the Republic will survive Donald Trump

Sure, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea also survived the death of Kim Il-Sung. They still have elections and everything.

[Don Nico]

"and everything."
including strategic nuclear weapons paid for with stolen crytocurrency

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you keep hoping Trump will do stuff Latin American strongmen do.

I'm not sure you know the difference between a republic and pretense so long as your taxes get cut and the outgroups get silenced.

[Brett Bellmore]

You don't seem to understand the difference between hoping somebody will do something, and saying that you should have anticipated him doing it.

I think Trump SHOULD have dotted every "i" and crossed every "t", while doing things that would outrage you anyway because you oppose them as policy, even as I support them as policy. Because he has the damned law on his side when it comes to illegal immigration. He should have spent his political capital forcing the Republican Congress to get off their dead asses and pass legislation!

But after his meeting with Milei nobody should be surprised at the tack he took instead.

I think he has misjudged the situation, at least in regards to the American people: Argentina was far enough gone that they not only needed somebody like Milei to rescue the country, they would SUPPORT somebody like Milei.

I don't think the US is that far gone yet, and I'm very certain that the American people aren't ready for a Milei type administration even if we were.

[Sarcastr0]

Ed predicts civil war over and over, and despite his insistence that he's not in favor of such a thing, everyone can see he's yearning.

Seems a relevant observation to drop here.

[Brett Bellmore]

I muted Ed months ago. Got sick of his "nuke Gaza" outbursts.

I think the US is on a glide path to a very ugly place, the rule of law has been, as I've said, deteriorating for most of a century, mostly at the hands of Democrats, but recently also Republicans. Like the Patriot act, what an abomination. Public support for assassination and political violence in general has been rising.

I don't think genuinely liberal democracy is a lost cause in the US yet, but we're headed that way. And as destruction is easier than construction, as thermodynamics dictates that disorder happens on its own while order takes hard work to achieve and maintain, we are pretty much doomed if we don't wake up to what is going on and put in that hard work.

Sadly, I don't think enough people have woken to how bad things are for that work to be politically viable.

[bernard11]

I don't think enough people have woken to how bad things are for that work to be politically viable.

You certainly haven't.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And Gaslighto gaslights...

[Riva]

Just so you hysterical trolls understand, there will not actually be any suspension of habeas corpus. But hopefully, the administration will keep threatening to do so to encourage the S.Ct. to get off its ass and reign in the out of control lower courts.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"...the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So that's an option we're actively looking at."

Are you calling Steven Miller a liar?

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess you just can't understand the difference between looking at doing something, and actually doing it.

[Riva]

There are arguments on both sides little troll. But for the record, I’m not calling him a liar. I’n calling him a brilliant tactician. If I called anyone a liar, they’d have a (D) following their names.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

"...the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So that's an option we're actively looking at."

Are you calling Steven Miller a liar?

I was actively looking at buying a Corvette once, but I never actually did it.

It's amazing how some of you struggle so pathetically with such simple concepts.

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump uses "we're looking at it" all the time, its his go to. Nothing ever happens though.

Seems like Miller has his Trump brand laser pointer out, to make the lib cats dance.

[Martinned]

Yes, isn't it funny how worked up the libs get about the constant stream of (possible) violations of the constitution? Oh we laughed and laughed!

[Supremacy Claus]

Lincoln had soldiers enter a courtroom and pistol whip a judge on the bench, haul him to prison, He was giving writs to dirty Confederate spies. Sounds correct.

[Speaking for normal people]

Lincoln DID suspend habeas corpus, so maybe you have that creepoing legal laziness Biden had, bottom 10 of his law class

[Dr. Ed 2]

How about addressing his actual Article 3 argument -- Congress has the authority to specify the jurisdiction of the inferior courts and has stated that immigration isn't included.

[Stephen Lathrop]

If this nation proves incapable to defend and keep its republican form of government, where is it headed? What form will its subsequent civil experience take?

Some commentary here wold make those questions for civil war or revolution to determine. I have been reading a book which suggests another possibility—a long interval without any resolution, just protracted deadly chaos and civil terror. The book, titled, Say Nothing, was written by Patrick Radden Keefe. It presents as a true account of four decades of the Irish, “Troubles,” as experienced by violent participants on the republican side.

It is impossible to read, Say Nothing, without noticing how this nation could be headed for a similarly protracted interval of struggle in chaotic quicksand. The circumstances in Ireland then were notably like circumstances in the United States now. Two factions, chaotic mis-government, two polities, each with an assured regional base, and each with extensive minority presence within its rival’s base. Nobody with vision, capacity, or even serious intent to bring violent chaos to an end.

Sound familiar? So imagine that blood-drenched interval re-enacted in this larger nation, at a scale proportionately magnified.

[Paladin_44]

Cue our own version of "Derry Girls"?

[Kazinski]

The UK Telegraph has an interesting article about whether the UK's grid has a similar vulnerability as Spain's grid does:

Britain could face months-long blackouts because of net zero
Grid operator has raised concerns that the switch from dependable gas to intermittent wind and solar power will ‘reduce network stability’

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/10/britain-blackouts-net-zero-ed-miliband/

Its paywalled but its quoted extensively here:

The National System Energy Operator (Neso), which runs the grid, published a report in that same month, which warned of an increased risk of “outages”. It set out that the reduction in “synchronous” power generation, such as from gas and nuclear, in favour of renewables “reduces network stability”. …

In response, Britain is having to invest large amounts of cash in “stability network services”, such as mass battery storage, to back up the system. Neso said the cost of these would “increase significantly by 2030, up to an estimated £1 billion a year”, citing modelling by Imperial College London. …

A report compiled by the Cabinet Office earlier this year found that the risk of a nationwide blackout was “low”, but that the effects would be devastating.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/11/britain-could-face-months-long-blackouts-because-of-net-zero/

Well scratch Britain off the list of potential sites for any AI data centers.

[Stephen Lathrop]

AI data centers have yet to show any convincing evidence of civil utility. Massive social disruptions for reasons having nothing to do with excessive electrical demand seems the likeliest near-term prospect. Advocacy to entail disruptive extra electrical demand on their behalf seems at least premature, and
likely foolish.

For now, this is not a nation positioned for another round of, "Let's see what happens when we do this."

[Kazinski]

If they don't build it, then no one will come.

One reason US consistently beats other developed countries growth is because we are making very little commitment to net zero even under Democrats, and none under Republicans.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784

[Mr. Bumble]

Europe needs Reddy Killowatt.

[Martinned]

Does this count?

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

[Mr. Bumble]

"The long-term goal of fusion research is to generate electricity. ITER's stated purpose is scientific research, and technological demonstration of a large fusion reactor, without electricity generation."
Hardly.

[Martinned]

There was a time when the US was also doing research and pursuing innovation...

[Kazinski]

Microsoft says we can't have fusion until.AI figures it out for us.

https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/09/microsoft_ai_fusion/

So how far away is ITER from.sustainable fusion?

40 years?

That's what they were saying 40 years ago.

[Zarniwoop]

Practical fusion power is always “40 years from now”

[Mr. Bumble]

Much like the disastrous effects of "climate change" are always "just" 5 or 10 years away.

[Brett Bellmore]

Still are, but ITER is, and for a long time has been, just a welfare program for physicists. Even if it did eventually achieve engineering breakeven, it's such a wildly expensive approach to fusion as to be utterly impractical.

[Sarcastr0]

Enabling basic research is good, actually. Going straight at a physics problem is often not the best method.

This isn’t an engineering problem yet.

[Michael P]

The physics of fusion have been understood for decades, with no substantial change. The basic problem is that stars make fusion work by volume that we cannot achieve, and nobody has a credible idea how to build a containment device with a positive energy balance. Calling that a physics problem is just hoping for a deus ex machina. All the work over the last several decades has been engineering work: leading edge and very specialized engineering, but mostly because everyone realizes fusion has long been stuck at the transition from step 1 into step 2:
1. Build tokamak.
2. ???
3. Profitable fusion!

[Brett Bellmore]

That's not entirely true: We've known since at least the 50's how to achieve a positive energy balance with fusion. It's just that people didn't like how large the "fuel pellets" had to be. But if we'd needed fusion power, we'd have it, I've actually seen a 1970's era design for a fusion powerplant. It would have worked just fine, it just wouldn't have been cost competitive with fission plants.

Fusion does not "want" to work both continuously and on a small scale at the same time. It "wants" to be either very sudden, or very large. Pick one.

Fission, by contrast, almost begs and pleads to work on a human scale. The Victorians could have built fission reactors if they'd known what to do. Uranium ore beds have literally gone critical in the ground and functioned as nuclear reactors!

Fusion is the best that has been chosen to be the enemy of fission, the good. Fission is the only sort of nuclear power we can currently do economically, and would be sufficient to power the entire world for another billion years or so.

[Sarcastr0]

The physics of hot and cold plasmas still has a ton to learn about.

[Brett Bellmore]

The basic physics are pretty clear, but the emergent properties are a bitch. It's not turtles all the way down, it's instabilities.

I think while any individual fusion startup faces terrible odds, if enough approaches are attempted, one is likely to work.

And still not be economically viable compared to simple fission.

But fusion, even if not economically viable on earth, has promise for rocketry in space. And maybe I'm wrong about the economics. I just happen to think we're better off pursuing a lot of relatively cheap approaches, rather than one maximally expensive approach.

[Sarcastr0]

You're papering over plenty of holes in our understanding in order to assume we have it all figured and the engineering requirements are well known.

ITER is still primarily a research project, not an engineering one. There is plenty of research in the grand challenge style of try-and-fail-and-learn.
Plus, plasma physics is useful for a ton of stuff beyond going straight at doing fusion.
-------------
One of the hardest things to explain about basic research is that it's not metrics-ready. If you start throwing an RoI into the equation, you will be leaving a ton of unexpected results on the table.
The threshold my office uses are:
1) is there a knowledge gap
2) is the research fundamental
3) is there a proper scientific predicate
4) is the approach technically sound

At that point, everything is fundable and what remains is picking the best one.
I've always thought we should consider doing a lottery there, but federal regs don't allow that.
The main question we ask review panelists to distinguish the remaining proposals is whether they think the approach is 'sweet' which is a largely intuitive thing - you need to trust the experts.
That and put them in a room and watch them argue it out about the top few proposals in their discipline.

[Brett Bellmore]

I like basic research as much as the next guy, but ITER isn't basic research, it's applied research with a specific end in mind: Building a practical tokamak.

[Sarcastr0]

"ITER is still primarily a research project, not an engineering one. There is plenty of research in the grand challenge style of try-and-fail-and-learn."

It has an 'aimed at' goal. That is not the same as not being basic research.
IMO the grant challenge model is one of the best ways to get basic engineering research out.

Were it only applied research I agree it's way too shaggy and unfocused.

[Mr. Bumble]

Brett's remora wakes up.

[Michael P]

The US is part of ITER, and recently finished the "Central Solenoid" component of it.

But the ITER people plan to vent 500 MW of heat, plus 250 MW of overhead energy, straight to the environment. These physicists are conspiring to contribute directly to global warming.

[Don Nico]

Michael,
The cycle of an ITER pulse is too short for the 500 MW to amount to a significant amount of thermal energy dumped into the atmosphere

[Don Nico]

ITER is an enormous boondoggle as its design (its plasma physics with low power density) does not scale to an operational power plant. Peter Kapitza recognized the unfavorable scaling of the tokomak decades ago.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — your are mistaken to refer to, "developed countries growth." That implies a relevant comparison of this nation's experience to that of other nations.

But this nation as a whole has not recently been growing. It has been growing mostly as a matter of economic and political advantages for an elite fraction. Those have reaped a vastly disproportionate share of all the proceeds of allegedly national economic growth. They are happy. The others—a notable majority—remain baffled by claims of largess which somehow never comes their way.

That fact, although inadequately reported, and widely misunderstood, has a lot to do with this nation's currently ongoing Constitutional crisis. Your own engagement seems to be on behalf of multiplying the misunderstandings, perhaps with an eye to make the crisis harder to resolve.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounds like Bernie Sanders is commenting under the name Steven Lathrop.

[Kazinski]

Well you are wrong of course.

I posted an analysis last summer that showed that in 2019, the last full year of Trump's first term before the pandemic, the real income of the lowest quintile went up by over 10%, the largest increase since before 1980.
See here:
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/26/monday-open-thread-68/?comments=true#comment-10700023

My best stuff is always worth rereading:

"The mean of the 5th Quintile of Household Income in 2019, the first full year of data after the corporate tax cut, inceased by 10.96%.

The data is here;
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/household-income-quintiles

10.96% is impressive on its own, but even more impressive in context, it was the best single year performance going all the way back to 1980.

Now I admit there might have been other factors responsible for the absolute highest percentage increase in income for the lowest Quintile going back to at least 1980 other than his corporate tax cut, it might have also beeen due to sharply cutting illegal immigration, since illegal immigrants compete with mostly the lowest quintile in the job market, since 2017 was the lowest single year for illegal border crossings going back to 1990."

I was trying to tell you then why Trump was going to get reelected, in large part because of voters in the lowest income quintile. But you didn't want to listen.

[jb]

Trump does deserve credit* for achieving real wage growth, especially for lower income workers. This is mostly the result of a change in Fed policy, though: Trump persuaded Powell not to preemptively raise rates as the economy reached "full employment" which allowed the labor market to become tight enough that employers actually had to raise wages.

Note that the 2019 increase in income wasn't confined to the lowest quintile so alternative explanations like fewer immigrants competing for jobs are unlikely. The top quintile saw 9.4% growth that same year, and the second quintile grew by 9.6%.

* This is one of the two things I think he did well in his first term.

[Mr. Bumble]

So, a rising tide lifts all boats.

[jb]

In this case, yes. That often hasn't been the case in the last several decades, though. From 1979-2019, real wage growth for the bottom decile was about half of median, and less than a third of the top decile's.

[David Nieporent]

The others—a notable majority—remain baffled by claims of largess which somehow never comes their way.

That fact, although inadequately reported, and widely misunderstood,

That is entirely backwards. It is ubiquitously reported, and given that it is entirely untrue, is 100% misunderstood.

[jb]

The US was consistently beating other countries' growth before anyone was making Net Zero commitments, so that's just you overlaying your policy preferences on data that is barely even loosely correlated with your hypothesis.

Also: most of the companies building AI data centers have their own emissions reductions goals, have been building data centers in countries with Net Zero targets this whole time, and also have backup generators.

[Brett Bellmore]

"AI data centers have yet to show any convincing evidence of civil utility."

So what? What relevance does that remark have to do with destabilizing the grid by adding poorly regulated sources?

Are you suggesting that blackouts are OK if you think one of the things power is used for is pointless?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, I cannot believe even you suppose pointless efforts justify multiplication of blackouts. A sensible person ought to conclude that if blackouts are too prevalent already, a policy to risk more of them needs to be supported by especially strong justifications.

Maybe you ought to rethink that comment.

Of course, your upcoming insistence to change the subject to unstable electrical grids will be anticipated by everyone.

[Kazinski]

Well I agree with you there, the grid is too fragile in the UK for any AI data centers, Spain and Germany too.

Which is why they will sit on the sidelines.

[jb]

https://www.fdiintelligence.com/content/38712096-ffd9-5ae4-ad55-26de856e5ae4

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
I urge you to look at the many statistics that describe the high level of Dunkelflautte that plague the UK as much a Germany.

[Speaking for normal people]

That's like saying farmers haven't shown evidence of civil utillity. here you are on the Internet using archived Google data from nightly sweeps of the Net and you say such a mindless thing. Your bank, all your important records, your whole email history, and for many students and remote workers your entire job depends on those data centers. I know, why don't you ask ChatGPT and see if I'm right.

[jb]

Lathrop's claim is that AI hasn't shown utility, not that datacenters haven't.

[Speaking for normal people]

All? Care to have a cup of moderation with me

Let's see what happens would be the case if we curtailed data centers !!!

[Malika the Maiz]

Anti-globalist, anti-elite President drains the swamp by accepting “flying palace” luxury jet from foreign oil sheiks!

Cultists rush to defend. Dupes gonna be duped, lol.

[A Woman of No Importance]

They think "but what about Hunter Biden" is a magical incantation that absolves Trump of any moral responsibility for anything.

And I have a question for the what abouters: Does that also work in reverse? If we were having a conversation about Hunter Biden, would "But what about Donald Trump" equally absolve Hunter? Or is that a one way street?

[Riva]

It’s not”what about Hunter Biden.” It’s what about the Big Guy, and his decades of treasonous influence peddling. Nobody would funnel millions to his crackhead son. They don’t want his art or his “creative “ selfies. He was just a bagman.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sadly, if even the bigly MAGA brains in the House of Representatives cannot find any credible evidence of Joe Biden taking any bribes, we'll probably never know for sure.

[A Woman of No Importance]

You didn't answer my question, which I will now rephrase: If we were having a conversation about the Big Guy, would "But what about Donald Trump" absolve Biden of moral culpability in the same way that you seem to think "But what about Biden" absolves Trump? Or is that a one way street?

[Riva]

President Trump had done nothing wrong. But the Big Guy? He has a lot of questions to answer. I wonder if he gave himself a blanket pardon?

[A Woman of No Importance]

"President Trump had done nothing wrong." Please tell me you're making a joke; I have a hard time believing even you are stupid enough to believe that.

[David Nieporent]

Bot is allergic to evidence. It's allergic to even the notion of evidence.

[Speaking for normal people]

Okay, and we just accept that you are of the highest moral fiber, an anoymous unknown yapping on the Internet. Got a mirror ????

[A Woman of No Importance]

I do my best to actually engage the arguments made by my opponents. So far nobody on the right has even bothered to try to answer what strikes me as a legitimate question:

"If we were having a conversation about Biden, would "But what about Donald Trump" absolve Biden of moral culpability in the same way that you seem to think "But what about Biden" absolves Trump? Or is that a one way street?"

Anyone?

[Riva]

That’s it, let it all out, little Malika, maybe you’ll eventually find some other nutcase to commiserate with on the issue.

[A Woman of No Importance]

She's a nutcase for calling out a fairly obvious case of influence peddling? Your moral compass is in obvious need of a new battery.

[Riva]

And it’s kismet already.

[SRG2]

Even Laura "Jigsaw' Loomer has criticised Trump for this.

[ThePublius]

You're a gullible dupe for believing the lying media on this story. Why not look into a bit rather than just swallow this nonsense?

"It’s a used airplane. Two weeks ago, the transaction was reported by all the major media outlets and reported as completely benign. Nothing about the transaction has changed.

Two weeks later this is being spun as “out of the blue,” a “terrorist-supporting” Qatar is “bribing Trump” with a free “$400 million” 747 for his “personal” use."

Boeing was contracted during Trump's first term to build replacements for the planes that date to George H.W. Bush's administration. They are years behind schedule, $2B over budget at this point, and are now saying the planes won't be done until 2035!

I think this is pretty creative on the administration's part, to replace the aging planes.

[Sarcastr0]

"the transaction."

[ThePublius]

Do you have something substantive to add? Or are you just throwing stones again, as usual?

[David Nieporent]

Yes. Two weeks ago, nobody was reporting that Trump was going to be stealing the plane after his presidency ended.

[ThePublius]

Stealing? Really? Can you back that up?

[David Nieporent]

Really. Did you miss the part of the story where he would give it to his library as he leaves office? I'd post links, but (a) this was so widely reported that I can't believe you're even asking in good faith; and (b) I know the drill. I post one and MAGA will sneer, "NYT? Washington Post? They're woke liberal DEI so you can't believe them."

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, this plane is only meant to be used for a few years, it's a stopgap because Boeing is being inexcusably slow in delivering the new Air Force One that we ordered years ago. It's intended to be mothballed once the real Air Force One is delivered.

And it's not like there isn't precedent for Air Force One to be retired to a presidential library.

But it's not a great look, either, and Trump had to know that absolutely anything he does will be portrayed by most of the media as a crime. So maybe he should have arranged for it to go to Udvar Hazy, instead.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't mind me; you're doing a pretty great job discrediting yourself; I'm just pointing out some of your more telling missteps.

[ThePublius]

No, you're just a troll, Sarcastr0.

[jb]

All the talking points developed over the weekend in one post. Sweet!

Conveniently absent from your narrative is the fact that Trump gets to keep the plane for his personal use after he's done being President, which wasn't reported two weeks ago and which is what makes the "transaction" so problematic.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump gets to keep the plane for his personal use after he's done being President"

Does he?

Its being transferred to his library. Is it for eventual display or to be flown?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's for eventual display.

[Martinned]

Sure, Jan.

[Don Nico]

I wish that the OLC and DOJ would have found excuses to reject the gift from Qatar which has been the moneybags for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. The "gift" is just another effort to pull the wool over the already shut eyes of US administrations.

[Kazinski]

Despite saying above that people shouldn't be arrested for there opinions, there isn't any reason not to arrest a congresswoman for assault of, and interfering with a federal officer.

Pretty chaotic and dangerous situation at the NJ ICE facility, in fact I've seen unarmed protesters shot for less trying to breach another federal building. In this case the federal officers kept their cool and arrested one protester, but there should be other arrests based on the video.

DHS spokesperson threatens arrests of House Democrats who were at N.J. ICE facility
Tricia McLaughlin accused members of Congress of assaulting and even body-slamming ICE officers. A congresswoman who was present denied the allegation

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/dhs-spokesperson-threatens-arrests-house-democrats-nj-ice-facility-rcna206052

You can see the assault in this video:
https://youtu.be/NPQ5tZeR3_s?si=BUYk6paLdbfI6YJP

[Martinned]

Of course. Arresting opposition members of the legislature is all fine.

[Kazinski]

Only if they clearly break the law.

"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same;"

The video clearly shows an assault which is a breach of the peace.

No one is above the law, or so I've heard.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who is this "no one" of whom you speak?

[Martinned]

No one is above the law, or so I've heard.

I don't know where you might have heard that. Certainly not on this blog, where the consensus in the comments for the last few years has been that even a candidate for political office or a former office-holder shouldn't be arrested or prosecuted under any circumstances.

[Mr. Bumble]

"I don't know where you might have heard that."
Probably from Lucretia James for example?

[Martinned]

Surely you're not suggesting that Kaz might care what she thinks about anything?

[TwelveInchPianist]

What are you talking about? There is a broad consensus that some former candidates/officeholders should be prosecuted. But there is disagreement over which candidates/officeholders.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Felony and Breach of the Peace" means any criminal case.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, I guess you bought the caption, instead of the full video context. The full video shows the Mayor of Newark, and 3 members of Congress, doing basically nothing but hanging out in a public space, while waiting for permission they had applied for to proceed further. Then, those officials, there in a public space, on official business, were rushed and assaulted in a coordinated attack by what seem to be agents of 3 separate law enforcement agencies. An attempt by members of Congress to tightly surround the mayor as he is being inexplicably attacked by law enforcement, for no apparent reason, is what you characterize as an assault on law enforcement.

Once again, your representations on this blog turn out to be lies. A question whether those lies are intended by you, or by others you should stop attending to, only charity to you at this point can justify. At this point it has happened too often to cede you any claim to be credible.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Stop resisting!

[ThePublius]

You're full of it, Stephen. The mayor had no authority to enter the facility, and no permission, yet persisted in attempting to enter. The congress people there became physically violent when denied access.

[Brett Bellmore]

The politicians here didn't have to claim that the badgecam footage was fabricated because it supported their version of events, you should be able to figure out that much.

[bernard11]

Get serious, Kazinski. The video doesn't clearly show anything. The pushing and shoving, which we can hardly see, is completely out of context.

Without a clearer video, and without seeing how the whole thing started, we learn nothing about the incident.

[Sarcastr0]

The main thing this shows us is who on here is eager to see an escalation to jailing the opposition.

Not too many surprises there.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, apparently we're now in a year where violent acts against law enforcement caught on camera must be put "in context" and subjected to endless wrangling over "who started it." So hard to keep track.

[Sarcastr0]

I'll put you down on the jail the opposition side.

"violent acts." Really showing your authoritarian ass.

[Life of Brian]

"Put me down" wherever floats your boat, ya tribal putz. We just came out of years of "jail the opposition" over walking through a friggin building. Congresscritters don't get some sort of ruling-class exemption to play vigilante.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And there it is.

Democrat members of the legislature are above the law!

[Speaking for normal people]

Logic 101, that ONLY is relevant if it matters. You can't say that because someone is opposition that they can't be arrested. But of course you say dumb sht like that on here a lot.
AOC said 'come and get me" because she knows people like you exempt her from any wrongdoing

[tylertusta]

I wish the US government would stop the fence-sitting on India and Pakistan.

The sooner DC realizes that Pakistan is not worth our time, the better off we will all be.

[Commenter_XY]

Edan Alexander coming home after 584 days in captivity.

Thank you, POTUS Trump.

[Kazinski]

Trump had an OK weekend, but India and Pakistan are the big winners.

Although the NY Times is trying to downplay it a little:

"As Truce Seems to Hold, India and Pakistan Both Claim Victory
The Trump administration’s public descriptions of its role in the mediation seemed to touch some sensitive spots politically in India."

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/11/world/asia/india-pakistan-kashmir-ceasefire.html

Indian sources seem a little more upbeat:

"In a new post via his social media platform, 'Truth Social', Trump thanked the leaders of India and Pakistan for understanding that “it [was] time to stop the current aggression” and said their legacies had been “greatly enhanced” by their “brave actions.”

"I am very proud of the strong and unwaveringly powerful leadership of India and Pakistan for having the strength, wisdom, and fortitude to fully know and understand that it was time to stop the current aggression that could have lead to to the death and destruction of so many, and so much. Millions of good and innocent people could have died! Your legacy is greatly enhanced by your brave actions," Trump wrote.

Referring to the US role in brokering the deal, Trump added that he would substantially increase trade with both countries, even as his administration continues to impose global tariffs — including on India and Pakistan."

https://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2025/May/11/trump-promises-increased-trade-praises-india-pakistan-leaders-wisdom-in-new-post-after-ceasefire

[Martinned]

the US role in brokering the deal

Seriously? Last week Trump didn't even seem to know where Pakistan was, and now you're going to let him get away with claiming credit for this non-ceasefire.

[Frank Drackman]

Pakistan is a country that’s being recognized more and more I notice

[Kazinski]

Well Pakistan seems to know who he is:

Pakistan welcomes Trump's offer to mediate Kashmir dispute after India ceasefire
PM Shehbaz thanks US president for "invaluable offer" to play role in bringing lasting peace to South Asia

https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/1310582-pakistan-welcomes-trumps-offer-to-mediate-kashmir-dispute-after-india-ceasefire

[Martinned]

Gee, I wonder why the authorities in Pakistan concluded that flattering Trump might be a good idea.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, I'm cool with India and Pakistan not going to war, even if it makes Trump look better. You should be, too.

[Mr. Bumble]

Pretty obvious that to certain people nothing Trump does would "make him look better" (well short of being removed from office, dying or resigning).

[Martinned]

1. Trump didn't do anything.
2. When Trump does do something, it invariably makes him look worse.

So, yeah?

[Frank Drackman]

Sometimes not doing anything is the best thing you can do (HT Y. Berra)

[Speaking for normal people]

I saw Biden on the View and I think what a fool Bumble must be to think saying that Trump isn't Biden is a put-down !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks troll. Want to point to where I said that?

[Kazinski]

Martinned was waiting was waiting for Starmer or Macron to step up and broker a ceasefire, but I don't think they have the juice, maybe Meloni could have pulled it off.

It certainly wasn't going to be Xi or Putin, or Carney.

[Martinned]

If it was going to be anyone it was going to be Xi. But as it happens, India and Pakistan have decades of experience ramping tensions up and down. No need for an ignorant American baboon to get involved.

[Sarcastr0]

The day after Vance said it was none of America's business, Trump pushed on an open door and took credit.

No one much cares, except for cheerleaders like Kaz.

[tylertusta]

If it was going to be anyone it was going to be Xi

This is classified under "things that would never happen."

[Sarcastr0]

Flat wrong - China would love to supplant the US as the peace-broker of the world, and is trying to take credit here.

https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202505/12/WS6821be6ba310a04af22bed4c.html

[tylertusta]

Flat wrong

No. Xi may or may not want to try to claim credit for it, but India would sooner go to war against both at the same time than accept a Chinese-brokered cease fire.

India's hostile relationship with China goes back nearly as far as India's hostile relationship with Pakistan. Perhaps India would start listening to China if Xi gave back the parts of Kashmir that the PRC currently occupies. Look up Aksai Chin.

That's why India accepted the American proposal and didn't care for whatever China said on the matter.

Here's a map of Kashmir for context:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Kashmir_region._LOC_2003626427_-_showing_sub-regions_administered_by_different_countries.jpg/1280px-Kashmir_region._LOC_2003626427_-_showing_sub-regions_administered_by_different_countries.jpg

[Sarcastr0]

IIRC China and India are pretty strong trading partners; I think you're being pretty reductive in your characterization here.

You're the one that wants us to step back from the area, right? Who do you think would fill that space?

India may not like dealing with China, but we're doing what we can to force them into one another's arms.

[tylertusta]

... reductive ...

You keep using that word. It does not mean what you think it means.

Trade by itself does not make countries into friends. One need only examine the Sino-American relations today to understand that. Our economies are intimately linked yet we're a few short years away from shooting at each other over Taiwan.

History is littered with other examples of trading partners that warred with each other. Here's another: Before WW1, many thought that a major war in Europe was impossible as the economic ties because it would ruin the economies of everybody. See the The Great Illusion.

Trade does not stop wars because other factors inevitably outweigh it. The Brits and Germans were trading partners until Germany's invasion of Belgium and a potential German hegemony over the continent directly threatened British security, hence their intervention in WW1.

You're the one that wants us to step back from the area, right?

I said that the US needs to stop fence-sitting. That doesn't mean that we get out of the area. That means that we pick a side instead of trying to pick both sides. The US trying to be friends to both has hurt our ability to be friends with either.

Pakistan has proven to be not only unreliable, but has provided assistance to our enemies in the midst of a shooting war.

but we're doing what we can to force them into one another's arms.

Hahahahaha. Nice one.

Trump has already made progress in bringing India into our orbit. India needs equipment to counter China's arming of Pakistan.

The F-35 agreement that Trump got India to agree to was for India to not only counter China's own stealth aircraft based along the border with India, but also to counter China's sale of J-35 fighters to Pakistan.

[David Nieporent]

Our economies are intimately linked yet we're a few short years away from shooting at each other over Taiwan.

Um, that's because Trump is doing everything he can to delink said economies.

[tylertusta]

An addendum:

If you're interested in learning about the region and the international relations of India, Pakistan, China, USSR/Russia, and the United States, I recommend a lecture series from Sarah Paine on Youtube.

https://youtu.be/LbkO84MsmyM

[tylertusta]

Um, that's because Trump is doing everything he can to delink said economies.

Since your world revolves around Trump, and since you think that he is the root of all evil, it makes sense that you would say this.

China's military buildup predated Trump's first term and was such a problem that Obama made his 'pivot to asia' before Trump descended the escalator in 2015.

China's buildup is clearly aimed at expanding their regional control to break through what they perceive as an encirclement. In China's view, India is part of the encirclement, as is Taiwan.

Our conflict with China will be over Taiwan. China has spent the past decade and a half making all of the preparations they need to blockade or invade Taiwan. The invasion timetable has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with the political imperative for the CCP to be seen as finishing off Taiwan. The timetable has been moved up due to impending collapse of the Chinese demography and economy, which is why China built invasion barges during the Biden administration and not as a result of tariffs that hadn't happened yet.

[Bob from Ohio]

This is classified under "things that would never happen."

No joke. Pakistan is a Chines client state and gets its weapons from China.

India would agree to Xi only if it had already lost a nuclear war. Maybe not even then!

[tylertusta]

I think the reason why some believe that India and China are warming up to each other is because of the BRICS hype. BRICS is all hype, and in practice it's a joke.

India and China last fought over Kashmir just five years ago, resulting in the deaths of nearly two dozen Indian soldiers.

The idea that India would accept a Chinese-brokered cease fire over Kashmir is just laughable.

[John F. Carr]

Al Jazeera says Pakistan won. Al Jazeera may be a bit biased.

[Martinned]

It looks like the Dutch government is pivoting on Israel/Palestine: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-853358

For reference, this is what it says in the EU-Israel association agreement:

Article 1
2. The aims of this Agreement are:
(...) to encourage regional cooperation with a view to the consolidation of peaceful coexistence and economic and political stability (...)

Article 2
Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internaland international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement.

https://eeas.europa.eu/archives/delegations/israel/documents/eu_israel/asso_agree_en.pdf

[Michael P]

Remember who has taken over the Dutch streets: https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/12/europe/amsterdam-riot-police-soccer-violence-intl/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/24/europe/dutch-soccer-riots-men-sentenced-intl/index.html

[Martinned]

Ajax lost 3-0 this weekend, so I don't think you have to worry about hooligans drinking too much. Then again, I don't know why you mention it anyway, given that it has nothing to do with the Dutch policy about Israel.

[SRG2]

Whar happened to Dutch football? I can't remember the last time anyone thought, "damn, we've been drawn in the same group as Ajax"?

[Martinned]

Ajax was great in 2019, but the perpetual problem is how to be consistently good when all your best players leave when they're in their early 20s. And they haven't managed that.

[SRG2]

It's tough. I think that the commercial success of football, particularly the Premiership, has distorted national leagues elsewhere. Mid-table English clubs can afford €20mm and up to buy players, and can retain players worth €50mm+, It's not just Barca/Real/PSG/Man Cheaty/Liverpool etc who can buy your best players. Half the Premiership clubs can do so.

[Martinned]

Dutch football has been in that position for decades. (And certainly since Bosman.)

Which is of course the interesting legal question: Will we ever see any consequences of the ECJ's Diarra judgment? https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/ecj-decision-diarra-case-some-fifas-players-transfer-rules-are-incompatible-eu-law

[jb]

Speck in the eye, no?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42943824

[Michael P]

If you're going to whatabout, you might as well go a little more recent and quote CNN's coverage of the "fiery but mostly peaceful" riots in 2020.

But those riots didn't take a position on Israel vs Muslim colonists.

[jb]

Oh, sorry. I didn't look at the date since the exact same thing just happened a few months ago: https://abc7ny.com/post/philadelphia-eagles-fans-riot-dozens-arrested-win-super-bowl-pennsylvania-police-say/15889425/

[Frank Drackman]

Why is Mahmoud Khal-Kill still in jail? (And not back in Syria where he belongs)

[Frank Drackman]

Approaching the 5th Anniversary of the OD death of Floyd George, and I’ve got just 1 question
Anyone know what happened to his Mercedes? Asking for a friend

Frank

[ReaderY]

Herr Hitler managed ro persuade President Hindenberg to suspend German civil liberties less than 2 months after becoming Chancellor. In floating suspension four months after becoming President, Trump is operating more slowly than Hitler. But it should now be clear beyond all question that he is following the same path.

Exactly like Hitler, Trump is using claims that the country is under attack by an enemy - Hitler’s initial enemies were the Communists - to justify suspending civil liberties. And like Hitler, nobody should be so naive as to think that this suspension will be limited to the designated enemy. If he succeeds, it will be used to seize power and deport his political opponents, including judges who have ruled against him as his Mother’s Day message suggests, to those Central American concentration camps he has arranged to be set up to receive them.

Nobody should doubt this any more. Whether the Republic survives now depends on whether lower-level officials will obey Trump, or whether enough of them will obey the courts. It is not clear which way they will go. Trump has been doing his best to replace people loyal to the Republic with people personally loyal to him.

Chancelor Hitler was careful to follow the letter of the Weimar Constitution in converting the Weimar Republic into the Third Reich. President Trump may simply be less conscientious about such niceties than Hitler was. He may not have to be. If his legal strategy fails, January 6 shows he is perfectly capable of pursuing an extra-legal strategy.

[Frank Drackman]

You left out that Hitler had Bone Spurs and didn't drink Alcohol

[Michael P]

Donald Trump is worse than Hitler because at least Hitler served in the military, and Hitler still had the Chancellor above him when he started. Nobody should doubt this any more.

[Frank Drackman]

Hitler did kill millions of Russians though

[Michael P]

The Russians were doing a pretty good job of that by themselves. Let's not forget his greatest contribution to the world: He also killed Hitler.

[Riva]

Was President Lincoln Hitler too, little Readery? Hitler before Hitler was even a glint in the milkman’s eye and long before idiot trolls or Godwin’s law existed.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Trump isn't "America's Hitler", despite what JD Vance(TM) once infamously claimed.

(Ironically, I suspect JD Vance(TM) would be more likely than Trump to actually carry through with something like this.)

[ReaderY]

I acknowledge there has been a lot of crying wolf over the years. But sometimes the wolf actually comes. And as the late Justice Scalia put it, this wolf comes as a wolf.

Trump has in fact engaged in both words and behavior remarkably similar to Hitler’s in the first few months of his administration. He is seeking a permanent Prssidency. (have you seen all the the Trump 2028 posters). He has focused the public’s attention on designated enemies, foreigners who are supposedly destroying the country. He is not-too-subtly attempting to base the concept of membership in the nation on purity of blood. He has denounced people loyal to the old Republic’s constitution as traitors. And he is seriously talking about suspending civil liberties.

This is the real thing. It’s serious stuff.

[Riva]

Not a lot of “crying wolf,” but just a shit load of plain, flat out lies, fraud, and massive abuses of government prosecutorial powers. All directed at destroying the democrat’s main political opponent. There are fascistic abuses in this repulsive story and they all relate to the conduct of democrats and their paid activist supporters.

[SRG2]

Ah, the tyranny of trying to stop a tyrant. The replicans went along with almost every unqualified loyalist Trump nominated for positions in his regime. Fealty to the regime matters more than competence, experience, and knowledge.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fancy that, the opposing party didn't like Trump's nominees. So freaking what? If you want nominees you like, you have to win the election.

[SRG2]

I do not expect that a GOP president's nominees agree with me on policy. I am entitled to expect that they meet the minimum standards for the position. Are you so stupid or blind that you think that, say, Hegseth or RFKjr were qualified for the positions to which they've been appointed? Crowing about winning elections is a separate issue.

I know that "owning the libs" has become another right-wing sacrament but this genuflection to loyalist incompetence will damage everyone, not just "libs".

[Brett Bellmore]

After four years of an administration that didn't even demand basic sanity in its nominees, let alone competence, I don't really care. Wake me when RFK Jr or Hegseth start parading around in stolen dresses.

[David Nieporent]

Wake me when RFK Jr or Hegseth start parading around in stolen dresses.

RFKJ would need many years of psychiatric treatment — more years than he likely has left at his age — before his sanity improved to that level.

As for Hegseth, nobody thinks he's crazy. Just drunk, unqualified, and incompetent.

[Riva]

Well, I'll certainly concede gov't funded Democrat leaning activist "non-profit" NGOs pay well to attack Democrat opponents and further the Democrat agenda. Or is that agenda driven by the activist NGOs? Corruption can be so confusing. And probably should have used past tense since President Trump stopped their grifting.

[SRG2]

So only Replicans should be allowed to grift. Got it.

[ReaderY]

Plenty of Hitler’s supporters similarly pooh-poohed claims he was dangerous as a bunch of overblown hooey.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, they thought he was LESS dangerous than Stalin's Commies, and they initially were right. But what they overlooked was the angst of what should have been a German middle class.

This usually devolves into "it was the Jew's fault" and that is NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT what I mean. And the majority of the German elite weren't even Jewish in the first place.

But it was the same basic dynamics as underlay the American Revolution, and the British there (and French here) got too greedy and wound up with a problem they didn't need.

The economic situation in Germany was intentable -- Woodrow Wilson correctly predicted WWII -- and imagine a Hitler who was bright enough to (a) direct the resources wasted on the two battleships into submarines and (b) not invade Russia, or do it the following April with massive stockpiles on the border.

I've also seen the claim that Hitler wasn't planning to start the war until 1942 or '43 and that Mussolini forced him to start it earlier.

FDR thought that Huey Long was the "most dangerous man in America" and how'd that wind up?

[SRG2]

As I've said before, Trump isn't Hitler, but, first, Hitler wasn't HITLER in 1932 and second, how many of the cultists would have voted for Hitler in 1932/3? Almost every last pro-Trump poster here would have done, either dismissing Hitler's own words as rhetorical excess or taking them seriously and voting for him because of what he said.

The economic recovery/boom under Hitler would not have reduced their support for him - so what if there's a Dachau or two? That's for "those people".

From which I conclude that it will not be Trump's attempt at becoming a dictator that will turn off the cultists here and elsewhere. It will be when Trump fails to deliver on his economic promises. If he did, they would not mind if he set up a Dachau-on-the-Mississippi. Hell, they'd cheer it.

[apedad]

The Hitler-Trump comparison isn't appropriate.

Hitler had a long-range detailed plan (he wrote a book about it).

Trump's just winging it, jumping from issue to issue at whatever whim or whoever has his ear at the moment.

Just look at Trump's entire career; Trump casinos, Trump Airlines, Trump Vodka, Trump wine, Trump "branding," etc.

He's just a guy looking for a buck - AND NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT - but he has zero strategic or long-range vision, including now.
Trump University, Trump

[Martinned]

He's just a guy looking for a buck - AND NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT

There would be nothing wrong with that if he wasn't an (elected) official. As it is, there are a lot of things wrong with that.

[David Nieporent]

Well, that, plus when he was a private citizen he didn't care whether the way he got the bucks was legal.

[ReaderY]

Interesting to learn that Trump took control of the Republican Party, converted its membership into acolytes, got rid of most of its leadership and converted the rest, etc. etc. etc. by sheer random accident. He was just sort of wandering around aimlessly and it all just kind of happened.

Even more interesting to learn that Project 2025 was just a happenstance product of monkeys with typewriters.

[Dr. Ed 2]

See: Franklin Roosevelt who did the exact same thing...

[Brett Bellmore]

They've never quite figured out how to square the claim that Trump is an existential threat to democracy with the claim that he's a total moron who just spasms around randomly. I don't think the disconnect between these claims even bothers them.

[David Nieporent]

Those aren't even remotely incompatible. Destroying things doesn't take competence.

[Speaking for normal people]

I might use this in class , it is so stupid. A country can't be under attack because if it is and you do anyting you are Hitler. Yeah, class will like this

[Krayt]

Freedom is commonly lost by the people letting the executive have emergency powers to deal with things. They then use the emergency powers to lock down control.

This is such a common lesson from history, and probably the greatest one to learn, for those who love freedom, that George Lucas used it as the background intrigue for the Star Wars prequels.

The "phantom menace" was manipulating the Trade Federation dispute into a military emergency. It was nothing of the sort. Of course, the non-phantom menace was the emperor aborning who pushed it all, then, "regrettably", accepted the emergency powers, but just "until the crisis was over". Cheers all around the legislature!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Rome was conquered by unarmed (by Roman standards) invaders...

[Bob from Ohio]

"Exactly like Hitler, Trump"

Oh, a Hitler comparison again. And at Lathrop length!

[Armchair]

More insurrection by Democrats against the legitimate authority of the United States. This time in Massachusetts. Democratic politician incites crowd to attack federal law enforcement officers.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/05/insurrection-in-massachusetts.php

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Should it be punished?

[ThePublius]

How can you even ask that question, unless you are totally ignorant of the circumstances? Did you read the article, at least? The Worcester city councilwoman not only incited violence at the scene, she assaulted law enforcement personnel:

"This councilor participated in the conduct of the unruly crowd and eventually assaulted both Worcester police and federal law enforcement officers on scene. Her behavior also emboldened others to act in this manner."

Now what do you think?

[Sarcastr0]

As a wise man once said: "You're a gullible dupe for believing the lying media on this story. Why not look into a bit rather than just swallow this nonsense?"

[Michael P]

Denialist employees his usual tactics. News at ... never, because everyone expects it.

[ThePublius]

I watched the video, you dope!

[Sarcastr0]

Did you? It's not linked in your powerline article. And it does not look very violent.

Do you believe that this lays the predicate for anything criminal:
“Etel Haxhiaj incited aggression towards the police during the incident. This councilor participated in the conduct of the unruly crowd and eventually assaulted both Worcester police and federal law enforcement officers on scene. Her behavior also emboldened others to act in this manner."

I know you want the left 'taken care of, hopefully harshly' from a previous comment. I think you wish for an ideological crackdown may be causing you to exaggerate the issue here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The standard is Jan 6th, and that wasn't very violent on an individual basis. And as they were denied bail, why not here?

[Anony262]

What sort of due process is actually required in the immigration context? I know from experience that due process in other, non-criminal matters is far less than the process a person can expect in criminal matters. Take, for example, Title IX proceedings in college settings. At many schools, the respondent can have counsel but the respondent him or herself is required to ask any questions to the witnesses (and someone may only submit questions in writing that the tribunal may or may not ask). The proceedings are often farcical. But, as far as I am aware, such proceedings have been held to provide adequate due process. Could the same standard apply in the context of immigration proceedings?

[Martinned]

Apparently whatever process may be due, it doesn't involve anything in the way of an interpreter or a legal adviser. So that's functionally equivalent to no process at all, I'd argue.

[ThePublius]

You are so full of it. You just lie, and lie, and lie to promulgate your hatred for the U.S. and its current administration.

"In deportation hearings, immigrants have the right to an interpreter and legal assistance. Interpreters ensure clear communication, while legal counsel helps navigate the complex legal process. ICE provides translation services and legal aid organizations offer assistance, especially for those facing deportation. "

Language assistance:
https://www.ice.gov/detain/language-access

Legal assistance:
https://www.ice.gov/about-ice/opla

In addition, there are many advocacy groups that provide assistance.

[Martinned]

Sure, the advocacy groups try to provide assistance because otherwise kids end up standing in front of a judge on their own: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/17/politics/immigration-court-minors

[Dr. Ed 2]

WHO FUNDS THE ADVOCACY GROUPS??????

[Martinned]

George Soros?

[tylertusta]

Here's a summary of what process is due:

https://arvian-immigration.com/understanding-the-deportation-process/

One caveat to that link's summary is that circuit courts of appeals can hear appeals for final orders of removal, and SCOTUS may elect to hear appeals from there, but Congress has limited what can be appealed to Article III courts (with good reason).

[Moderation4ever]

The need for speed? My local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, was filled with articles this morning about vehicle speeds. First was a report of high speeds on Madison local inner-urban highway, The Beltline, with last year having 12 citations for speeds in excess of 100 mph this year and already this year. A second article about states wanting authority to put speed control devices on vehicles used by drivers with records of driving at excessive speeds. Finally an article about city planners using road diets to control speeds in city streets. The article about really high speed driving have made me wonder why car are made to travel at such high speeds. I would think a car would need no more than a top speed of 85 mph. This is plenty of speed for occasionally passing a slower vehicle. Especially given that 70 mph is the usual top speed for cars on controlled enter/exit highways.

[Brett Bellmore]

Cars are made to be capable of traveling at such high speeds, because that way they have adequate operating margin at the speeds they normally are used at.

You don't want to be driving down the expressway at 70mph, your engine is red lined, your tires about to tear themselves apart, the brakes utterly hopeless to stop you in an emergency. You want the car to be able to pass, to accelerate decently, even at the highest speed you'll be using it at. And to handle well at those speeds, too. I recall a trip I was on last year, and a 6x6 timber fell off a truck ahead of me on the expressway. My car went on two wheels evading it, but I DID evade it.

You also need the potential to seriously exceed the speed limit in emergency situations. Like, you're driving along minding your business, and see a damned tornado overtaking you in the rear view mirror.

Finally, the whole auto manufacturer and customer base still have not abandoned the hope that our long national nightmare of Puritanically low speed limits on expressways designed for 85-90mph will eventually end.

[Speaking for normal people]

Still the neighborhood jerk is just like what you describe but has glass packs...That's okay for you but we all hate it. A lot of those cars are driven by borderline social misfits unmarried and between 20-34, heavy drinkers or drug users and will glady join you in your ridiculous crusade if you use the word 'puritanical

[Brett Bellmore]

We routinely mock people with deliberately loud vehicles, in our family. Some idiot owned car emitting a roar as it pulls away from the stoplight, while being passed by somebody in a quiet compact car...

[Dr. Ed 2]

30 over is a criminal offense in most states.

People in jail aren't driving.

[ducksalad]

Really? Around here you wouldn't be arrested unless they tacked on reckless or racing.

90 in a 55 zone only got my friend a ticket. And I know others who got a ticket for 100+ in a 70 zone.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's only 35 over, and at a criminal trial, a good lawyer can impeach the 6 mph -- urban Interstates are still 55 so we're talking 50 over, a lawyer (usually) can't get around that.

It's why speed limits came to end in 5s when speedometer calebrations ended in 0s -- 5 MPH variance.

And it's cop's discretion...

[Moderation4ever]

The reality is that we have a real reluctance in this country to penalize bad driving until they kill people. The average American is dependent on their car and this leads to leniency. I read all the time about people driving after multiple OWI arrest and wonder why. I am willing to give a first time OWI a break, but not after first. Second offense loss of license for 10 years and a lifetime suspension for any additional OWI's. I know multiple offenders are driving without a license, but someone giving them access to a car and that person should also be penalized.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem is that then becomes a disability and they wind up living off the government for the rest of their lives.
My sister did that at age 27, she bought a house, had a child (without husband) and got a master's degree -- all while "unable" to work.

That's now -- imagine a real barrier to work like no license.

[Moderation4ever]

Brett, I am not suggesting that cars be built to only go 85 mph, but rather that is the maximum speed allowed. A driver would not be red lining the vehicle at 85 mph. All cars today run on computer and could be programed to limit the speed to 85 mph. Law enforcement vehicles could have the computer swapped out to allow higher speeds.

[ducksalad]

All cars today run on computer and could be programed to limit the speed to 85 mph.

If they can be programmed they can be reprogrammed. Even if the code protect was really good, "unlocked" versions would be on Ebay within a few months.

[Moderation4ever]

First I doubt that many would actually purchase an unlocked version. Second, operating with an unlock version would mean your vehicle is no longer street legal and could confiscated. Going 100 mph is no longer a ticket it is losing your car.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How long did it take to catch Mercedes-Benz? And that was all vehicles, all the time.

Besides, the auto loan companies would never allow confiscation, and that would even be without the "defective goods" defense.

Prove that I put the chip in there. I'd never driven over 80 before, so I never knew....

[ducksalad]

In theory. I doubt the Feds are going to create their own highway patrol, so enforcement would be left up to the states, and your initiative would most likely be coded as "a Democrat law".

So Texas would only do selective enforcement, or in other words, targeting people the cops wanted to stop anyway.

Losing a car or even being arrested for simply driving 100 mph is not likely. Someone ...um, I know very well...got just a ticket for 90 in a 55 zone. I know others personally who got a ticket for 100+ in a 70 zone.

When they want to do an arrest and impoundment they'll tack on something like "reckless" or "racing".

[Brett Bellmore]

At certain hours and locations on I 385, if you're not driving at least 80 people are going to be passing you. I'm cool with the occasional person passing me; As I tell my son, the secret to never getting a speeding ticket is just never being the fastest car around.

But if you're going slow enough that everybody is passing you, you're obstructing traffic, even if you are driving at the speed limit.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I'm suggesting that putting speed limiters on cars would be unpopular enough to end political careers. It would piss me off, and I've never gotten a speeding ticket in my entire life.

And that's without the way the speed would start creeping down once they got their foot in the door.

[Zarniwoop]

Really? I had a mid-00s Chevy Malibu for a while. The speed governor was set at 105mph.

I would occasionally maintain that for extended periods of time in western Nebraska and Wyoming. It was stable and responsive. I would have liked to be able to go 110 or 120, but not enough to bother getting an after-market chip installed … much less ending someone’s political career.

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course buying that car with that feature was your choice. Not the same as having no choice.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The government could enforce such a top speed limit using its police power--it would hardly even need a reason. There is no "2nd Amendment" relating to fast cars.

I happen to like fast cars, so I would rather the government didn't do that, but I also assume that some sort of top speed limit will happen soon somewhere, and that trend will simply build and build until it is considered "normal" within any jurisdiction monitored by Main Force Patrol...

[Brett Bellmore]

State governments could, as they actually HAVE the police power. The federal government was deliberately denied that power outside of federal enclaves purchased with the consent of state legislatures.

Unfortunately the Court has allowed the federal government to create an unreasonable facsimile of the police power by simply reciting some words about interstate commerce, or bribing state governments with money extracted from the states' own citizens.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Intestate Highway Act -- states sold a lot to get the 90% free money.

[ThePublius]

Car control? Assault car bans? What's next, gun control?

Oh, never mind.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Maine is 75 on most of the 120 mules of I-95 between Bangor & Canada. And 75 into a 40 MPH wind is like 100.

[ducksalad]

"I would think a car would need no more than a top speed of 85 mph."

Do you live in Vermont or something?

We've got plenty of roads with a posted 85mph speed limit, which around here means that's the expected right lane speed and anyone in the left lane is expected to be moving faster.

[Mr. Bumble]

Curious, where is here?

[Moderation4ever]

A check of maximum speed limits by states suggest that only Texas has post 85 mph. Some western states have maximum posted speed limits of 80. In all cases these higher speed are on specific segments of highway. I think a maximum vehicle speed of 85 mph work work well.

BTW - how often are you driving a segment with an 85 mph speed maximum.

[ducksalad]

how often are you driving a segment with an 85 mph speed maximum.

Maybe 15-16 times a year for a total of 1400 miles or so. We live in Edinburg but have a lot of family in DFW. The main obstructions are San Antonio and Austin, but fortunately there's a bypass around both of them, SH130-SH45. Sections of it are posted at 85mph, others at 80mph. I guess you could call it a "maximum" but traffic actually moves at 90mph +/- most of the time, which is in line with how Texas enforces posted limits on most highways.

530 miles and we try to make it in 8 hours, including three pit stops and the permanent traffic jam that is called Waco. We need to average 80mph while the car is moving and not in Waco.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I have found that speeds above 85 MPH do not save time on long distances because you spend more time refueling than you save.

[Bob from Ohio]

"states wanting authority to put speed control devices on vehicles used by drivers with records of driving at excessive speeds"

Screw that, once they get away from that, it would be every car.

If you support it, you hate liberty!

[Dr. Ed 2]

15 state AGs agree with Laurel Libby.
https://www.themainewire.com/2025/05/attorneys-general-of-15-Astates-back-rep-libby-in-amicus-brief-while-ag-frey-urges-scotus-to-deny-her-appeal/

[ThePublius]

"Page not found." 404 error.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My bad -- I somehow picked up stray characters. The correct url:
https://www.themainewire.com/2025/05/attorneys-general-of-15-states-back-rep-libby-in-amicus-brief-while-ag-frey-urges-scotus-to-deny-her-appeal/

[jb]

Here's the actual brief since the link above doesn't work:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A1051/358402/20250508163022264_Libby%20Amicus.pdf

It's hilarious to see Montana on the list since their legislature censured one of their senators and barred her from the floor for saying the wrong thing a couple of years ago.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The difference is that the Montana rep could (a) still vote and (b) still speak remotely (zoom?) -- and (c) this was in response to the rep loudly disrupting the body.

Least restrictive approach to address conduct disrupting the body.

Libby posted (actually reposted) a photo on her twitter feed while at home, at least an hour's drive from the capitol city, let alone in the building or even leglislative chamber.

Libby was sanctioned for "endangering a child" -- her defense is that every other legislator posts pictures of children on their twitter feeds, and that she used pictures that already were in the public domain and had been posted by Greely High School.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Winning in Maine:
https://www.themainewire.com/2025/05/maine-agency-quickly-scrubs-discriminatory-hiring-quotas-after-trump-admin-threat/

[ThePublius]

More mainstream media lies.

CNN reports that there are zero Chinese ships headed for U.S. ports. "We haven't seen this since the pandemic."

In fact, that's a lie. There are 53 Chinese ships headed for U.S. ports, more than there were on this day a year ago.

[Sarcastr0]

Is this what you're talking about?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/10/business/zero-ships-china-trade-ports-pandemic

"Six days ago, 41 vessels were scheduled to depart China for the San Pedro Bay Complex, which encompasses both the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach in California. On Friday, it was zero."

Maybe it got corrected, but this doesn't seem as you characterized it.

[ThePublius]

CNN is trying to spin a narrative that Trump is hurting world trade, and leading us into shortages of goods. It's a total fabrication. There is more ocean goods transport now than a year ago.

[Sarcastr0]

You started with a much more concrete statement. Now you're pulling back to 'trying to spin.'

Not a great show.

And this doesn't look like spin, it looks like numbers:
"The busiest ports in the country are experiencing steep declines in cargo. The Port of Long Beach is seeing a 35-40% drop compared to normal cargo volume. The Port of Los Angeles had a 31% drop in volume this week, and the Port of New York and Jersey says it’s also bracing for a slowdown. On Wednesday, the Port of Seattle said it had zero container ships in the port, another anomaly that hasn’t happened since the pandemic."

There's a framework for a deal; maybe we'll pull back from this. But it's nuts to pretend there's nothing to see here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or is it because inflation has eaten up the disposable income of too many Americans?

[jb]

Must be a big conspiracy and not just CNN:

https://www.wsj.com/business/logistics/cargo-shipments-from-china-to-the-u-s-dwindle-9877596a

Also, the CNN and WSJ seem to actually be doing some reporting. Maybe you're right and they're wrong, but it would be helpful to have a cite or something so we can have a conversation about actual data.

[Estragon]

https://www.vesselfinder.com/ports/USLGB001

Port of Long Beach, 77 vessels have arrived within the past 24 hours and 43 ships are expected to arrive in the next 30 days.

https://www.vesselfinder.com/ports/USLAX001

Port of Los Angeles, 61 vessels have arrived within the past 24 hours and 52 ships are expected to arrive in the next 30 days.

[apedad]

17 Red Flags That Someone Might Be a Sociopath or Psychopath

Lack of Empathy
Manipulative
Superficially Charming
Superiority complex
Impulsive
Lack Remorse
Irresponsible
Overrely on Others (abuse generosity of others)
Lie Easily
Little Control Over Their Behavior
History of Early Behavioral Problems
Sexually Promiscuous
Don’t Have Realistic, Long-Term Goals
Don’t Have a Stable Lifestyle
Engage in Criminal Activities
Lack Accountability
Unable to Form Deep Emotional Bonds

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/17-red-flags-that-someone-might-be-a-sociopath-or-psychopath/ss-AA1CN6RJ?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=57f2c2fd6f4247af832343ee4967f45c&ei=25#image=2

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you President Donald J. Trump!

[Brett Bellmore]

You know you can skip most of that list, and just go by the fact that they're holding elective office, right? Sociopathy is so common in elected office and management that they had to add a bit about it getting you in trouble, for purposes of diagnosis.

[Sarcastr0]

Pop-psychology sociopathy diagnoses are silly.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I believe that for professionals the Goldwater rule is still in effect: You can't diagnose somebody you haven't personally examined, even if they ARE a public figure.

[Dr. Ed 2]

AND if you have personally examined him, HIPPA applies....

[Ska]

I'm more concerned with my brother-in-law.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Symptoms of Adult ADHD

inattentiveness
being easily bored
talking over people in conversation
insensitive
irresponsible
uncaring
being easily distracted
finding it hard to listen to others in a conversation
overlooking details
not completing tasks or projects
procrastinate on tasks
show up late for events
ignore assignments they consider boring
interrupting others during conversation
being socially inappropriate
rushing through tasks
acting without much consideration for the consequenes
compulsively eating an imbalanced diet
not exercising

[JoeFromtheBronx]

If you are for or against the death penalty, Professor Corinna Barrett Lain's new book Secrets of the Killing State: The Untold Story of Lethal Injection is a good read.

It is written for the general audience while providing in depth details of the science and other facts involved.

It is a detailed look at how f-ed up the whole process is, including use of secrecy to avoid and hide problems. States also have regularly played fast and loose with contractual obligations of companies not to use their drugs for executions.

Her biography, not covered in the book, is also interesting. Prof. Lain is a law professor and has written about the death penalty for quite some time though this is her first book on the subject.

Separately, when asked, Lain argues [if we had the death penalty] the firing squad would be the best method for the condemned. She says we don't use it since we consider too brutal and in your face. The lethal injection procedure has been quite brutal, but we can lie about it to ourselves more easily.

For those interested, many interviews (text and audio) with her can be found online.

https://corinnalain.com/books/secrets-of-the-killing-state/

https://urnow.richmond.edu/features/article/-/19220/from-army-to-academia-law-professor-recounts-military-experience.html

[Estragon]

If I have time later today I’ll check out the interview, looks interesting. I did want to highlight this:

“the firing squad would be the best method for the condemned”

I presume the Prof made this assertion before the most recent firing squad execution in South Carolina.

https://apnews.com/article/firing-squad-autopsy-missing-bullet-south-carolina-ffce046a03b2f636f79cff3a50f9474d

1) Bullets did not hit target, leading to slow and painful death.

2) Secrecy and dubious assertions by prison officials.

Pretty mind boggling that in a country so awash with guns they couldn’t find three corrections officer volunteers who could hit a target from 15 feet.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

" [if we had the death penalty], the firing squad would be the best method for the condemned"

I presume people know the game of "would you rather," which forces you to make a choice, even if none of them are good.

Her bottom line is that we shouldn't have the death penalty. IF we have it, the firing squad might be the best way.

Nitrogen gas is put out there as a reasonable alternative, but the evidence so far is mixed.

To add one more thing, two justices of the South Carolina Supreme Court would have blocked using the firing squad. One focused on it being "unusual" while the other noted it was also "cruel."

[Mr. Bumble]

"Her bottom line is that we shouldn't have the death penalty."
...and there it is.
Maybe it should be done like assisted suicide in which pain doesn't seem to enter into the picture.

[Brett Bellmore]

I assume it wasn't so much that they couldn't hit a target from 15 feet, as much as they suffered a failure of nerve.

[Martinned]

Why shoot from 15 feet? Why not put the condemned at the receiving end of a bunch of guns at 15 cm? Push a button, fire. No need for a literal squad, just a single button to pull all triggers at once.

[Mr. Bumble]

...one round to the back of the head.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Shrapnel. Flying bone chips can be lethal -- you don't want dead shooters. And blood is a biohazard.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I suspect one round was a blank.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Here are some headlines that no Democrat has seen:

* Trump has reached a tentative trade deal with China.
* European leaders were caught on film with a coke baggie and coke spoon (Marcon, Tusk, Stermer and that German clown).
* The DOJ has opened an investigation into Letitia "Get Trump" James and the defense her lawyers (paid for my taxpayers, naturally) have laid it is one Letitia "Get Trump" and her pet judge refused to let Trump make.
* Israel is throwing a tantrum because we're no longer their foreign policy dupe & puppet.
* Violent Democrat politicians who raided the ICE facility are going to face justice for their law-breaking.
* President Trump just signed an EO to drastically reduce prescription drug prices for EVERYONE.

Democrats haven't heard of these because these things are good for America, the Rule of Law, and Democracy.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

How long before some Democrat activist and Democrat judge block Trump's EO so they can protect Big Pharma's profits?

[Zarniwoop]

One of the IEEPA tariff cases in the U.S. Court of International Trade (VOS Selections v. Trump) is up for oral argument tomorrow at 11am (Eastern, I assume).

Docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69888953/vos-selections-inc-v-donald-j-trump/

Info on oral argument here:
https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/upcoming-court-proceedings-accessible-teleconference