Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Politics
Eugene Volokh | 6.25.2025 6:07 PM
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
NEXT: Jewish Professor's and Students' Lawsuit Against USC Dismissed
Hide Comments (714)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
The Trump ceasefire in the 12 day war seems to be holding.
I can't imagine anyone being upset about that, except possibly the 79 Democrats that voted to impeach Trump.*
*It appears I was wrong again when I predicted virtually all Democrats would vote to impeach Trump on an impeachment resolution if he did bomb iran, or if he didn't. I guess bombing Iran was more popular than I thought.
WWIII has been canceled (or at least postponed until China invades Taiwan). In other news, markets have all been positive for the most part and oil is down to $65.50 (WTI) from about $75.00 last week.
the leaked DIA memo claims that the centrifuge halls weren't damaged very much, and that Iran spirited away most of its HEU, probably still in the centrifuges - they're the size of scuba tanks (though 2-3x taller), and can double as storage tanks for UF6 gas.
Iran's HEU is 60% enriched. they could get to 90% by chaining together a smaller number of centrifuges into a cascade. it's a very modular design. so I'm skeptical that the strikes have delayed Iran by more than a few months.
that said, I do think it was the right call. I think we should have kept the 2015 nuclear deal, and failing that, we should have struck Natanz and Fordow a few years ago, but it's like the old Chinese proverb: "the best time to plant a tree was 25 years ago. the second-best time is now." we will have to operate the weed-whacker to keep them from reconstituting their nuclear program, and deal with a proto-nuclear insurgency if the regime falls, but it's better than letting them continue unabated.
I also think Trump's use of power here was probably Constitutional. it's not very different from past strikes by past Presidents, just a larger gamble. ordering a strike (but not declaring a war) is just the sort of power the Framers wanted a strong Executive for.
(see? Leftists aren't a monolith. I think for myself, and I'll actually credit Trump with a win here.)
Knowing what our spy satellite technology was 40 years ago, I can't imagine that were there trucks departing the scene, we don't know exactly where each one went.
The question I have is if they went to Russia or China -- and that may not have been a bad thing. Conversely, the IDF could have hit the HF6 trucks somewhere remote and who would know?
I also think Trump's use of power here was probably Constitutional. it's not very different from past strikes by past Presidents,
I agree with the second sentence, but I don't see how it supports the first sentence.
just a larger gamble. ordering a strike (but not declaring a war) is just the sort of power the Framers wanted a strong Executive for.
I mean, maybe Hamilton. Otherwise, no. This is exactly why they didn't want a strong executive, and why they placed warmaking powers in Congress.
"I think we should have kept the 2015 nuclear deal, " While the US did withdraw, Iran did not and therefore it still had obligations to the other signatories, which it violated. For that reason ssnapback sanctions are still a threat to the regime.
Wait, I thought we were supposed to be in favour of shooting at Iran and/or regime change? You guys really do change your talking points every day.
You "thought" wrong.
Did I, though?
We kept the receipts...
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/06/23/monday-open-thread-111/?comments=true#comments
What receipt, eurotrash? The link highlights St Abrego, doofus.
The link doesn't highlight any specific comment, doofus.
That makes it useless to support your "point".
No it doesn't. Literally half the comments on Monday were about how great it is that the US and Israel are finally shooting at Iran. The only debate was about the why.
That's what I meant by "receipts", plural. There's loads of them. And you can read them at your leisure if your memory isn't what it used to be.
Yes your honor. As evidence of our claim we offer 598 comments and urge the court to read through them to find those that support our position.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHxGUe1cjzM
Go gaslight someone else.
Thanks for the clip of Groucho. As for gaslighting, that would be you.
"Literally half"? You count as badly as you do everything else.
Well I was very clear, i liked Isreal's decapitation strategy, and didn't favor boots on the ground.
You need to develop a sense of nuance. Not that a Tomahawk missle in the Revolutionary Guard barracks has a lot of nuance.
Nuance isn’t necessary in MAGA world. What Trump does is good, no other principles necessary.
...and in TDS world everything Trump does is bad.
Would it have been greater for Iran to have nuclear weapons?
I am still in favor of regime change, i didn't express my preference above.
Top down regime change as a nation's strategy is a bad idea absent occupation. How well did that work out in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya? If you mean bottom-up regime change, there could be a hope for change to a stable country.
War is usually about regime change. But, the US is not involved in war against Iran. It's a police action on our part.
Nuclear weapons are a curse and a test of intelligence, not a weapon to use ever again. Two were enough to place them as pointless, an expression of idiocy if used.
Biological weapons are worse as they are very unpredictable even if designed specifically.
"War is usually about regime change. " Sometimes. And usually if that is the intent of a country it tends to be a bad idea. Conquer and occupy is yet different. Israel cannot occupy Iroan. the US does not want to and foe all practical purposes cannot occupy Iran. So regime change just mean chaos, and matters can always get worse
Agreed. But at the moment, we aren't in a position to do that as we're in the middle of an attempted "regime change" ourselves.
you are delusional if you think the US is undergoing a "regime change"
Don, it worked in Japan. Germany, too...
And the US governed Japan and Germany. If you actually read my comment you'd know that I accounted for occupation.
That's the problem. You don't think. Democrats and their allies simply reflexively oppose everything the President does, even when it's successful and has broad public support That's why you lost the election and why I'm optimistic there'll be no big mid-term gains for the "opposition."
not so. see my comment above. I actually think Trump did the right thing here.
“ even when it's successful and has broad public support”
You have strange definitions of “successful” and “broad public support”. It appears that the attacks did no real damage, as the centrifuges and enriched uranium had been moved and our MOABs just flattened the top of a mountain without destroying the facility. And only 23% of Republicans supported bombing Iran when it happened.
In the real world, that’s called “not much effect” and “broad public opposition”.
Trump changed his line so they’re falling into line. He’s their King and they serve him gladly.
"their King" spoken like a true ideological slave.
Spoken like someone in denial. He refers to himself that way (when it’s not the Pope).
Spoken like a fool. Sure, I tell people they can address my either by my first name or by Your Holiness. It is just as serious.
It’s true Trump’s not a serious person, odd defense of his puerile behavior though.
"It’s true Trump’s not a serious person" That is a stupid comment. I'd buy amoral or even immoral but "not serious" that is just blowing it out your vent.
Yeah, it seems like there's bipartisan support for the interpretation that the President has the authority to conduct strikes like this.
Well, the infallible Emperor Hussein thinks so - - - - https://notthebee.com/article/please-enjoy-this-montage-of-president-obama-authorizing-air-strikes-in-the-middle-east
HUSSEIN!
Goddamn racism is persistent.
It sure is, apparently you have a problem with Barry's middle name
Does anyone refer to Presidents David, Fitzgerald, Baines, Milhous, Rudolph, Earl, Wilson, Herbert, Walker, John, or Robinette? (There was a President named Jefferson, so I am omitting Bill Clinton's middle name from the list.)
Let's see now. What do the Presidents who bore these middle names have in common?
People did often refer to #43 as "W," but that was to distinguish him from the other Bush.
Milhous was a family last name.
At least I'll go to my grave now knowing there's no "e" at the end of Milhous. (Still not too old to learn something useless.)
At least I'll go to my grave now knowing there's no "e" at the end of Milhous.
Strictly speaking, that's not true.
(LOL) Sorry I was unclear. I was referring the Richard Milhous Nixon, not Milhouse Van Houten.
When it comes to being you, David, you don't disappoint.
Yup. This sort of thing is racist when people (like Malika) do it to Nikki Haley, and it’s racist when people on the right do it to Barak Obama.
Although I haven’t seen Sarcastro react when people do it to Nikki Haley.
I do that to Nikki Haley? I’ve only pointed out that if she wants to called. Nikki rather than her birth certificate name she should be respected on that (and I tend to do it with Romney more so aim not sure what you’re trying to insinuate here). You’re the guy obsessed with the rectification of names.
No, you were in these threads calling her Nimarata Haley back when that was in fashion. And Nikki is on her birth certificate, so I don't know what you mean by her birth certificate name.
Can you supply any instance where I referred to her that way that wasn’t in the context of others claiming being called a preferred rather than given name was wrong? Put up or shut up.
No, your commenting history is gone. Lucky you.
Kaz, you better be careful. Your prognostication powers might descend to Arthur Kirkland's level. Or a few others here.
Nobody is crying at the prospect of a defeated Iran, sans nuke enrichment capability.
You got the basics right. 😉
It just shows the other 100+ members of the Democratic caucus still don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.
Because they didn’t impeach Trump?
That is not the same as a vote of support.
Any other bogus issue would have been far higher, but this issue was too popular, and too successful. But there will be more votes when the next outrage bait comes around.
This isn’t analysis; it’s cheerleading.
Good morning. That is not a thoughtful response, it's just a snark.
Don, as you know since you said I hate Jews and the idea of them dying makes me smile I have you blocked.
why not block everyone who doesnt live in your delusional echo chamber
He's working on it. That's why he's Il Douche.
Like I care.
Oh Dear, you were canceled by Sarcastr0. Fear not Don Nico, this too shall pass. 😉
I guess he did not like being called a de facto anti-Semite
“sans nuke enrichment capability.”
Speaking of being careful, I might be cautious with this claim.
Iran is out of the enrichment business, Estragon. 😉
The more interesting question to me is what happens when Israel kinetically destroys any new enrichment facility Iran might be tempted to recreate.
“Iran is out of the enrichment business”
Who told you that? “The Almighty”?
No, Iran came out yesterday publicly and said so. Their enrichment capability is gone, and it appears a lot of their enriched uranium was buried under many tons of rubble.
Are you having a big sad today? Heh.
Wait, I thought we could never trust the Iranians at their word when they talk about their nuclear enrichment activities? Wasn't that the whole problem with the JCPOA?
What the Iranians did is kick the nuclear inspectors out of the country. Because they're definitely building a nuke now.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-parliament-approves-bill-suspend-cooperation-with-un-nuclear-watchdog-2025-06-25/
“ Iran is out of the enrichment business, Estragon”
Not according to those who know. Apparently we bombed an empty mountain. The centrifuges and uranium were long gone.
Just who are "those who know?" And why are you so invested in declaring the mission a failure?
Not to speak for Nelson, but how about: Because far too many idiots in the US think they can solve problems by dropping bombs on them?
This is dumb. The only person invested in declaring success or failure was Trump himself:
But rather than relying on information from his own intelligence agencies, satellite imagery, or on-the-ground reporting, Trump instead posted on Truth Social a screenshot of an X post from an anonymous account that claims to conduct open source intelligence. “Fordow is gone,” the account, which lists the website of a Zionist clothing company in its biography, wrote, providing no further information. Trump followed this up by claiming in a press conference that Fordow had been “completely and totally obliterated.”
So Nelson is wrong to be skeptical because he’s invested in failure— you’d rather take the word of a random reply-guy account?
Check out the work of Dr Jeffrey Lewis if you are truly curious. He did a long thread that’s going around, should be easy to find.
Just who are "those who know?"
The DIA?
The Democrats see the growing hate they inspire in voters. Some do. After Hillary and Kamala the pretend concern thing no longer works. "I want so much to help the poor that I gave their hard-earned dollars to Oprah and Beyonce"
Meanwhile, in my neck of the woods, Donald Trump had a big day. Not only did the King grant him an audience, he even got to spend the night in the King's palace. (Trump was originally supposed to stay in Hotel Huis ter Duin in Noordwijk, which is really nice but much further away.)
https://prod-img.telegraaf.nl/public/incoming/i1eqwt-anp-530454993.jpg/alternates/WIDTH_1440/ANP-530454993.jpg
An additional benefit of staying in the royal palace is that it is south from the site of the summit, meaning that there is no risk that the President's motorcade might accedentally pass by the ICC in Scheveningen.
Ah a country with such respect for individual freedoms. Will there always be an England? Well, yes and at the same time, a resounding no. The little island will still exist. British culture and spirit? Not so much.
Noordwijk is in the Netherlands, not the UK. Differnt king.
Well, that proves it! Crimea Riva is a real person.
No bot could be that clueless.
Well, here's the thing, I actually acknowledged my mistake, Has any anti-trump commenter here, and that's the majority, ever acknowledged any of President Trump's accomplishments or that they were mistaken on any legal issue involving the administration. Can't recall any.
And, as I've noted before, Buffalo Bill, the psychotic serial killer in Silence of the lambs often de-humanized his victims by referring to them as "its." Not really rhetoric that should be imitated. Just something to think about if you decide to start thinking.
You have to love a bot that can go straight from tone policing to insult in a sentence!
Obviously, I was cracking a joke at your expense regarding someone's (David's? SarcastrO's) oft-repeated jab in these pages that you were just a bot ("Rivabot") and not a real person.
Turing to your next deflection (see what I did there?), I have repeatedly mentioned that I would have voted for any decent Republican over Biden or Harris--and I hold people like you who constitute the Trumperverse wholly responsible for eliminating that option. In my view, Trump has (inadvertently, and generally for the wrong reasons) taken steps in the 2A and transism areas with which I agree. It would also be impossible to deny that his first term SCOTUS appointments have had a profound effect upon the Court's and the Constitution's role in American society--an effect with which I have mostly agreed. But these few sprinkles of positivity have been utterly overwhelmed by the deluge of destructive, narcissistic nonsense Trump spews on an hourly basis.
Moreover, my assessment was not a "mistake". A stopped clock is right twice each day, but Trump's motivations have been consistent no doubt since daddy Trump first abused him as a child.
Obviously i was pointing how perverse it is to imitate and find humor in Buffalo Bill’s deranged rhetorical style. But many here seem to enjoy it. Says a lot.
It's not me you need to convince...
Bot feels dehumanized!
pre-programmed retorts shows you cant engage the merits of his comments.
Or that I give him the level of response he’s earned.
18 Like a maniac shooting flaming arrows of death 19 is one who deceives their neighbor and says, “I was only joking!”
Oooohhhhh! Great drag name!
Ok, my error, in my haste I didn't fully read the post and mistakenly equated him with another commenter I believe is from the UK. So many here ranting daily against the president that I'm losing track. And frankly don't care so much.
And I may point out their royal family is the House of Orange.
It is... Which adds a layer to the meme advertising I've already seen about getting orange stains out of royal linnens.
A somewhat fake royal family. The House of Orange were Princes of Orange, which is in France.
Netherlands never had a king until Napoleon made his Brother the King of Holland after he invaded.
The House of Orange, who were Princes without a principality, didn't become Kings in the Netherlands until 1815.
Seems a little late to be establishing a dynasty.
Orange -- is Protestant.
The reason Orange symbolises Protestantism is because Willam 3 of Orange was made King William 3 of England after his father in law James 2 was deposed.
The Irish Catholics adhered to James and then William decisively beat James and his Catholic army at the Battle of the Boyne.
The Principauté d'Orange from 1163 to 1713, was of course Catholic for at least the first half of its existence. So its name had nothing to do with its princes religion.
The House of Orange-Nassau has governed the Netherlands for most of the period since William the Silent became Stadholder of Holland, Zeeland, and Utrecht in 1559. As such, it is one of the longest-governing dynasties in the world.
Do you guys have golf courses there, or are there too many water hazards?
Yes, that's the downside of staying at the palace. As the name suggests, Hotel Huis ter Duin is in the dunes next to the sea, and the hour or so trip between there and the site of the summit takes you past lots of gorgeous golf courses. So if he'd stayed in Noordwijk it would have been easier to squeeze some golf in.
Now, instead, he had to pass the time by interfering in the upcoming Dutch parliamentary elections. Surprisingly, it turns out Trump is a big fan of Geert Wilders, the leader of the radical right. (The interesting question is who asked for that meeting. The NOS is reporting that Trump did. That makes sense, because even among the rightwing electorate in the Netherlands Trump is about as popular as muslims.)
"As the name suggests"
Nobody speaks your gibberish here.
Wow. That's a lot of words when "yes" or "jah" or whatever you guys say would have sufficed.
Quite a few courses. In fact, its said that it, not Scotland, is the birthplace of golf. The R & A would disagree, I'm sure. https://www.amsterdamoldcourse.nl/lid-worden/golf-in-the-netherlands/
I hope the King thanked him for keeping you (and him) from being a Province (and a rather unimportant one) of the Greater German Reich
"pass by the ICC in Scheveningen"
Keep hope alive!
He could walk in and shoot Khan and nothing would happen to him.
It would be an act of war if anything did happen to him, and what's the ETA of a jet fighter flying supersonic?
Good Luck, NYC = Zohran Mamdani https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/06/zohran-mamdani-leads-nyc-mayor-democratic-primary/
The man is a Marxist. He makes DeBlasio look like a member of the Carlist Party.
You truly deserve the representation you elect.
Marxist! (you forgot 'pedophile as well)
Drink!
If the usual suspects getting close to making a rational observation is the new standard, you're going to be three sheets to the wind in very short order...
hobie is just preemptively adopting the traditional Russian method for coping with Marxists being in charge.
This comentariat has made it abundantly clear they do not know what Marxist means so no worries there.
I’m going to wait and see, upon a general election victory, what policies actually get pushed.
Could be. One never knows.
That's the spirit. Accuse first, ask questions later
Hey, the guy aspires to have his hands in other peoples' pockets-no matter how young or how old. God knows what he thinks about when he does that.
So you don't like a politician with his hands in others' pockets, eh?
Nope, do you like someone feeling you up without your consent?
I don't think hobie is one of the commenters here who voted for the "grab 'm by the pussy"-guy...
He's the only candidate to say fuck the Jews and fuck Israel.
Good.
Kinda torn here. Since I loathe everything NY, especially the Mets, I would be amused to see them F themselves with this Marxist clown. But then there are people will truly suffer. So I guess I hope he loses.
Hating the Mets is like hating the Browns. What a waste of time!
Beat the Mets! Beat the Mets!, step right up and Beat the Mets! Braves 5-0 against them in an otherwise horrible year, (take out their 2 7 game losing streaks and they’re not that bad) Mrs Drackman (I know, imaginary) grew up a Mets fan, but we met in 1991 and she converted, been a confirmed Chopper ever since
Frank
Mrs. Drackman is a motorcycle with an extended wheelbase?
Finally a sane comment today. (even though my kids were browns fans for some reason when they were in their teens)
Hate the Browns?
What about Otto Graham, Jim Brown, not to mention Eddie Gaedel, the only player in MLB history with as 1.000 OBP. (Just in case I got the sport wrong.)
Otto Graham was before their time. They were Bernie Kosar fans. But Jim Brown... he was amazing to watch
Here in Cleveland I've had to tell my Browns fan neighbors that as a lifelong Saints fan, I already have enough to deal with and cannot adopt their loser team as well. Though I wish them well
I mean maybe the guy, who doesn’t know .nl is the country code for the Netherlands and generally has not expressed much knowledge about anything at all, shouldn’t be calling people clowns. Especially Marxists ones: no one is under any assumption that you understand the meaning of that word.
"who doesn’t know .nl is the country code for the Netherlands"
LOL How many Americans know that? 10?
More to the point, who cares?
NL is easy. DE is hard for Americans. CH is impossible. China is in Europe? I guess...
CH is Switzerland, right? Confederatio Helvetica or something? I'm familiar with it from cern.ch of course.
There is of course nothing complicated here. To be honest, I never looked or clicked on the link. Just made a quick cursory glance and hastily posted. Like I said, my error.
You were probably stupid enough to vote for him.
Say hello to the next “Hizonner” Curtis Sliwa!!!
I appreciate him because he stands strong against the demands to travel to Israel and prostate himself before the Jew like every other American politician.
How does one "Prostate" one's self? (is it like "Ruh-cusing"?? like when Jeffy Sessions said "Ahh Ruh-cuse Mah-suff!"), and who's demanding you travel to Israel to umm, "Prostate" yourself?? You weren't chosen for a reason (just like in Academics, Sports, hooking up with women (I'll give you the men, you're great with the men)
I'm sorry for making a typo and hurting your feelings and getting you all aroused. I would suggest some box breathing to calm yourself down. It's a technique learned in the Special Forces, which as I understand it, you probably have already been trained on with all your military background (lol).
Special Forces? is that anything like the "Special" Screw-els you went to? As Foghorn Leghorn used to say to that little annoying Chicken Hawk, "Ah say Boy! go away, y'all botherin' me!"
Oh. Thanks for the heads up that you can be safely blocked.
Can someone please come and and shower shawn with accolades for all his virtue and purity? I'm sure with hard work and dedication you can filter enough of the world around you for you to be perfectly emotionally safe.
After all, that's the best way to live. Emotionally safe.
Ha ha you're mad.
Why on Earth would you think that?
I don't think he's trying to win your vote...
I don't think you know what Marxist means.
Fire up those deportation planes.... https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/06/supreme-court-pauses-order-to-give-illegal-aliens-deportation-notice-to-third-party-countries/
What are the odds that the US can deport more than 7,500 illegal aliens daily? I'd say they increased measurably.
South Sudan and Libya await the deportable illegal alien. Better pack light, loose fitting clothing....
not guilty and David Notimportant will be along shortly to correct you.
IIRC, Trump criticized Israel for breaking the ceasefire which, as we all now know, is antisemitic terrorism. Off to Salvador he too goes.
President Trump's latest historic triumph seems to have caused you to lose what little sanity you had left.
Clearly. After all, as an anchor baby himself he doesn't really belong in the US in the first place.
According to the Guardian, Trump has temporarily reassigned hundreds of federal police officers from various three-letter organizations to ICE in order to deport more immigrants (legal or no.) Ironically, a good number of those come from organizations like the FBI and ATF who would, in their normal duties, be going after actual, violent criminals and not just a 50+ year old army veteran on a green card who got busted for drugs once 15 years prior.
But, you know "Thanks for your service" has the same ring as "Thoughts and Prayers," amirite?
Complain when ICE goes after non-criminals, complain when they go after criminals.
Make up your mind.
BTW, what was the "drug offense"? Might be useful to know.
That's a lazy strawman, Bob.
We were told Trump was only going after violent criminals. Then it was just "criminals" where that was defined down to even basic traffic violations and people charged but not found guilty years in their past. Then people with legal visas expressing opinions the government doesn't like. Now it's just that they're here at all.
ICE should deport violent criminals using legal means, including due process, and do so transparently so the public can trust that they're working to our benefit.
AFAIK, he was busted for possession as he was suffering from post-war PTSD and had a substance abuse problem. Not uncommon for US war veterans.
We were told Trump was prioritizing violent criminals. You were never told that if, while looking for violent criminals, they found a non-violent illegal alien, they wouldn't deport them.
What you were told is that Trump was going to deport ALL OF THEM.
Goal posts moved, yet again. Proving my point.
Brett is absolutely right. That's what Trump said all along. Homan said that criminal illegals should self deport because if we have to go after them, they risk their non-violent friends and family being deported when we catch them.
Trump has said since 2015 that he was going to deport ALL illegal aliens.
And someone who joined the military with the promise they'd get to stay?
(Looks into his bag of rhetoric, ahhh, "traitorous filth!" But is that for the noble vet, or the ones who want to eject him?)
"Noble" vet ought not have gotten involved in drugs.
I'm sure the military told him not to.
That's what Trump said all along.
We've always been at war with Eastasia!
"Not uncommon for US war veterans."
The left has accused vets of being drug addled baby killers for decades. Thanks for keeping up the tradition!
You are just using him as a cudgel to attack Trump.
I'm a veteran. So please do STFU.
Trump tried to deport him and somehow that's on me?! Try harder Bob.
Every illegal alien is a criminal, and therefore deportable. There are no freebies. Homan made that clear, from the start.
At 7.5k/day, (business days) that is roughly 220*7500, or only 1.6MM deportations annually. We need much more, on the order of 20K daily, to deport the majority of illegal aliens in the next 3 years.
I believe we should sweeten the offer to illegal aliens to return home; pay them to leave faster. Sort of like a 'plata o plomo' proposition.
"Every illegal alien is a criminal, and therefore deportable."
Uh, no. An alien who enters the country lawfully but overstays his visa commits no crime, although he may still be deportable.
And every alien within our borders, legal or illegal, is entitled to due process and equal protection of the laws, Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210-214 (1982), including in matters regarding deportation. Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U. S. ____ (2025) (per curiam) (“It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings.").
Let's try this again: Every illegal alien is a criminal
NG, there are no lawful illegal aliens. That is an oxymoron.
Ah, doubling down on "too stupid to understand." It's a bold move.
Wrong, XY. Tautology is no substitute for legal analysis.
A criminal is someone who has committed a crime. Federal crimes are defined by Congress. Unlawful presence within the United States, standing alone, is no crime. An alien who lawfully entered the U. S. and then overstayed his visa is an illegal alien. Unless he has violated some criminal law, he is not a criminal.
Unlawful entry is a crime, overstaying your visa is also a crime, NG.
Regardless, there are no 'freebies' for illegal aliens.
This is really quite simple: If you are an illegal alien, leave this country now. Or we will do it for you.
I am for paying illegal aliens to leave. Best money we would ever spend.
Overstaying a visa violates what federal statute, XY?
Please cite by number.
False.
Best money we would ever spend.
How does anyone benefit from this?
Still waiting, XY. Overstaying a visa violates what federal criminal statute?
The whole reason the due process is lesser is because deportation is an administrative action, not a criminal punishment.
Amazing some regulars have not yet realized this.
Immigrants who apply for asylum and are in the process are not "illegal" and yet ICE is scooping them up at their hearings and deporting them. They're scooping up people who even look latino without regard for their actual status as a citizen or legal immigrant. I don't see how pretending ICE is only grabbing people who are here illegally is a sufficient answer to the question of why an Army veteran with a green card was targeted. It's just a diversion, it seems, to avoid having to admit the Trump administration is itself criminal in its rampant abuse of civil rights.
Alligator Alcatraz....an illegal alien detention facility.
Suppose Kwan, an illegal alien, escapes the confines of the Alligator Alcatraz detention center in an escape attempt. And is subsequently mauled and eaten by Nicodemus, the alligator from hell.
Is the gov't liable for Kwan making himself alligator shit? IOW, is there liability to the gov't?
Nope, because Kwan was safely in the detention center, and the government made efforts to keep him there. The government is no more on the hook than if he escaped and got run over crossing a highway.
I'd feel more sorry for the Alligator, having to stomach that piece of human detritus.
Turns out the hucklers were right to be worried back in the Obama administration about FEMA camps. Just off on the timing.
Here's an artist's rendering of what the camps are supposed to look like.
I'd much rather an artistic rendition of Nicodemus the Alligator. 😉
I remember when MAGA claimed to drain the swamp and now they're embracing the swamp publicly.
Nicodemus the Alligator is Trump's wrestling name and the only way Kwan gets eaten if "Kwan" is another word for a "big mac."
But joking aside... Let's say Kwan is a legal US resident with a green card and no criminal history--not even a speeding ticket. He's illegally detained in this detention facility and dies when an alligator takes him while on supervised work clearing the perimeter for expansion. Is there government liability for his illegal detention and subsequent death? I'm not a lawyer. I *hope* there is a bucket-load of liability that accrues to the government in general and the people responsible for disappearing him and placing him in detention. That would give me comfort knowing that violating my rights would be discouraged because it would have consequences. In reality, I don't think the consequences would be significant, if any at all, and I think the people responsible for the violation of his civil rights would enjoy expansive immunity. (And that doesn't even get into the specifics of Trump using the pardon power to erase crimes committed on his behalf.)
I think your green card Kwan has a case. My illegal alien Kwan got eaten by Nicodemus. 🙂
I expect shortly to get confirmation from sources too secret to name that Iran's nuclear weapons capability has been obliterated permanently. A result only Trump could have achieved.
The voices in your head?
Well, Trump said it was totally obliterated; so one would assume it is since that was the reason for all this trouble.
Perhaps he had meant to say "decimated"?
At least, he may have been correct...
That always bothered me. Decimated would make a lot more sense reduced to 1/10th its power, not down by 10%.
I'd have to guess that people were a lot less hyperbolic back when the word became "a thing". Losing 10% of something important was apparently taken very seriously.
What he said was that the targets struck were totally obliterated. Set-back only a few months is CNN's enhancement of a politically motivated "conclusion." I saw many such IC document titles and executive summaries when I was in that business.
What he said was that the targets struck were totally obliterated.
Well, sort of. I think the better way to put it is to say that the US definitely hit the things they hit.
President Trump said, without equivocation or qualification, "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OadqOOGiTvk&list=RDNSOadqOOGiTvk&start_radio=1
Trump did acknowledge that "there are many targets left" and said that "if peace does not come quickly we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill."
Let's see whether Trump now seeks a declaration of war or an authorization for use of military force from Congress pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1544.
"Trump did acknowledge that "there are many targets left""
Sounds like war to me
Mission accomplished.
Hmm...maybe 51 intel agents could come out with a letter in support of Iran? If that doesn't make you happy, I'm sure the intel establishment could come up with some more lies to sabotage the administration.
...and it turns out, the "Deep State" is now anybody who fails to compliment the King on his resplendent finery.
The deep state has become every democrat supporting Iran becoming a regional power and in favor of iran developing their nuclear program - ie obama with the jcpoa.
That’s not the deep state. It is also a conspiracy theory you made up - Dems do not secretly support Iran getting nukes.
If dems dont support Iran getting nukes, then why all the defense of the pallets of cash to iran, and the weak jcpoa, and the comdemnation of the surgical strikes.
The pallets of cash was unfrozen Iranian money meant to buy their postponing of nuclear weapon development, some Democrats criticized the surgical strike as getting us embroiled in war without Congressional approval.
So, asked and answered.
Still pallets of cash, no matter was the Shah's money or not.
Payment in cash because Iran wanted to fund Hams and Hezbollah. Congrats, you got some Jews killed.
yes - still pallets of cash that did not belong to the mullahs. They still cant admit it was the wrong thing to do - funding hamas hezbolah, facilitating making iran a regional power.
“ The initial payment was — kind of the principal was $400 million, and just paying an additional $1.3 billion in interest wasn't a bad deal for the United States. But there was a concern about the optics and how the Iranian side would spin it, that they were going to basically take the timing of and the arrival of cash as a sign that this was ransom or quid pro quo and that they would use this possibly in future cases.
And I think what a lot of people in the U.S. government are concerned of, in the last six months, there have been — last year, there have been three more Iranian-Americans taken prisoner. There are another three European and Canadian Iranian nationals who have been taken prisoner in the last, I think, three months.
So it's a cycle. And when you look back on the history of the United States-Iranian relations going back to the revolution, you see this cycle, you know, that the American diplomats who were taken hostage, the resolution for that was partly the unfreezing of assets in the United States that were the shah's money.
The three hikers who were taken prisoner in 2009, their release was also tied to both a prisoner exchange and cash being paid.. So it's not like this is a one-off. If you take a step back, it's a longer cycle.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/investigating-obama-administrations-400-million-payment-iran
The Shah's money? What, like it was salary for his service as dictator?
However bad the Islamic Republic is, it is the internationally recognized government of Iran, and it was Iran's money, not the Shah's.
Give us a coherent sane reason to be giving the mullahs money - being that the mullahs were actively funding hamas, hezbolah, houthis.
Most people would have a better grasp of the consequences - apparantly not obama or the aplologists that supported the transfer because "it was irans' money"
" internationally recognized government of Iran"
Not by us.
The Supreme Fuhrer is more of of a dictator than the Shah ever was.
“Give us a coherent sane reason to be giving the mullahs money -“
It was their money. It could have bought us delay of the nuclear program. It got US hostages out.* * you’d prefer pallets of arms? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
"It got US hostages out."
Well, one out of three ain't bad; Joe asked for a coherent sane reason, not a good one, and that one's coherent and sane, at least. Just bad policy.
They are all coherent and sane, you just don’t think they’re correct.
"the King" Grow up. Get solid political agenda that might actually win the next election.
I do wish the President would grow up and stop referring to himself as a king. Better yet maybe his supporters could actually call him out when he does it.
He likes to see the cats dance after the pointer.
That’s a pretty messed up person, especially in his current job.
Stop falling for it, then he will stop.
Setting aside that it’s somehow everyone else’s responsibility to cater to a 79 year old’s anti-social habits, it’s interesting that “stop falling for it” is also the advice given to parents who continually give in to their children’s tantrums over not getting their way. What a damning indictment of the man and the movement.
damning!
Maybe one day you will discover a sense of humor.
I’m a liberal. We have all the (good) comedians. I think I’m just fine humor wise. Simping for shitty politicians isn’t very funny.
BTW, I notice that you never got around to answering the relatively straightforward question of whether the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre was a good thing or bad thing?
The party of personal responsibility!
Too late. The American people have gone 'round the bend, and they're not coming back during my lifetime. There's no way to "win the next election" when the only way one party can now lose an election is for the contest to have been "rigged".
In a Sane world, "45/47("48"? maybe) would get the Nobel Peace Prize (would be the 5th POTUS to get one) and can anyone tell me what Barry Osama did to win his in 2009???
Given some of the previous winners it's not much to be proud of. Of the US Presidents only TR seems to have earned it.
Wow, you're right, Kissinger, Sadat, Arafat, Gorbachev, and the worst of all, AlGore, it's a literal "Murder's Row" (OK, AlGore is more of a Diddler)
Got elected.
Just look around on here 🙂
"Nine in 10 conservatives self-report their mental health to be excellent (51%) or very good (39%). Those who consider themselves liberals are struggling, with only 20% saying their mental health is excellent and 26% believing it is very good.
Only 19% of conservatives say their mental health is poor, while 45% of liberals say they have poor mental health.
This is not a new development related to Trump returning to the White House. A decade ago, University of Toronto researchers looked at a history of academic literature suggesting “that conservatives in the United States are happier than liberals” through the lens of neuroticism. They found that conservatives are more emotionally stable than liberals."
Very interesting study. Conservatives just have better mental health than liberals.
Someone might want a intro research methods course section review on self report surveys…
You need a Statistics course. 🙂 It's like placebos, your lot always says "Well that is nothing you aren't better it's all in your head" But that is what proves you wrong. The question is ONLY 'Are you better" Analogously, If I say " I feel better " and then crazy ass you says "Well you can't feel better , that's self-reporting" people laugh at you. Well conservatives laugh at you. The self-reporting liberals are just further saddened by your lack of math training.
Statistics has nothing to do with my point, of course.
Take for instance if we ask people if they are dumb or not. Now, you would say you are not when you clearly are but you’re so dumb you have no clue how dumb you are. In your case your delusion would be placed in the “person says he’s not dumb” box, but one would be wrong to count you as not dumb, rather all we should conclude is that you are a person who doesn’t think they are or rather would not say on a survey that they are dumb. That kind of thing makes the conclusion of self report surveys answers on their face dubious. All one can safely conclude from such a study as the one here is that those who identified as liberal were more likely to say to a survey that they were struggling with mental health issues.
There are topics where self-reporting is perfectly reasonable. "Are you happy?" would seem to be one of them, unless maybe you plan to sample people's cerebro-spinal fluid and chart dopamine levels.
I am not going to read the study so these are more general remarks.
Self reporting is good to measure change; it is terrible as an absolute value for reasons you can probably figure.
Amazing how often conservatives opine about social science when they don’t like it or have any appetite to learn about it.
As for mental health there are obvious cultural conflating variables between liberals and conservatives.
If you asked people to report whether they were currently experiencing struggles with sin many religious people will say yes and many nonbelievers will say no, but you’d be a fool to control this that the religious people were more sinful.
to conclude from this
There are topics where self-reporting is perfectly reasonable. "Are you happy?" would seem to be one of them,
If the issue is, "How is this person feeling," then sure. If the issue is comparison to others, then no.
NO, you compounded your error. Being dumb is what has an ordinal meaning but "are you happy" needs in science an operational definition, there is no ordinal meaning to that word. Again you are saying "No, you aren't really happy you just think you are" Too silly to go past this point. Scientists will know exactly what I am referring to. And BTW you are even wrong about dumb because ordinally the IQ of 100 changes by generation. Dumb of today is not the dumb of yesteryear as far as IQ goes. SATIS
“Again you are saying "No, you aren't really happy you just think you are"”
No, I’m not saying that, you’re just too dumb to see that. See my comment to Brett and maybe you’ll get it.
I see that you’ve backed off your ridiculous “statistics” charge, though, so you’re at least a little less dumb than you were earlier today!
Nate Silver took a stab at analyzing the study, and the reasons for the gap:
"One thing I think we can say is that the correlation isn't spurious. Age and religiosity matter a lot — religious people are happier, younger people are sadder — but the liberal/conservative gap outweighs almost all other characteristics except age."
https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/1935444439650205805?t=NBae21vhErleE7kwCR63cQ&s=19
I'd guess older people are happier than younger people, because we've had time to get secure, and have largely given up any unrealistic expectations we had for the trajectory of our lives. We're happy to just settle for some comfort, and comfort is easy to come by.
And, frankly, conservatives' usual lifestyle choices are more in alignment with human psychology, rather than at war with it.
If you look at Silver's graphic, the biggest differences besides politics are religion, marriage, children, and sexuality.
Conservative atheists are about as unhappy as religious liberals.
Conservative homo/bisexuals are about as unhappy as heterosexual liberals.
Having children makes you happy, having raised them to leave your home happier, but liberals who have never had children are REALLY unhappy. Realized too late what would have made them happy?
I'll admit to being surprised that political activity and social media posting are associated with being happy. Maybe depression just stops you from doing those things?
"I'll admit to being surprised that political activity and social media posting are associated with being happy"
That is surprising since I've seen several studies showing social media makes people unhappy. (See https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-social-media-makes-people-unhappy-and-simple-ways-to-fix-it/) I wonder if there's a difference between scrolling vs. posting, or if the methodologies are sufficiently different to reach opposite conclusions.
It's quite possible for social media to make people unhappy, and social media posting to still be associated with being happy, if social media use is so ubiquitous that disengaging from social media is mostly a product of depression induced apathy.
I've been involved in health care (military and civilian) for most of my adult life. I've made a lot of friends in the field as well. Three of my most liberal provider friends (MD and DO) have trans kids within the last 6 years. Their lives are a hot mess. Things are not alright in Liberal Land.
“I've been involved in health care (military and civilian) for most of my adult life.”
Your asylum experience?
Good one Queenie, reminds me of Mad Magazines "Snappy Answers to Stew-pid Questions" Surgeon "I've performed thousands of these operations!" Patient "any successfully??"
Mostly battlefield integration of medical assets in support of combat operations. So, yes, asylum experience.
He dug the latrines.
It's almost as if being bullied by half the country isn't fun...
Given how much everyone on this blog enjoys shooting at bad guys (at least when other people do the shooting, preferably far away from whatever desk you guys sit behind), let me put this one to you:
The independent judicial inquiry into allegations of extra-judicial killings by British special forces in Afghanistan between 2010 and 2013 is expected to hear oral evidence about an occasion “when an individual was shot in the head whilst they slept”.
I can't read the rest of Joshua Rozenberg's blog post, because it's paywalled, but based on this description I'm not sure what to think.
On the one hand, I can see why one might be troubled by the killing of an enemy (soldier) while they're asleep. There is no exact provision in the Rome Statute that mentions sleeping soldiers, but there is this:
(ix) Killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary; (x) Declaring that no quarter will be given;
And for international armed conflicts we also have:
(vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
On the other hand, all of this presumes that it is possible to take the enemy captive. And it seems inherent in the work of the special forces that they often operate in circumstances where that it not possible. And if you can't take an enemy captive, killing them while they're asleep seems more sensible than waking them up first.
Wakey, wakey meet your maker.
You're right, it's a breach of combat etiquette to shoot someone in the head while they're sleeping. Wake them up first
NOt really
Judges 4:21 ERV Sisera was very tired, so he was sleeping. She put the tent peg to the side of Sisera's head and hit it with a hammer. The tent peg went through the side of his head and into the ground. Sisera died.
Sisera was tired because he'd just fucked Jael.
I love personal testimony about one's degraded condition. Yes, to you that is funny , which is why people do not like you.
I didn't take it as funny - odd that you did. I am merely familiar with traditional Jewish commentary. Note that Yael was a prostitute. FWIW the Tanakh has euphemisms a-plenty, from "knowing" to Ruth "lying down at the feet' of Boaz, i.e., fellating him.
I am sure that those people here who don't like me do so for reasons unrelated to this. Yet again you seem very confident about what others think without any evidence.
Remind me again, how upset were you by the Oct. 7 atrocities committed by Hamas?
Every single person responsible for the Oct. 7 atrocities committed by Hamas should be lined up and shot.
(After a fair trial, obviously.)
What do you think should happen to everyone else convicted of war crimes?
"should be lined up and shot."
Good news! The IDF did that already.
Indeed.
Hence the second question...
Sleeping does not qualify as hors de combat since it was not caused by wounds or sickness.
There is no obligation go out of your way to make an enemy combatant into a prisoner without their consent provided they are not hors de combat.
Not sure what's questionable here. A sleeping enemy isn't wounded or otherwise hors de combat, nor have they surrendered.
There's no obligation to take the enemy captive absent circumstances like that.
That's not exactly true. If you shout "GAME OFF" before you lay down to sleep, technically you can't be targeted. However, if you're fighting against people who don't play by the rules, you get a free life and an easy respawn when they shoot your sleeping ass.
What is the consequence if the independent judicial inquiry decides British special forces exceeded their authority? A disapproving memo? Turn the soldiers over to the Taliban?
It's an inquiry, not a court. That's the whole point. If someone needs to be prosecuted, that's a different step.
According to that killing Osama Bin Laden was a war crime, as he was unarmed and hiding behind a couple of his wives.
Nobody is getting charged.
It may well have been, yes. I'm sorry if that is somehow news to you, or if you thought that killing people is OK if they're really, really unpopular.
“The independent judicial inquiry into allegations of extra-judicial killings by British special forces…”
It really sounds like they’re talking about something other than the extra-judicial killing of combatants on the battlefield. Such killing, even of a sleeping enemy, is generally lawful.
Chicago Teachers Union says they own your children. https://x.com/DeAngelisCorey/status/1937316711159443658?t=fWIgZ6ie0SWpOuykENr0hA&s=19
I'm very happy I moved out of that state.
That’s a pretty uncharitable take on that clip, but expected.
How so? "The children are always ours. Every single one of them. All over the globe."
"Yes, we do [think your children are our children]."
It’s clear that what she’s getting at is that teachers love the students they teach and feel a responsibility toward them like a parent would. It’s a quote of James Baldwin “The children are always ours, every single one of them, all over the globe; and I am beginning to suspect that whoever is incapable of recognizing this may be incapable of morality.”
James Baldwin
Pull the other one.
I didn’t pull the first one. That’s clearly what the Baldwin quote and that lady quoting it are saying.
Continue her conversation until you get to the next quote.
You misunderstood the part you quoted so I’m not going to be surprised if you do the same for the rest.
Coward.
Pointing out your initial inability to understand is not cowardice, though I get your feelings are hurt.
You miss the point re: CTU.
Don't care about their 'noble' feelings.
Do care very much about their actions.
"It’s clear that what she’s getting at is that teachers love the students they teach and feel a responsibility toward them like a parent would. "
1. But they don't. 2. The why not say something indicating that they understand the boundaries between the role of the teachers and the role of the parents. It sounds like they are claiming that there are no such boundaries.
It’s a pretty noble sentiment.
It’s weird of you to take vociferous issue with it.
Hot take - teachers are by and large pretty responsible, and nurturing people.
It's not a noble sentiment to insert yourself and your values in between a parent and a child.
She and he weren’t inserting their values between any parents and children they were reassuring parents and children that they feel a moral obligation to all children as if they were their own.
1. You think that the claim that she was responding to, “CTU thinks your children are its children, “ was a concern that CTU didn’t care enough about children, or a concern that CTU didn’t respect parents enough?
2. Decent people don’t feel an obligation to treat other people’s children as their own, but respect the values of the kids’ parents.
For example, you don’t feed a Jewish kid pork or a vegan kid steak, even if you would do so for your own kids.
CTU is expressly disclaiming such an obligation.
She was pointing back to her preceding quote of Baldwin.
She quotes Baldwin about how CTU feels, like him, that all children are their own.
She then anticipates someone like you not getting that but thinking she meant they literally own the children and she mocks them by saying yes, they own them, in the Baldwin sense.
“Decent people don’t feel an obligation to treat other people’s children as their own, but respect the values of the kids’ parents.”
There’s nothing more in that clip that suggests she means this. This is what you’re reading into it, you seem incapable of conceiving of this idea, a la Baldwin, the sense owning the children of the world means an ethical obligation or responsibility to care about their welfare as if they were your own. Instead, you can’t help but think they must have meant owning kids in terms of telling them what they should eat or the like. That’s how a lot of authoritarians and people who struggle to find worth outside their in-groups think, but not everyone does.
This is a lot like the tempest over It takes a village to raise a child.
Some people see that and think “huh, it’s a call for communities to help out the families in them.”
Some “it says parents are teh failures and all kids should be in kibbutzs!”
"She then anticipates someone like you not getting that but thinking she meant they literally own the children and she mocks them by saying yes, they own them, in the Baldwin sense."
Where does she limit her second comment to the Baldwin sense?
The whole point of her comment is that she's not making a distinction between the Baldwin sense and the fuck the parents sense. If she had wanted to make that distinction, she could have.
To paraphrase her comment: "All the children are ours. Now watch, people are going to say that CTU says that your children our ours in the sense that we don't respect the parent's values but instead teach them our own. And that is correct."
“Where does she limit her second comment to the Baldwin sense?”
Uh, it following the quote? Do you really think she had to stop and say “now, I’m referring to the Baldwin quote sense I just referred to right now with what follows?” lol
“All the children are ours in the sense that we own the obligation and responsibility of caring for and by them. Now watch, people are going to say that CTU says that your children our ours in a literal ownership sense. But we affirm we own them in the sense we just referred to.”
FTFY the most natural reading.
"Uh, it following the quote? Do you really think she had to stop and say “now, I’m referring to the Baldwin quote sense I just referred to right now with what follows?”"
No. As you point out, the "CTU thinks that your children are their children" is from "someone like you not getting that but thinking she meant they literally own the children," i.e. someone not using the phrase in the Baldwin sense.
So why are you claiming that the response to the second quote has anything to do with the Baldwin sense?
Do you think she meant:
Baldwin says all kids are ours in this sense. And we agree on that sense. Now, some will say, ooh, you admitted the kids are yours in another sense! Yes, they are ours in that second sense!
She’s mocking the literalistic sense she anticipates some will take.
I think she meant what she said. She wasn't making a distinction between senses the way you are.
“It’s a pretty noble sentiment.”
Not in response to claims that teacher are overstepping their bounds and intruding into the domain of parents, which is the context here.
Is that what it was in response to?
Yes.
Proof?
As you point out, the "CTU thinks your children are their children," which she acknowledges to be true, is not using the phrase in the Baldwin sense, but in the "screw the parents" sense.
How did I point that out?
I mean, she brought up the Baldwin sense, and then abandoned it two sentences later?
As the Gospels say, greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his guy friends.
And some will say, oh, you love your guy friends!
And we will say, yes, we love them.
Did they just admit to being gay lovers of their friends?
She's not distinguishing between senses, you are.
They are claiming they love and feel responsible for all children as if they were their own. As Sarc said it’s a noble (if a bit kumbaya for my taste) inclination.
Well, you can't expect these reactionaries to have heard of James Baldwin. After all, no proper library in the US carries his books anymore!
Chances of the union president being able to spell Baldwin is less than 50%, let alone read him.
And what do you base that on? We’ve got an idea!
I am a teacher. NO teacher loses self-awareness to that point. You KNOW what you sound like This is not Joe Biden saying 'Two words, Made-in-America" If she didn't know what that sounds like to a parent , she be dumb as shite
She’s quoting the award winning author James Baldwin, you couldn’t shine that guys shoes in terms of intellectual accomplishment.
James Baldwin said, “CTU thinks your children are their children.”?
Cite?
Actually, he said they, and you and me, own all the world’s children.
You should also look into what he said about those incapable of understanding this!
Stay away from my children.
See, here’s the deal with this guy. He can only conceive of the term own in the following senses: direct possessing and dominating. He can’t even conceive it as meaning something else. He literally thinks James Baldwin wants to own everyone’s kids in the sense of he’s going to tell them all what to do and eat and sit on his knee. It can’t mean something like “I feel a responsibility and obligation to helping all kids in the world, whether they are mine or not.” Why would he think of other people’s kids and if he did he’d want to tell them what to eat, right?
If she didn't know what that sounds like to a parent ,
I'm betting a bunch of the people defending her here are in fact parents.
When I tell my clients, "I treat your money as if it's my own," I do not mean, "I spend it on whatever I feel like for my amusement." I mean, "I jealously guard it." Any rational person understands that.
When your clients say, “I get the feeling that you’re spending my money as if it were your own,” do you respond, “Yes, I am.”
Treating turns into spending! He can’t help but read his cynicism into it.
What a weird dude you are.
If you need a follow up to explain the true parsing, that is not a rational interpretation.
clear!
US Combat Deaths under Barry Hussein 2009-2017: 5,245 US Combat Deaths under "45/47/(48?)" 52 and which one won a Nobel Peace Prize???
Speaks volumes as to the world's opinion of Trump, doesn't it.
Explains why I don’t give a Rat’s Patootie(keeping it clean EV!) about the Worlds Opinion
Sorry, your comment left me thinking you did care.
During the Trump supporters like VP Vance told us the deportation focus would be on criminals. Now we learn that the the administration is using quota's for deportations and ICE is going after low hanging fruit. The immigrants that bother no one. The spouses and families of American service personnel. What a farce.
The first mistake was to believe them, but many people made that mistake. This far down the road, only the most devoted members of the cult still believe the MAGARINOs when they speak.
That's progress!
If all the immigrant terrorists would just move to farming country, they'd no longer be immigrant terrorists. They'd be untouchable.
It's no longer a national emergency if they'd just get to picking radishes. What's farcical about that?
And the crime problem would be solved if the Darkies would just go back to liftin’ dat Barge, Totin’ dat Bale, jeez and people call ME a Race-ist
Not true at all.
• 79% of deportations from FY 2021–2024 involved noncitizens with criminal records, including DUIs, theft, drug possession, and domestic violence.
Apart from your inability to link, do you not get that Trump wasn’t President for that period?
Well he was for 19.5 days, who was President after that? It sure wasn’t Sleepy Joe
So has there been a sea change in immigrants 🙂
The conversation is about Trump’s current immigration policy and you applied statistics from the years when he wasn’t President, ya goof.
Yes, it is indeed true that Biden was focused on deporting criminals whereas Trump is not.
Illegal aliens ARE criminals.
How do you know? There are a number of legal means for people to arrive in the US "illegally" and then convert to legal status. Without due process, you cannot know if they're even citizens or not.
Also the inverse is true. Many people have had their legal status changed by the government.
And they aren't notified until masked agents grab them off the street and shove them into unmarked vans.
So is President Trump and he is a convicted criminal.
You should have asked Miller, not Vance.
What they said was, the first wave would prioritize criminal illegals, and those that already had deportation orders.
But nobody said that anyone was getting a pass.
If Biden hadn't intentionally thrown the gates open letting anyone and everyone who could get to the border and tell a few lies straight faced, in and provide them with cash, work permits and housing, then perhaps Trump would not be putting so much effort and energy into deportations.
In his first term he focused on just not letting any more in, then Biden at least doubled the number of illegals, intentionally.
Just pure fan fiction from the nativists these days.
I don't expect to convince you, but it certainly convinced the voters, and now we are getting what we voted for.
Bagdad Bob style political propaganda didn't work for the Democrats in the election and it has no chance of changing people's perception of the obvious truth now.
Immigration and inflation won the election for Trump and the GOP, and trying to blow smoke up everyones ass is what convinced everyone the Democrats wouldn't take the issue seriously.
You have woven a whole Biden policy that never existed. You can look at the border stats. You can look at the immigration programs for illegal and asylum and legal of just about every modern President other than Trump and find them in continuity with very minor in number excursions.
These are facts that contradict your polemical flight of fancy. They have been pointed out to you and others before. But you didn’t reason your way here so you aren’t going to care.
I expect you neo-know nothing great replacement believers will get more bigoted before you eventually die down as with every previous fact free antimigrant spasm.
That's reading a lot into what my position is, I am pro immigration, but anti-illegal immigration.
None of the illegals that crossed the border and then applied for immigration, or the people Biden paroled from Haiti, Venezuela, El Salvador, Cuba Etc meet the qualifications of legal immigrants, as set by Congress.
So they need to go home. We should also make more visas available for legal immigration.
I assume that was meant to say "applied for asylum." But if they applied for asylum they are not "illegals." Nor are people who were paroled.
No, they're merely illegals who applied for asylum once they were caught, if they didn't enter legally to begin with, or overstayed a visa.
Now, if somebody presents themselves at one of our embassies, perhaps in Mexico or Canada, and applies for asylum, and is granted legal entry on that basis, they are not an illegal immigrant until they're refused asylum and fail to leave. And I guess there were a fair number of such cases as a result of Biden just casually automating the process for doing this as a way of circumventing immigration laws.
But simply applying for asylum after illegally immigrating doesn't render one a legal immigrant, it just puts deporting you temporarily on hold.
You don’t get your own definitions of words, or of laws.
Neither do you. If somebody immigrates illegally, they're an illegal immigrant. Applying for asylum they'll likely be turned down for in the end doesn't make them a legal immigrant, just an illegal one exploiting a loophole to buy time.
It does make then not illegal, according to the process in the law, as DMN has pointed out to you.
You don’t like it, so you discard your formalist attire and pretend functionalism can get you around the law.
It cannot.
I said nothing about your position regarding immigration generally. But you made this up: “Biden at least doubled the number of illegals, intentionally.”
“But Biden!” doesn’t work to excuse ICE’s Miller-driven targeting of compliant non criminals. And churches. And hospitals. This is extra true when your “But Biden” is false.
"But you made this up: “Biden at least doubled the number of illegals, intentionally.”
How the hell did he make that up? You've seen the actual numbers, I link to them on a regular basis. The moment Biden took office illegal immigration numbers skyrocketed, as a result of policy changes that you can hardly claim were unintentional.
And then Trump returns to office, changes those policies back, and the numbers implode. Went from almost 302K encounters last December, to 11-12K per month since February.
You just look stupid when illegal immigration changes with change of administration like somebody throwing a light switch, and you claim it wasn't driven by deliberate policy choices.
There were policy changes that meet the timeline of the increase. You assume causality. Like you so so often.
Just another of your conspiracies.
Again, you're just making yourself look stupid doing this.
Brett...you act as if there was an effect of Biden's policy of granting legal status to almost anybody who claimed asylum at the border.
That shows you are a conspiracy theorist. Try to understand to Sarc's rich argument. (He clearly doesn't know what "stupid" looks like, or he'd comment much less.)
So you're saying the first wave is already done?
If not, I'm struggling to see why you think the distinction is relevant.
Its not sequential al though some will be prioritized for mor proactive enforcement, but that doesn't mean others that come to ICE's attention can't be deported as ICE encounters them.
One of the advantages of the United States is that the separate states can offer case lessons in different styles of political management. One such example is the State of New York versus the State of Florida.
Florida has a higher population, by nearly 4 million. Yet its state budget is just 45% of New York's state budget (115 versus 252 billion). Florida spends just $4200 per person, while New York is spending over $12,000 per citizen.
Yet, the difference in services is...not that readily apparent. New York spends ~50% more per student. Yet the testing for the students is around the same. (In 4th grade math, Florida gets a 243 to New York’s 234. In 8th grade reading, New York gets 257 to Florida’s 253. )
The big difference is in Medicaid. The state of New York spends $123.8 Billion in Medicaid (and essential plan spending). That's larger than Florida's entire budget. New York has a slightly higher enrollment in Medicaid (7 million versus 5.4 million)...but that doesn't account for Medicaid costs for New York being three times higher than Florida (Florida spends 34.7 Billion).
You've got to wonder...what's going on with New York?
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2025-6-21-new-yorkflorida-comparison-the-contrast-becomes-more-and-more-dramatic
Are you really trying to compare apples with oranges?
You mean compare two states of similar size in population and land area?
There’s a lot of difference between two states other than land area and population dude.
Such as?
How much more New York spends in their state budget.
I mean, Georgia and Illinois are similar in area and population but we’re talking very different states, demographically, culturally, politically, climate, etc.
But we aren't talking demographically....climate etc. are we !!
I mean...pointing out the "political" differences versus the fiscal outcome in similar states was kinda the point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding
My personal thoughts would be urbanity and property prices.
I'd agree about that as long as one means eastern NY
Except they're similar in urbanity.
Technically speaking Florida has a higher urbanity than New York (91.5% versus 87.4%). https://www.visualcapitalist.com/sp/mapping-us-urbanization-by-state/
Urbanity isn’t just proportion of population in cities. Tallahassee is not the same as NYC.
I used the actual word "urbanity" you cited for the stats.
You don't like it, perhaps you should have used a different word.
Of course I pointed to many more types of differences.
As someone who goes to Gotham 4-5 times a year, I love New York. The State anyway, 50 miles from Ground Zero it transitions from needing a Snake Plissken-ish Security Guard to Barbershop Quartets singing in the Town Square, Dairy Farms, Amish, and for all you Jew-haters (I'm talkin' bout you, Lexus Aquilla) there would never have been a "Woodstock" without a Jewish Farmer (sound familiar?) letting the hippies use his farm. And Ironically, just a hop, skip, and a jump, is West Hurley, where Thompson Submachine guns were manufactured.
IF you compare two things that are the same, what are you comparing 🙂 You can compare apples to oranges on
weight taste difficulty of growing geographical diversity --- a million things
I acknowledge your joke, even if no one else realized it.
Florida man got it. And the subtext of Trump - - - -
I knew I didn't need that day job!
Well done!
ObviouslyNotSpam: "Are you really trying to compare apples with oranges?"
That works so well it's easy to miss.
Bravo.
So New York takes better care of its citizen's medical needs. Begging the question: What's wrong with Florida?
Are health care outcomes better in New York? Not that I've been able to find.
"Are health care outcomes better in New York?"
That would be the question to ask. According to two sources I read ranking healthcare 'outcomes' by state:
New York: 8, 9, Florida: 21, 36,
Which are conveniently...unlinked.
Well it’s from up Hobies Keester(keeping it clean EV!) so you really don’t want to go there
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/health-care https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/scorecard/2023/jun/2023-scorecard-state-health-system-performance
Don't Click it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You might want to look at the methodology used in those reports and the data used for the rankings. The analysis is not very robust.
Fun fact...those aren't health care outcomes.
Another fun fact. Many times these things rank things like "access" or "funding" as part of the general health care statistic. So, if you throw more money at it, or just sign up more people, your heath care statistic goes up....regardless of the actual outcome. It's a fun cycle, throw more money at it, "Health care" goes up (because funding is part of it the calculation).
But start looking at actual statistics...like Emergency Room Wait times.
https://www.flyreva.com/blog/average-emergency-room-wait-times/
You could have asked for the source.
You accused him of lying instead.
That is a needless choice to be an asshole.
Gee if only NY had a system of voting that allowed its citizens to vote in (or out) politicians who made decisions that the voters wanted.
And now let's look at state GDP:
Florida: $74k New York: $117k https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP
Now NY's GDP isn't double Florida's, but it is nonetheless significantly greater. What is Florida doing wrong? Economically inefficient? Stupider people? Incompetent politicians?
After all, it's an apples to apples comparison...
" What is Florida doing wrong?"
No Wall Street.
You think you are making a gotcha but its only NYC's financial importance that makes the difference.
i.e. New York only has a higher state GDP per capita because it generates more wealth per capita. LOL
Or you're conceding that it's not after all an apples to apples comparison.
Ok. Now take tourism out of FL's GDP.
You can't simply say you're not going to count NY's most important industry in the comparison.
It's like saying the Democrats do very poorly in the popular vote if you don't count California. The financial industry is important to NY, just like tourism is important to FL, and just like people in CA are Americans.
"Now take tourism out of FL's GDP.
NY has no tourism of course.
NY has plenty of tourism,but not nearly as much as FL. And its GDP is about 75% of NY's, so the disparity in the contribution is big.
Regardless, there's no reason to take the financial industry out of NY's figures other than to present a phony picture..
No, I think the argument is that the financial industry doesn't actually represent productive enterprise taking place in the state, it's just parasitic paper shuffling for the most part which skims part of the transactions it exists to facilitate.
Like I have a 401-K, it's invested in companies spread all over the country, but if the fund itself is headquartered in NY, that contributes to NY's GDP anyway, though it's producing nothing of value there.
So much for the free market I guess.
And for the value of allocating capital to its most efficient use.
“the financial industry doesn't actually represent productive enterprise taking place in the state, it's just parasitic paper shuffling for the most part which skims part of the transactions it exists to facilitate.”
wtf? This is some proto-fascist/stalinist shit. The noble factory worker and farmer produce while the parasitic financier sucks like the mosquitoes they are!
I said that's the argument. Do you deny that's the argument?
I don't think the financial industry is wholly parasitic paper shuffling, but I think it is at least partially that.
Now, high frequency trading? Yeah, that's just parasitic.
Fun fact. If you're looking at GDP per capita...sure But look at Median household income, it's a different story
New York drops to $82,095 Florida stays at $73,311
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_income
It's worth considering, which is more important to the average person living in the state. And it's worth considering, why the massive ($35,000) drop for New York. There are a few possible reasons, but one is if you've got a few very high income people driving up the GDP, it can skew things significantly. Is that a good thing?
You might want to add the cost of living to that comparison.
And Median Household income is a much better measurement than per capita GDP.
Here is median household income for a 1 person household
NY. $42,397 FL $39,438
Florida looks like a much higher standard of living factoring in the cost of living differential.
I think it's a fair criticism to point out that blue states tend to have a lot of cost disease associated with government spending, but at the same time, New York has about half as many uninsured people as Florida and many fewer people struggling with medical debt so the extra spending makes a difference.
The math doesn't quite work out though. True, as I pointed out, NY covers ~30% more people than FL with Medicaid. But it spends 250% more than FL spends.
As for Medical Debt....total national medical debt is estimated to be $220 Billion. Entire Nation, over multiple years. Yet New York is spending over $100 Billion a year, on its own, on Medicaid. Per Year. And STILL has hundreds of thousands of people with Medical Debt.
That doesn't track at all.
NY doesn't have as many old people as FL, per capita. Old people use a lot of medical services from the gov't, the rest, maybe not as much. Less overall cost b/c your base is so much older.
Medicaid is not the same as Medicare.
No shit, Sherlock. Apply some reasoning.
Old people use a lot of medical services from the gov't
Old people do not use a lot of medical services from the state government, which is the topic of this discussion.
Why do birds sing in the morning?
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/20/nx-s1-5436078/why-birds-sing-dawn-chorus-research-study
It's marxist, antisemitic terrorist pieces like this one that necessitate the removal of funding for NPR
Tell us why it was necesary, like the embarrassment to you when you explain things stupidly
Doesn't seem antisemitic to me, but it does seem like the stuff upper middle class college educated whites like, including a lot of Jews.
Like maybe they don't need a government subsidy to be able to get programming like that, although they might have to substitute 5 minutes of commercials now and again for almost constant fund drives.
Zohran Mamdani has won the Democratic primary for Mayor of New York. His platform includes... 1. Rent Freezes 2. Free City Buses 3. Government run Grocery Stores 4. Universal Childcare 5. More rent-stabilized, union built housing
Oh.. .and
6. A bill to end the tax-exempt status of charities with ties to Israeli settlements.
Might be time to leave NYC. Make that double if you happen to be Jewish.
He sounds a bit of a goof to me, but I’m not sure free buses is a bad idea. There was a Freakonomics episode about that, apparently the hassle it takes to get the fare from bus users is a big deal and n their inefficiency.
Except you get it isn't really "Free"...right?
Well, yeah, better to just pay for it with taxes, in a city like NYC it’s a pretty necessary part of the economy.
What else should be "free"?
Libraries, schools, your mom (no one’s going to pay for that).
Can't help yourself, can you Queenie? By your standard, schools and libraries are already free (paid for by taxes). What else should be "free"?
Malikas Mom’s (Redacted, keeping it clean EV!) is so wide, Airliners on final approach to JFK land there by mistake!
Why is it a necessary part of the economy in NYC? I mean, they do have a rather good subway and rail system.
I imagine by making it "Free", you'll see a drop in the service (it's not making any money, after all), while simultaneously costing more in taxes (along with most of the proposal).
Because it’s much more difficult to have personal vehicles in NYC but all those service workers have to get to their jobs.
So, they've tried free buses before, both in NYC and in other large US cities. They generally don't really work, for a few reasons.
1. Fare loss. It's substantial. $600-$700 million for NYC.
2. "Problem Riders". You get new riders, it's true. But...it's not really from cars for the most part. Only about 10% of the riders come from cars. The rest come from elsewhere. Some other public transit users (probably higher in NYC).
But the real issue is "Problem Riders". Drunks, teens with too much time on their hands, vagrants. The bus represents "something free to do, out of the rain/cold." There they can yell, throw up, sit and take up space, riding the bus all day. This would especially be a problem in NYC. It make the entire service worse, increases wait times, makes the drivers more dissatisfied, and can drive off the very population you're trying to serve.
For those seriously interested:
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/should-public-transit-be-free/
My traditional 3 logical fallacies (there are more) Free rides mean sleeping smelly homeless, psychos who at some point won't know where they are , and MS-13 and Tren de Aragua looking for a captive audience (think : Subway)
Secondly, There will be no route of complaint or improvement. The bus ride will be terrible but will be used only by those with no real politlcal power -- and as Dr Drucker would say 'YOu can't complain about what is free !!"
Thirdly, It will become another Amtrak costing MUCH MORE than if you charged fares. " it has never earned a profit and it consumed more than $50 billion in federal subsidies over five decades to 2020. In fiscal year 2021, Amtrak had revenues of $2.1 billion, expenses of $4.1 billion, and a loss of $2.0 billion"
Okay , are we done with 'free busses " {that's a double 's' by the way]
You know the Subway isn’t currently free, right?
but sometimes they have 1/2 price on their Philly Cheesesteaks
Which is my POINT !!! Do you expect being free to draw a better clientele 🙂
“That flip is everything,” Ms. Glazer said, and it can only partly be explained by the growing homelessness and mental health crises in the city, she said.
You claimed free rides would draw homeless and criminals pointing to the Subway, which is, you know, not free, ya goof.
and MS-13 and Tren de Aragua looking for a captive audience (think : Subway)
I assumed they were just there for the $5 Footlong.
It would make subways into murder sites. Free buses in a city with crack police force would work. but there you go
MO' MONEY! MO' MONEY! MO' MONEY!
Rent freeze. Destroys housing supply.
Free buses. Lessens transportation revenue, increases riders.
Free childcare. Makes it more sustainable to live without a dad.
Fuckin' brilliant vision of life, from people who seem incapable of learning from past mistakes.
Lots of cities have free bus systems.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/03/02/free-public-transportation-is-a-reality-in-100-citiesheres-why.html
NY MTA is already 33 billion in the hole. Like most of what he says, this proposal is economic suicide and a nonstarter in the state (I'm a new yorker, Brooklyn). He might as well be running for student body president of a high school.
Basic reason why I have never voted and never will.
Public transportation isn’t going to be a profit center for local government.
"Lots of cities have free bus systems." "The New York Times estimates that 100 cities around the world offer free public transit, with many of them in Europe. But recently, cities across the United States have begun to consider it as well. The article (from 2020) then goes on to two in the US.
nothing is free. The only question is who is paying.
Why the rich, of course.
No. First, they come for the super rich. That whets the teet by tossing in fat mama for the first round of feeding.
Then, they come for the "rich," i.e. people with substantial retirement savings..."wealthier people" who don't depend on social security.
Look at them attacking "greedy landlords," meaning people who eek out just the profit that the extremely competitive real estate market permits. A huge number of those landlords are individual homeowners who offset some of their housing costs by offering a sublet. So they'll start with "big" landlords who own more that 10 dwellings, and again, they'll throw in that fat mama to whetten the teet.
Then the socialists' designs will eat those landlord gains while telling tales about a road to more affordable housing. (Reduction of housing stock, and resulting economic decline, are the inevitable results of such already-tried policies.)
SOAK THE RICH! And listen to the timid rationalizations of the left now as the void created by their lack of full-throated defense of U.S. values gets filled with a principle-less take-from-your-neighbors free-for-all.
There’s plenty of class warfare to go around, a big chunk of MAGA is about how Trump will settle those “elites” who “stole your honor” but good.
I note your lack of disagreement, Queenie. There is at least the dignity of not having to stand for what you believe. Maybe you and "MAGA" aren't so different?
Huh? I could just as easily note yours. And the lack of basic self-awareness.
"I could just as easily note [your lack of disagreement."
You are correct. The Trump movement includes numerous sweeping generalizations, much of which is false in my opinion, about various types of people, e.g. "immigrants," "billionaires," "Big Tech companies."
Have you looked at the Democrats' big smear shit-list lately? In addition to the above, they include "corporations," "landlords," "real estate developers," "pharmaceutical companies," "oil companies," "Zionists," "gun owners," "Christians," "whites," "home schoolers," "conservatives," and lots more.
I'll say this for the right: they're fighting much fewer demons than the left. But both do a pretty good job of trashing the human race in general, and in particular, many valuable constituencies.
This is where Sarc attempts to call this a lament of white grievance. But everybody understands the degree to which my point hits its mark.
“Free childcare. Makes it more sustainable to live without a dad.”
Are you saying kids without dads shouldn’t have sustainable lives?
LawTalkingGuy: "Are you saying kids without dads shouldn’t have sustainable lives?"
That's about as dumb as me asking, "Are you saying you prefer that kids grow up without dads?"
Get real.
the government run grocery stores is going to trash bodegas and such as he stated he intends to have these stores not pay any rent or taxes. given that advantage maybe they should not charge taxes on purchases either.
it will certainly put a lot of businesses out of business which can include pharmacies and such which rely on food and beverages as secondary income streams. then what, government provide pharmacies?
Bwaaah...You are correct, they have learned nothing. In fact, they wallow in their degradation.
Remember when bwaah claimed to be a disillusioned Democrat?
Citation, asshole?
I never said any such thing. Especially, I've never identified as either a Democrat or a Republican (despite having registered as one, the other, or "independent" at some time or another).
I have said that I am "a liberal." I stand by that.
The culture of the Democratic party's adherents in the past 10 years reflect a wayward mass of thoroughly populist intellectual rot. Their stories of a better world, and of better people, count for little when life worsens for people under their ways...when life becomes increasingly degrading (for the many).
Raise Jeff Bezos' taxes, send extra checks to "brown" (and "Black") people, freeze the rents, sell government groceries, and we'll all be better how why?
Brilliant, Sarc! Brilliant!
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/12/nate-silver-on-why-liberalism-and-leftism-are-increasingly-at-odds/?comments=true#comment-10354764
“ I'm a liberal. I get that the elected Democrats in Washington aren't SJLs. But down ballot in the cities, and even in Democrat appointed policy makers/regulation writers/committee staff, SJLs are pervasive and institutionalizing identity-based preferences, speech regulation, central economic policies, and all the rest.” … “For what it's worth, Silver cites a piece: Why I Am Not a Conservative by F.A. Hayak (written in 1960). Though I'm only some way through it, it looks like a well-reasoned examination of the forces at play here.
I see my choice as being between the side that is attacking abortion and immigrants, and the side that is attacking modern liberalism.“
Ah yeah back when you pretended to be concerned about immigration and abortion rights
As I've told you before, Sarc: I'm not a poser. I don't conveniently make stuff up like you did here. I was never a "disillusioned Democrat." I'm a disgusted liberal (and you appear to be an all-in government employee for whom "statism" is a nasty word that describes a good thing).
I'm not even sure what it is that you're trying to say here. I think it's something like, "If you were were a real liberal, you would like a candidate who supports a rent freeze, government-run grocery stores, withdrawal of support for Israel, race-based hiring, and more giant new government social welfare programs."
You have stuck to every Trump position like glue. I get your self image requires you to believe otherwise but your posting is indistinguishable from MAGA.
Your carping about the undeserved parasites maybe getting free busses is a contempt for your fellows that is not from the liberal playbook. It aligns with the MAGA populism of resentment.
Again, you fail to defend that which you are trying to defend.
You purport to oppose my position on the Mamdani platform. Defend that platform, Sarc. Don't just passively attack anybody who opposes it as if that makes your case. Advance whatever alleged principles you believe (and you too, Malika) that support that platform.
But please...seriously...don't leave out the facts of increased spending, increased taxation, increased debt, and the long-term implications of those upon economic output and sustainability. Please speak to the issue of capital. (Just because we can't agree on the mechanics of capital doesn't negate its relevance, and yet, you leave it aside as an ignorable ambiguity.)
It matters little how horribly (and misleadingly) you characterize me or anybody else. I'm a rational, sincere speaker, and you're acting like a nasty ninny.
Phoney balony, busted.
I knew I remembered him from somewhere, nice job on keeping the receipts Sarc!
He meant classical liberal all along!
1) What does "classical liberal" mean to you? 2) Do you think that's how I see myself?
If he gets to enact his policies, in a few years we're going to be hearing about how Mamdani wasn't a real socialist.
Sarcastr0 already started making that case. He doesn't want to call it what it is, because nobody but an idiot can defend it. Sarc doesn't defend it; he just opposes all who oppose it.
I said I’ll wait to see his policies before calling them good or bad.
Socialist, like Marxist, doesn’t mean anything coming from the likes of you.
Thanks for opposing me, buddy! That must stand for something.
Learn what socialism means. You sound like a child.
Socialism is a very broad, non-specific term. Mamdani identifies himself a "socialist," so I find it appropriate here.
You sound like a person who is sympathetic to socialist values, but who doesn't like labels. You don't advocate for socialism; you just advocate against anybody who advocates against socialism.
Mamdani is a socialist by his own terms, and he's a Democrat. Take a good look at the package (rent freeze, new expensive social welfare programs, government run retail stores, opposition to Israeli defense, watering down of policing) and try to justify the new Democratic vision instead of pretending I'm making it up.
A brief Google and it does not appear he ran on the bill you are highlighting. He supported it in 2024.
Your demand that Jews leave, and implication that he hates Jews is belied by his large win in NYC. Plenty of Jews voted for him.
Seems more like antisemetic scaremongering wasn’t an issue this election turned on.
Oh, he didn't just "support" the bill. He introduced it.
And I'm not "demanding" Jews leave. I'm just saying when the avowed antisemite wins as mayor (sorry, primary)....might be time to read the tea leaves.
Not sure about your claim that "many" Jews voted for him.
So you listed things in his platform and then something that wasn’t but you wanted to talk about.
And lol at your idea that you can win NYC without pretty substantial Jewish support.
Anyhow, Jews aren’t buying MAGA bullshit about antisemitism it seems.
Nut the whole profligate accusations of antisemitism song and dance was never actually for the Jewish population. It is for MAGA to justify themselves.
All the resident MAGAn's in NYC...
You really are a caricature of a clown. A clown's clown, so to speak.
Sarc is clearly saying he got lots of Jewish, not MAGA, support in winning NYC, ya goof.
His premise requires "MAGA" in NYC to pushing the anti-semitic criticisms of Zohran.
No, he’s saying in winning NYC he likely had a lot of Jewish voters who did buy into the charges by MAGAns that the guy was anti-Semitic, ya goof.
Malika,
There are no MAGAns in NYC to make the charges, you moron.
lol, you dolt, that’s his point: Jews IN NYC did not buy the charges from MAGANS OUTSIDE IT.
"accusations of antisemitism song and dance was never actually for the Jewish population. It is for MAGA to justify themselves." You sound like you are from another planet with a statement like that.
He’s questioning the motivation of MAGA’s anti-antisemitism, how’s that from another planet?
"And lol at your idea that you can win NYC without pretty substantial Jewish support."
Interesting map for you. Neighborhood level map of who voted for whom in NYC. It's interesting that when you get to the Jewish Neighborhoods, the vote seems to shift away from Mr. Mamdani. When you get to the REALLY Jewish neighborhoods like Borough Park, Mr. Mamdani's support craters to <5%.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/25/new-york-city-results-neighborhood-map/
Maybe the politician who refused to sign a resolution condemning the actual Holocaust....might not be a Jew's best friend.
https://nypost.com/2025/05/17/us-news/mamdani-doubles-down-on-bizarre-refusal-to-sign-resolution-condemning-holocaust/
You don’t understand Jewish demographics in NYC if you are taking the Orthodox neighborhoods as the only places where Jews live.
Reform and Conservative Jews are also Jews.
And can you provide "any" evidence that Mr Mamdani won ANY sizeable percentage of Jews? Other than an appeal to "you can't win NY without Jews)
(BTW...of course you can. Jews make up just 12% of NYC's population. And Mamdani won well less than 10% of NYC's population in the primary).
You know, I’m going to guess Jews in NYC know their city and the likely impact of their politicians better than you do.
You know, I'm going to guess that Jews in NYC are not a large enough fraction of the population (6%) to control who wins elections, so this idiot winning the primary isn't any sort of evidence that he got a substantial share of the Jewish vote.
Show me some exit polls.
From what I can tell the pop is 12% and in a Dem primary it’s gonna be more.
Really? New York City’s religious diversity bucks stereotypes of secularism"
2020, NYC was 7% Jewish, though it got up to 12% in Brooklyn. (The 6% figure was from Pew, but they were not sufficiently clear if they were talking about the city or the state.)
According to wikipedia, NYC is 56% Democratic, 26% Republican, and 18% neither. Even assuming all the Jews were Democrats, that only gets you up to Jews being 12.5% of the Democratic vote.
About the only way Jews control the primary election is if they all turn out and it's a low turnout election.
I repeat, got any exit polls saying how Jews vote? Because the outcome is actually perfectly consistent with this dude getting very little of the Jewish vote.
Jews in the US vote against themselves with regularity and never learn
.mute.
"He supported it in 2024."
That long ago, huh.
“ His platform includes...”
That is a lie.
So this marxist isn't an anti-settlement terrorist, rather an antisemitic terrorist? I'm sure a lot of Jews work at Bud Light, Harvard, Columbia, Law Firms, US Aid, Voice of America etc. So, ipso facto, you hayseeds' defunding and cancelling them would make you... need I say it?
Ah, antisemitism: MAGA's very own race card. And brother are they a'pullin' it! I thought you rubes didn't like race cards.
But due to childish overuse, it's veracity is going into the toilet [checks watch] in three, two, one...
Republicans are using Jews as political pawns much like how Democrats used trans people from 2015-2020. "allies" are the loudest voices in the room, using the cause to cancel their opponents and rivals, bleaching every statement of any context with maximalist restatements, capitalizing on blowback to increase the agitation.
it won't end well. once Republicans decide Jews are more of a political liability than an asset (especially if they don't "say thank you" by voting R in Vance's words), they'll drop them, and the resulting anti-Semitism will be 10x worse than it is now. at least, as a trans person, that was my experience with the Democrats following the same playbook.
Of course. Like any other organism, everything is in service for the survival of the race-specific species. In contrast, liberals try to accommodate everyone, and it eventually rubs everyone the wrong way. The unions resent the appeasement of the laymen. The gays resent the appeasement of the trans. So they eventually look towards the people that can best represent their hate
If I was stupid enough to live in NYC, I would've voted for him. For #6 alone.
These false flags to make MAGA look antisemetic sure are getting numerous!
Woah, I didn't realize how falsey flagy my MAGA comment looked! I'll be sure to self-censor next time as I want to make sure the MAGA reputation is still good as seen by liberals. After all, the reputation of the ambiguous and ephemeral "MAGA" organization as seen by the Left is of the utmost importance! How else can "MAGA" be successful without the reputational respect of the the Left? I wish "MAGA" were more like Antifa, which apparently doesn't exist because they haven't filed for a charter from the government. Unlike MAGA. They're a registered, chartered organization.
Thank you for the rebuke. I will be much better behaved going forward. I also promise that I will worship the Jews and Israel like the Modern Left and the Right does.
He left out Kramers Rickshaw idea
It's almost as if he is trying to win the votes of lots of voters who aren't you!
New York has had Republican mayors before. If Mamdani's ideas are so crazy, it should be easy enough for Curtis Sliwa to defeat him in November.
For the record, there will also be a sensible (at first glance) independent candidate on the ballot in November. He explored running as a Republican, but decided he didn't want to touch that party with a 10 ft pole after the Eric Adams prosecution saga.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Walden_(lawyer)
It's ironic that MAGAts support illegal Israeli immigration to the Palestinian territories but are absolutely foaming at the mouth regarding even legal immigrants to the US as "illegal aliens."
Only if logic is a thing...
Jews returning to Judea and Samaria is not "illegal".
And Mexicans returning to Alta Mexico isn't "illegal" either, right?!
No it isn't. The land was ceded to the US. There is no sovereign in Judea and Samaria, its free range.
Plus, most illegals are not from Mexico these days but central america and northern south america. Your talking points need updated.
Alta Mexico?
Yes it is.
https://icj-cij.org/index.php/case/186
...and it's obviously not.
There is no place within Israel where an Israeli citizen is an illegal alien; including Judea, Samaria, and soon gaza.
It’s interesting he concedes Gaza is part of Israel.
None of those places are "within Israel."
Many people in this country think government doesn't work and want to break it. Trump wants to break it one way and Mamdani wants to break it another way. Both are wrong but breaking things seems to be popular.
Universal childcare in effect penalizes people who take care of their own kids. Why does the left hate families?
"Universal childcare in effect penalizes people who take care of their own kids. Why does the left hate families?"
Penalizes??
I don't think that word means what you seem to think it means, TIP. What is the nature of the penalty?
The money you could make if you worked instead.
If you want to subsidize parents, that’s one thing. Subsidizing only external childcare is anti family.
The money I could make if I worked instead?
Sorry, fool. Not my circus, not my monkeys.
Other parents' child care arrangements are none of my business. Nor are they any of yours. As Hank Williams, Sr. (and later his son) sang:
Mindin' other people's business seems to be high-toned I got all that I can do just to mind my own Why don't you mind your own business? Mind your own business If you mind your own business You'll stay busy all the time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZH2bmbUTl4&list=RDRZH2bmbUTl4&start_radio=1
“Other parents' child care arrangements are none of my business.”
Then it sounds like you agree that they shouldn’t be subsidized.
Whoosh!!
Right over your head again?
No, right over yours, dumbass!
You wish, fuckface!
I'm not the one missing the point here, doofus.
Providing (optional) child care opportunities to parents who choose to avail themselves thereof does not "penalize" anyone under God's green earth.
And you guys keep insisting that you don't need to be told that there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Any program that doesn’t help you directly is penalizing you?
What a miserable way to go about life.
What a miserable way to be ignorant of economics.
Any program that makes is so option A costs me money relative to option B is penalizing me, if my preference is option A.
As I said, there's no free lunch.
And making it more desirable to use external childcare hurts families.
The cost is marginal at best. And humans are not homo economicus.
You are a human, choosing to be a hater of all that does not help you specifically. Selfishness is neither a virtue nor the rational choice. It’s antisocial,
I worked hard to provide my own personal defense force and then the socialists penalize me by providing a police force that anyone, no matter how much tax they pay, can call upon based upon need alone!
"The cost is marginal at best."
You're using an economic term incorrectly.
And the opportunity cost is significant. When you have free external childcare, it ends up costing people who choose to provide their own childcare lots of money. And countries who have such programs see reduced rates of self-provided childcare.
If your policy goal it to have the state take over childcare (as is probably the case for the commie mayor and his supporters) fine, support universal childcare. But you are anti-family.
If your policy goal is simply to reduce the burden on families with children, you should support a subsidy that includes the type of childcare families wish to provide.
"I worked hard to provide my own personal defense force..."
What the hell are you talking about?
Does having a municipal park with a community center, tennis courts and a golf course available somehow "penalize" folks who pay dues to a country club?
Certainly. Such a subsidy incentivizes people to golf at the municipal park who might otherwise prefer to golf at the private club.
"Certainly. Such a subsidy incentivizes people to golf at the municipal park who might otherwise prefer to golf at the private club."
And that is a "penalty" just how? I surmise that most country club members (who may well have joined in order to avoid mingling with the hoi polloi) would welcome less competition from other members for a desirable tee time.
It's a penalty because they have to pay the same amount of money for a reduced marginal gain.
Apparently, TiP never heard of people making voluntary choices.
Apparently, bernard11 never heard of subsidies that affect people's voluntary choices.
In the same way libraries penalize people who buy books or parks penalize people who own lots of pretty land with trails?
No. Libraries make it more efficient to use books. They still buy books ostensibly at the same price and pass the cost along somehow.
To the extent that libraries pass the cost to people who use them or not, they penalize people who do other things than read library books, but that's kind of the point.
Just some fun quotes I found.
"activists are exploiting the current makeup of the judicial system to circumvent the legislation process and overturn the will of the American people. … We can’t let unelected judges thrash our democracy,”
"“This weekend, a single federal judge in Texas issued a decision that seeks to deny..."
"“Appellate courts can make sweeping decisions endangering the American principle that policy-making belongs in elected branches and not with judges,”"
"The Constitution’s ‘case or controversy’ requirement protects against free-range judicial policy-making …" the Constitution limits courts to deciding individual cases or controversies, not writing ‘decisions for the ages,’ to keep unaccountable judicial power in check
"activist plaintiffs should not be able to hand-pick individual judges to set nationwide policy"
"It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process."
Your discovery of political hypocrisy has truly owned the libs once and for all.
I note your second quote highlights what continues to be a live problem that has no partisan mirror. Blackman is a big fan, but as usual his arguments are largely whining about liberals more than any actual prudential defense.
German reporters visit the scene of the "ecocide" in Ukraine where the dam blew up. They find lush riparian habitat with happy birds.
https://www.dw.com/en/nature-returns-to-ukraines-ravaged-kakhovka-dam-landscape/a-72850774
The Dniepr floodplain is doing better than the newly undammed Klamath basin, where ecological engineers went in to restore vegetation by hand.
Didn’t something similar happen with the area around Chernobyl? Nature can be pretty resilient despite how bad we treat her sometimes…
Sure. See Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
More Cancer, but on the other hand they didn't get colds very often
Well there you have it. The invasion was completely justified. Lordy, is there anything the MAGA don't hate? [asking for a friend]
Here's one I didn't think I'd see.
Remember how in Maryland there was a standing order to automatically grant a 2-day injunction in any habeas case for removing any illegal alien?
Well, the government is now suing the Maryland district courts over it. Every district court judge is a named defendant.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.584990/gov.uscourts.mdd.584990.1.0.pdf
In Massachusetts I think the state Supreme Court's supervisory authority could be invoked in such a case. The U.S. Supreme Court might not have a process to go straight to the top.
I think that in a situation like this is makes sense for Congress to make a rule to bypass the offending court and go directly to the court of appeals or even SCOTUS.
Some have called it a form of judicial insurrection. Is that a fair description of what is happening in MD?
In a legal sense, no. In a rhetorical sense, that's in the eye of the beholder.
I think its pernicious for district court judges to flout Congress's laws, and the appellate courts are derelict in their duty to police those district courts. Or worse, the appellate courts are supportive of and endorse the district courts' actions.
"Equitable jurisdiction" my ass; it's a power grab against a President that the judges don't like.
Trump is using power he doesn't have for a cause he thinks is just. In response, judges are using power they don't have for a cause they think is just.
Funnily enough, Trump sees it the same way.
Do two wrongs make a right? Doesn't it undermine the authority and the standing of the judiciary when they cannot even abide by the laws?
No. A non-Dr Ed episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.
So, if you want to know in a nutshell why some people dislike Trump, take this: “U.S. wine exports to Canada fell 93% in April, the steepest year-on-year drop in more than two decades, as Canadian provinces pulled American alcohol from store shelves in response to U.S. tariffs.”
https://vino-joy.com/2025/06/18/u-s-wine-exports-to-canada-plunge-93/amp/
The people in this industry are hurting due to his weird need to badger one of our longstanding allies and trading partners for little to no discernible upside.
NO, you missed the irony. "the governor of California after Gavin Newsom was seen attending a charity wine event while LA riots raged over immigration this month."
The big guys are not in the least affected.
Not actually addressing the point, of course
True, the Governor was not addressing the point.
What do you think is the point here that he’s not addressing?
"... for little to no discernible upside." Fewer Canadian DUIs.
And fairer trade for US businesses.
All voluntary trade is fair. Taxes of course cannot make it more fair.
Interestingly, the test case against the tariffs working its way thru the courts has as plaintiff a New York state wine importer who is Jewish...I think you know where I'm going with this...
“U.S. wine exports to Canada fell 93% in April, the steepest year-on-year drop in more than two decades"
Wth happened 20 years ago?
I'll bet it also had to do with governments mucking about, when free people just wanna trade.
If you're looking for outrage from the "free market" conservatives, they've turned in those membership cards and replaced them with "America First" memberships.
The wine that is shipped to Canada is most likely from three states: California, Oregon, and Washington. (If not 100% of it, certainly a supermajority of it.) MAGA has shown great creativity in the ways they intentionally target blue states for retribution. I don't think you're going to illicit any concern from them over Canada not buying blue-state wine.
There are much better reasons to dislike Trump than a reduction in wine exports to Canada.
Sure, but it’s not a bad one because of that. These are people’s livelihoods being messed up because he had this stupid thing about making Canada a state he needed to keep doubling down on.
There are better reasons, yes, but "much better" is debatable. Trashing our economy and hurting entire sectors is going to have other knock-on effects like increased unemployment and bankruptcies.
"fell 93%"
Useless info unless one knows the volume of sales to Upper America and the percentage of total worldwide sales
So will this make US wine less expensive for purchase in the US - as there is more supply staying here? Seems like a lower price is an upside for consumers - right?
Yesterday was primary day in New York. The mayoral race was of special concern in New York City.
Andrew Cuomo was the frontrunner but, in the end, conceded. The final result of the ranked choice voting (only done in local races during primaries) will come in July. Cuomo might (along with Eric Adams, though not sure about that) still run an independent.
Elections provide a chance for us to practice our rights and responsibilities as citizens. It was nice to see a range of people come out to vote. I guess it is for the stickers and those pens with the rubber tips (for signing the voting tablet)!
A special nod to Brad Lander. Also, even though he received also ran status, Zellnor Myrie hopefully has a promising future. This Cuomo blog post talks about him at the end.
https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2024/09/eric-adams-goes-full-trump-and-coveted.html
Not that I am personally concern, but I do hope that Cuomo runs as an independent.
In Massachusetts we have nonpartisan local elections. I think that is a better system.
I open to the idea though for many races that won't matter much in New York City. Ranked choice or some other approach (such as approval voting) also can be mixed in there.
"mayoral race was of special concern"
“The people have spoken … and they must be punished.” lastdecent Dem NYC mayor
I wouldn't expect REASON to see this but according to Austrian economics, free busses would probably usher in true not-free busses.
At Detroit Metro, way out in Romulus and not near Detroit, they have private car parks up to a mile or more away, and giant ones on site, run by government.
Government is so grotesquely inefficient, they had to slap a 30% surcharge on the car parks because people would rather pay wayyyyy less and have to get on a shuttle than just park and walk from nearby.
Like any airport, there are loads of hotels nearby. Many people from outstate flying out come down the night before and stay in the hotels. The hotels let them park for free during their trip.
Outlawed that competition, too.
I've used that airport enough times, (And used the off site car parks every time I could.) to be able to tell you: Even if you park at the airport, it's not a walk "from nearby", you're going to take a shuttle anyway.
The DOJ woke up and choose violence yesterday. Suing the entire federal district of Maryland. I think they are probably correct on the merits. I don't think they will get the full remedy, but I think it's an excellent legal way to express frustration to SCOTUS with the "lawlessness" district court Judges have been imposing on the executive.
That pesky judiciary sure can get in the way sometimes
Perhaps, but a standing order for an automatic 2 day stay seems a bit tyrannical, regardless of whether or not you agree with it.
I do not think "tyrannical" means what you think it means. In fact, I cannot fathom what you think it means from this context.
Is a standing automatic 2-day stay rule wrong, David?
The standing order is obviously intended to keep federal agencies from frustrating the jurisdiction of the District Court by removing the habeas corpus petitioner from the United States. Per 28 U.S.C. § 1651:
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
A federal district court "at times must assert its authority at once to preserve the status quo or to determine its jurisdiction." United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc, 487 U.S. 72, 79 (1988). Under those circumstances, the court has "the inherent and legitimate authority of the court to issue process and other binding orders . . . as necessary for the court to determine and rule upon its own jurisdiction, including jurisdiction over the subject matter. Id., at 79.
Since the standing order here is in aid of preserving the court's habeas corpus jurisdiction, it is at least presumptively lawful.
So you think the gov't loses the case.
If the gov't prevails here, other districts (N CA) will have similar lawsuits, I imagine.
An order by a judge would be treated like any other TRO. A TRO is an exercise of judicial discretion. The orders in the District of Maryland are by a clerk who does not have any discretion.
If the court wants to fight back against abuse of power the court should assign a judge to review immigration cases within minutes of filing.
No. The orders — like all court orders — are docketed by the clerk. They are issued by the court. You can tell, because that's actually what this standing order says.
I don't know what you mean by "wrong." Are you asking whether the court has the authority to issue such a standing order? I would say so, yeah. That's almost exactly what the All Writs Act is for.
MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND TO DESIGNATE VISITING JUDGE ANDMEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
"Plaintiffs, the United States of America and the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (together, Plaintiffs), respectfully request that each judge of this Court recuse himself or herself from this matter. Plaintiffs also request that this matter be referred to the Fourth Circuit Clerk’s Office for assignment of a randomly selected district judge from another District or transfer to another District."
Wow, they really did.
I don't know that I'd characterize that as "choosing violence", though.
I noticed the other day that Trump's lawsuit against that Brazilian supreme court judge is also still pending somehow. I couldn't be bothered to check whether the defendant had even sent counsel, so I'm afraid there's little actual information I can contribute.
The defendant has not yet been served and has not made an appearance.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69650977/trump-media-technology-group-corp-v-de-moraes/
ikaritenshi, how is filing a civil suit "choos[ing] violence"?
One reason that the judicial system developed was to provide an alternative to the parties to a dispute engaging in self help, including by violent means.
"Verb choose violence (Internet slang, humorous, idiomatic) To disrespect or insult someone in a particularly audacious and unexpected manner. "wake up and choose violence" Wiktionary
Ah, thanks. So it's somewhere in the vein of "violent speech", another example of the violence the younger generations appear to enjoy inflicting upon the English language.
Somewhat related to the judicial resistance to Bruen, I suppose:
A Phenomenon in Search of a Theory / Recent Citations to Michael Bellesiles' Publications
"SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Between 2003 and 2021, inclusive, Bellesiles was not cited in any federal appellate opinions (that is, those available on Westlaw or LexisNexis). But since 2021, Bellesiles has been cited in seven opinions (including concurrences and dissents).
Between 2000 and 2020, inclusive, Bellesiles was not cited in any federal district court opinions (that is, those available on Westlaw or LexisNexis). But since 2020, Bellesiles has been cited in twenty-two opinions.
Between 2002 and 2022, inclusive, Bellesiles was not cited in any state (appellate or trial court) opinions (that is, those available on Westlaw or LexisNexis). But since 2022, Bellesiles has been cited in five opinions.
With the exception of a single federal appellate brief from 2016, between 2011 and 2018, inclusive, Bellesiles was not cited in any (state or federal) appellate briefs (that is, those available on Westlaw). But since 2018, Bellesiles has been cited in twenty- eight briefs.
Between 2013 and 2023, inclusive, Bellesiles was not cited in any (state or federal) trial court briefs (that is, those available on Westlaw). But since 2023, Bellesiles has been cited two briefs."
There was a 1-2 decade long period after his exposure as a fraud, where the courts stopped citing him. Then suddenly in the early '20s that abruptly changed. So, what changed? How did he end up rehabilitated?
I wonder if it's something going on in the law schools those judges attended?
For context, Arming America was published in book form in 2000, (A shorter essay form had been published in '96, and had similar problems exposed.) exposed as a fraud almost immediately, and by 2002 had been officially accepted to be fraudulent.
Brett (as always) did not bother to read the thing he cited. Nothing about that article shows Bellesiles being "rehabilitated." You have to look at who cited him, and what they cited him for. A red flag should've gone up when you saw that one of the first judges identified was Van Dyke, who is a very very pro-2A judge.
I only skimmed them, but none appear to be citing Bellesiles for his discredited claim that gun ownership was rare; most of them appear to be citing him in support of the notion that gun control was historically racist, intended to disarm Indians. And presumably "what changed" was Bruen, which made history relevant.
What's wrong with Judge Van Dyke? His written opinions are sardonic, and witty, no? I am glad there are judges who do respect our 2A rights, esp in CA.
Brett’s thesis is that spurious claims fro a fraudster are getting used by courts to justify pro gun control rulings.
As DMN pointed out, the first judge cited is not going to be making a pro gun control ruling. He then points out what the fraudster is getting cited for, and why he’s getting cited lately.
He was obviously put forth as a "very very pro-2A judge" who would therefore be very very unlikely to rehabilitate Bellesiles, not that there is something wrong with him.
Why the red flag?
It's a red flag for Brett Bellmore's reading being incorrect, that Bellesiles is being rehabilitated.
No, I did read it, and I know that he was hardly ever cited for Arming America, and the few times, unfavorably.
But this publicly known fraud somehow stopped being too disreputable to cite. How did that happen? That's what Tilman is asking, because the change was rather abrupt.
Asked and answered: Bruen made history relevant — indeed, crucial.
Actually, Bruen made imaginary history mandatory. Or at least purported to do that. I would not have predicted that would have led to rehabilitation of Bellesiles, but it makes a kind of perverse sense when you think about it.
The historical frauds openly insisted upon by Thomas in Bruen were as disreputable historically as those committed covertly by Bellesiles. Difference was Bellesiles was judged by the history profession, and Thomas by the legal profession.
Deliberate distortion of the historical record can be a career ender in academic history. Deliberate distortion of the historical record is, more often than not, the point of originalist legal reasoning.
That's why lawyers rarely think to present academic historians as expert witnesses. It's why judges unqualified to research history do their own historical reads, and then smuggle erroneous interpretations about the past into decisions, as if they were legal evidence.
Thomas, in Bruen, took that a step farther. He insisted that everyone had to do historical fraud the same way he did it, or see their historical evidence disallowed out of hand.
War is not healthy for Children........ and Iranian Nuke-ular Scientists, Commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces, IRGC Aerospace Forces, Deputy Chief of the General Staff of Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran's Expediency Discernment Council of the System, Fereydoon Abbasi, former head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization; Mohammad Mahdi Tehranchi, president of the Islamic Azad University of Iran and a major figure in Iran's nuclear weapons program; Abdulhamid Minouchehr, head of nuclear engineering at Shahid Beheshti University; Ahmad Reza Zolfaghari, nuclear engineering professor at Shahid Beheshti University; Amirhossein Feqhi, a nuclear professor at the university; and a nuclear scientist who was identified only as Motallebzadeh, who was allegedly killed along with his wife.
Wow!, that'll never fit on a T-shirt
Fine print or 6XL size ?
"War is not healthy for Children........"
Iran lost 30 dead generals, more than US generals killed in both World Wars.
Seems like a lot.
Are these just curious coincidences?
1.) Genetically, modern Jews are more Canaanite than Semitic. 2.) Canaanites worshipped Baal. 3.) The Star of Remphan is mentioned in Acts as the symbol of Moloch/Baal 4.) The Star of Remphan is a six pointed star and a carving of which has been found in Baalbek, about 150 miles from Jerusalem. 5.) The Star of David is not mentioned in the Bible and the term came about sometime in the Middle Ages.
Things that make you go, "hmmmm".
Genertically, all humans are idiots who bark at the moon.
I can understand how new-to-you facts can be upsetting, but sometimes it's useful to have an open mind.
As someone who has spent way more time in the time sink of the history of my DNA what I have learned along the way is to take a lot of classifications with a grain of salt. I have subscriptions to three DNA sites and all of them are constantly updating their definitions of what various classifications are. While my DNA is classified fairly consistently as Northen European over all three services in the 89%+ range the actual numbers vary. Maybe more to the point only one indicates any American Indian DNA with the explanation that early Viking visited North America and brought back women who they mated with. Even so the amount of Indian DNA was barely above the noise level. I have to wonder just how Semitic DNA is defined (same for Canaanite). Both are related geographically to the Middle East, and to some extent defined by the DNA found in bodies that died thousands of years ago. No question sampling bodies that old raises real questions about how the samples were obtained and just how those samples were obtained. Bottom line is don't put too much stock in these findings.
Math explains that. Think of the one drop rule : if even one in 8 great-grandparents is Black then you are Black....but that one is taken to be "Black" with no consideration of their lineage. Take it back far enough and everybody is whatever Adam and Eve were.
In other words genetics has to posit PURE nationalities somewhere in order to call you anything.
anyway, nobody has pure descent with no lateral inputs and those inputs are all of them so mixed you can't do anything with them except decide that if they appear more this than that you call them this.
Genetically, modern Jews are more Canaanite than Semitic.
WTF are you talking about? "Semitic" refers to a language group, not an ethnic one. Hebrew and Arabic are semitic languages, as are some largely defunct others - Aramaic, Ugaritic and others.
The term "antisemitism" arose in the 19th century to describe hostility towards Jews specifically, not Arabs.
Today's Hebrew is a modern language, not an ancient one, and was created by Zionists just a few hundred years ago.
It's not possible for it to be in the same language group as something like Aramaic.
That is false, of course. Eliezer Ben-Yehuda revived Hebrew as a spoken language from Biblical Hebrew. Of course, there are many new/borrowed words, but the same is true of Old English vs. modern English; that doesn't mean that the latter was "created a few hundred years ago."
"Revived" vs " created", that's pathetic even for you.
It is modern mainly in being an SOV language now and also in some vocabulary that borrows from classical Hebrew but has a different meaning now. So you are both wrong, I'm afraid. Because of the alphabet and strong core of words of triliteral roots it can be considered in the same language group. The differences are not much more than the vocab and idiomatic differences of Aramaic and Classical Hebrew, which is proved by the Jews being at one point able to understand Aramaic but not Hebrew any more.
Ron Lieber reports on Syracuse University's "game of chicken" with potential students. Syracuse accepted a lot of students without offering financial aid. A lot of them chose other schools with lower net cost. After the traditional May 1 deadline for committing to a school Syracuse started offering competitive financial aid.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/14/your-money/syracuse-merit-aid.html
This is the kind of game that gets played when the sticker price is a lie. Is it better than the old system of secret agreements that the federal government ordered shut down? Or is it the same in the end? The one student I know who was toyed with by Syracuse ended up with an offer that added up about the same as other schools, only later. The federal financial aid program encourages price fixing.
Secret agreements?
I never saw a school openly share its financial aid determination methods. (Maybe it has been done, but it's certainly rare if existent.)
I know you're trying to cast a conspiracy theory vibe upon J.F. Carr's post. But you should prefer "secret agreements" over, for example, "carefully hidden-from-disclosure unconstitutional race-based calculations."
Yes. There were such agreements, aimed at keeping schools from getting into bidding wars for top students.
It was active, and not much-publicized, collusion.
There was more than one lawsuit alleging illegal collusion. Here is sample coverage: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/financial-aid/2024/01/23/more-institutions-settle-financial-aid-antitrust-lawsuit
I did not know this was a thing outside of sports.
You are remarkably uninformed.
The "sticker price" of a college degree varies depending on a lot of real factors. For example, some programs are more expensive to run than others. Other programs come with grants that defray costs but those grants may not be permanent. Graduate student programs usually cost more but often grants can defray all of that cost. Tenure/tenure track faculty cost more than adjunct. etc. So universities charge per credit/unit in most cases which makes it seem like a fair consumption-based cost but it's more of an average. If you want to get a better idea for the actual cost at any given time, look at the university's "discount rate." These days, they tend to be quite high, around 48%. This is mostly because they charge foreign students full price--not to dissimilar to the way hotels in Vegas price rooms.
With the precipitous drop in births roughly 18 years ago, schools are having to compete for a smaller group of available high school graduates and they need their scholarship (in this case merit aid) dollars to extend further. Scholarship monies comes from multiple sources but one source is the difference in price paid by other students (like Chinese students.) Schools pay for big-named companies to use AI or other wizardry to help them set aid amounts such that they can spend the least to attract good students. This school appears to have abandoned the hard road and gone for the "Monday night quarterbacking" approach. They're desperate, apparently, and willing to enter into a sort of bidding process for students.
Just remember, "merit aid" is just a discount price for students with good grades or other attractive qualities. Offering someone a discount after May 1 is not heresy but it is unseemly.
France has ordered some cars with Takata airbags not to be driven until recall service is done. A "stop drive" order. That's what they call it in French too. One of the FAQs from the Transport ministry is "Qu’est-ce qu’un 'Stop drive'?".
https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2025/06/24/airbags-takata-le-gouvernement-ordonne-un-rappel-de-tous-les-vehicules-a-risque-quels-que-soient-leur-age-et-leur-marque-et-l-immobilisation-de-800-000-nouvelles-voitures_6615660_3234.html https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/rappel-airbag-takata
America is not capable of devising a good process for recalls. While a few recalls are immediate safety threats, others are trivial. We have moved towards a compromise where recalls, major or minor, need to be officially recorded as resolved before a car can be sold or rented. I had a car with two recalls. One was for a brake line that corroded faster than normal. I had already had mine replaced before the recall notice was sent out. In other words, I had not had the recall officially done. The other was for a hole in the key fob from which women were prone to hang purses, bowling balls, or other heavy objects that could mess with the ignition lock. The fix was to plug the hole. (This was back when cars had mechanical keys to be inserted in the ignition.)
Under the American rules I have seen, a recall is a top priority unless the part is out of stock in which case you can let it slide. So is it important or not?
We could use a system more like the FAA has. Lowest level could be, "hey, car owners, you might want to have this looked at." Mid level is "have this looked at within 60 days." Top level is "if you drive this car you may be shot dead by overeager traffic cops."
In the case of airbags, I say let them drive. The risk is to the driver.
The risk is to the driver . . . but the cost is to society.
Depending on the problem the risk might be to other drivers as well.
JFC...You know, an enterprising governmental authority might assess a fee for driving on the road with an affected vehicle, if they had the authority to issue a 'stop drive' order. I could see a lot of tickets and fines too, at the municipal level.
In sum, the 'stop drive order' sounds like a great recipe for governmental control (and a boatload of gov't income).
Companies have approached state legislatures asking to install automated ticketing cameras checking insurance status. If the computer thinks a car doesn't have legally required insurance the owner gets a ticket every time the car passes a camera. The company gets a large cut of the revenue. It's equally easy to generate a ticket for every car with another sort of paperwork problem. Expired registration, no sticker on the windshield, recall listed as not yet performed, ...
Such ticketing is easier in America where camera tickets are purely for revenue and "I wasn't driving" is no excuse. In Europe car owners can typically pass responsibility to the driver.
"In Europe car owners can typically pass responsibility to the driver."
If only that were true...
Laws vary a lot between countries. In the Netherlands speed cameras take your picture from the back, and the owner of the car gets the ticket, in Germany they make sure to take the picture from the front so that you can see who's driving, and if the owner of the car can show that the driver is someone else, that person becomes liable. (I think?)
Of course, when you rent a car you agree to repay the rental company any fines the car incures while you're renting it, but that's something else, legally.
The key difference is parts of Europe treat a camera ticket as a moving violation with consequences beyond a fine. Almost all American ticket camera operators only want your money. Go past a dozen cameras as fast as you like and send in your check. A camera ticket is legally the same as a parking ticket.
Early on, a few American jurisdictions mailed real tickets and had to identify the driver. Most people drive their own cars. It's easy to verify that the driver looks like the owner. For a while in Arizona husband and wife could swap cars and the system couldn't figure out who was driving. Obviously the man driving the car isn't the woman who owns the car.
Yes, in Germany they will give you points on your licence for speeding. Yet another reason why they need to get your face in the picture. (Same in the UK, I think.)
I used to live in the UK, where, as in Germany, speeding is also considered a crime, but the legal mechanism used is different. IIRC: 1. The police/safety camera partnership sends a letter to the registered keeper (RK) of the vehicle caught on the camera. 2. The RK is legally obliged to name the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offense (failure to respond is an offense). 3. The person named can be the RK itself, or a third party (but, either way, the declaration must be given under penalty of perjury). 4. If a third party is named, a similar letter is sent to them, with the same reply obligation. 5. The police usually have the name of the driver within 1-2 letters, (but if not, their concern with the underlying offense may fade, replaced with a keen interest in determining whether someone may be committing a "perversion of the course of justice"). 6. The speeding allegation is then put to the driver of the vehicle at the time of the offense, and if the aforementioned process has not gone on too long, they may have the option of attending a speeding course, pleading guilty and paying the fine, or they may end up in court.
Incidentally, the letter demands appear to drive the DVLA's refusal to accept foreign addresses for holders of UK driving licences: such a letter sent outside the jurisdiction apparently does not create a legal obligation on the recipient to respond--which breaks the whole system.
The system is quite complicated, and seems to invite people to try to game it (say hello, Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce), but the main loopholes have all now been shut down. For example, to avoid the "my American cousin was driving" scam, the police may demand proof of valid UK insurance covering the named person (RKs are already legally obliged to only allow insured drivers to drive their vehicles--failure to do so carries the same penalty as driving without insurance).
So, don't speed in the UK. Unless you're driving a foreign-registered vehicle...
2 million student loan borrowers at risk of garnished wages: Analysis
Nearly two million student loan borrowers are at risk of having their wages garnished this summer, according to a new estimate from TransUnion.
The Trump administration ultimately paused a plan to garnish Social Security benefits, potentially sparing hundreds of thousands of older Americans from reduced retirement checks, at least for now.
Overall, nearly 43 million borrowers owe more than $1.6 trillion in student debt, the Education Department said in April.
Borrowers who have fallen behind can come up with a repayment strategy using the government’s Loan Simulator tool here.
https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5367689-student-loan-borrowers-risk-garnished-wages-analysis/
That's a little over $37K per the 43 million students.
They had a 5+ years pause because of COVID but even still, that didn't mean they had to stop paying.
$1.6 (BIG) T is a lot.
Yes, just because Biden illegally let them not make payments doesn't mean they didn't continue to owe them.
And they need to pay them, because the alternative is transferring all that debt to the people who weren't stupid enough to take it on.
"Illegally."
They should be better off than if the pause had not happened. Those who got into extra debt thinking their student loans were gone... chose poorly.
Legal question.
SSA Recipient Annie Anxious, age 67, is a student loan borrower. Annie Anxious doesn't want to pay her loans, doesn't think she should have to; and promptly croaks.
Do the Feds have a claim on her estate for the loans? If Annie Anxious only had a house, could they attach the proceeds of the sale?
Acording to the FAFSA website:
"What happens to a loan if the borrower dies?
If a borrower dies, their federal student loans are discharged after the required proof of death is submitted. The borrower’s family is not responsible for repaying the loans.
A parent PLUS loan is discharged if the parent dies or if the student on whose behalf a parent obtained the loan dies."
There's a good article in the Guardian regarding the new trend of federal police wearing plain clothes, masks, unmarked cars, and refusing to identify. It's an interview with a former FBI undercover agent discussing the consequences of letting ICE wear masks.
Mike German, a former FBI agent, said officers’ widespread use of masks was unprecedented in US law enforcement and a sign of a rapidly eroding democracy. “Masking symbolizes the drift of law enforcement away from democratic controls,” he said.
and...
I have not had conversations with current officers, but I imagine some are masking because they don’t normally work for Ice or do immigration enforcement, but are now being sent to do these jobs. [...] When these officers go home at night, they may not want people in their communities to know it was them. Maybe they have upstanding reputations because of the work they do for the FBI or ATF, and they don’t necessarily want to be identified with this kind of indiscriminate targeting of immigrants. And that reluctance to be identified as engaging in those activities really highlights the illegitimacy of those actions.
Or maybe it's just because the left is increasingly willing to dox and destroy people it doesn't like, regardless of whether they're acting lawfully.
See, that's the problem with civil war in the US today: In the 1860's, the battle lines ran between states. Today, they run within states, so to the extent there's a civil war, everywhere is the battlefield.
But, how about mutual unmasking: Cops can't wear masks, but neither can anybody else. Work for you?
If police feel that doing their job in the public eye with public scrutiny is too dangerous, they can get other jobs. Secret police forces have historically masked up because they were afraid of the public they were violently policing; they didn't want their neighbors to know they were agents of the authoritarian government for fear of being shunned. What you call "dox and destroy" is just standard, non-violent, shunning--or, in today's terms being "cancelled."
Why, exactly, are you endorsing a secret police force in the US and where do you think this is going to end?
So, even though you lose elections, you lose votes in legislatures, you get a veto over what laws can be enforced by threatening anybody who enforces them with informal personal ruin?
I doubt very much it's their neighbors that they're worried about.
I mean, if what they were doing was popular they wouldn’t be subject to personal ruin by being publicly known.
And honestly it’s kind of crazy that I can find the names faces and addresses of pretty much any public school staffer but I’m not allowed to know who is allowed to violently remove people from my community.
"I mean, if what they were doing was popular they wouldn’t be subject to personal ruin by being publicly known."
That's just stupid, it really is. You don't have to be unpopular to have your house be firebombed. You just need to be identifiable to the minority who hate what you're doing and think they're entitled to take it out on you.
Once political violence becomes accepted as legitimate by any significant fraction of the population, what you're doing being popular is no longer a defense, because nobody is going to have a public vote on whether to attack you.
No one here is talking about political violence except you.
Even Commenter below is talking about employment.
There is a ton of middle ground you are eliding in your thirst for drama.
Okay. Let’s accept that as true: why should ICE agents be masked and secret but every politician, judge, prosecutor, beat cop, civil servant, solider, sailor, teacher, mailman, diplomat, publicly employed doctor, nurse, etc etc be easily identifiable and known to the public? You don’t think those people get threats and harassed?
If all of these people can show their face in public, ICE can too.
But if they do need masks they can have them on one condition: they need to wear shirt that says “I’m a huge fucking pussy.” Because that’s the long and short of it: they’re pussies. And you’re a simp for them. A simp for pussies. Imagine being like that.
Ask apedad (a former federal agent) how he feels about that. They already wear clothing that identifies them as LEOs and makes the a target for any unhinged individual or group across the political spectrum. I should add that the failure to prosecute cases of injury, property damage (public and private) does nothing to reduce the incidence of violence.
If the majority of Americans are in favor of this, how can the minority make good on threats of personal ruin? The "ruin" comes from being fired from jobs. That can only happen if the "losers" you mention control the jobs. I don't think your primary complaint here is logical.
Also, why are you focused on what laws can be enforced and not what laws are being broken by the government sworn to uphold them no matter who wins the election? And isn't it a bit rich to be bellowing about the enforcement of laws after the election winners pardoned people who assaulted capitol police, vandalized the capital building, and threatened the life of the sitting Vice President? It seems to me you're more upset by the expectation that the "winners" are required to uphold all the laws and not just those they can use to harm people they dislike. You don't have any issue with the hypocrisy itself; you just dislike being labeled a hypocrite.
"If the majority of Americans are in favor of this, how can the minority make good on threats of personal ruin? The "ruin" comes from being fired from jobs. That can only happen if the "losers" you mention control the jobs."
Tell Brendan Eich that. He lost his high paying job when it came out that he'd donated to a winning ballot proposition, by definition popular.
political views aren't protected under anti-discrimination laws. the Mozilla Foundation was well within their rights to fire him. it would have been illegal to fire him for being Roman Catholic, but firing for political activity (even if motivated by faith) is not firing for faith. (note that Priests can't tell their congregations to vote for Prop 8, though they can teach that gay marriage is wrong.)
One of the precepts of free speech is that private sanction like shunning and whatnot are sufficient internal social controls.
You are want not just free speech but freedom from consequences. Protect but do not bind.
Unless you are a student or an immigrant or a tourist or in a law firm or a library or a federal employee others you want the government to top down dictate. Bind but do not protect.
And you whine you are oppressed.
Just shameful.
If it were simply social ostracism, that is one thing. It isn't just social ostracism that happens. There are attempts to take away their livelihood, the ability to earn a living, and that of their spouses as well. That is the part you're ignoring. I suppose they can sell their home and move to another place, am I right? Just like that.
I don't like the fact that circumstances have forced this (masked Fed LEOs).
The MX and South American cartels are unhappy right now, and those Fed LEOs are arresting their dealers. The Cartels don't play very nicely, it would not surprise me to see the Cartels target our Fed LEOs. It is a reasonable precaution, considering who you're arresting.
I mean they’re physically deporting people who have been here since they were kids so it’s not like them also having to move due to social ostracism would in a cosmic sense be “unfair.”
Also the “circumstances that have forced this” are that ICE agents and their cheerleaders are gigantic pussies.
The Cartel thing is a red herring. No one is upset if cartel members here illegally are deported. No one is upset if violent criminals lose their legal immigrant status and are deported after due process is served. There was a time, 5 months ago, to be exact, where police could deport cartel members without hiding their identities. What changed in 5 months where this supposedly became impossible?
There are attempts to take away their livelihood, the ability to earn a living,
Not even clear what that means. They're law enforcement. How does identifying them "take away their livelihood"? DHS is going to fire them because they received criticism for doing what DHS ordered them to do?
And where exactly have you seen any such attempts? Let alone attempts to take away their spouses' livelihoods? Be specific.
The Cartels don't play very nicely, it would not surprise me to see the Cartels target our Fed LEOs. It is a reasonable precaution, considering who you're arresting.
1) They're arresting non-violent illegal aliens who have done nothing wrong other than overstaying a visa or sneaking across a border. Why would these supposed "the Cartels" care about that?
2) Even if ICE were deporting actual gang members, why would the gangs target ICE agents? That's just an insane Hollywood-infected idea. That's just part of the cost of doing business; going to war with the U.S. government is utterly fantastical. And if they did want to, how would masks help? All they'd have to do is bribe/threaten one govt clerk for the identities.
Even the Italian Mafia did not dare to take out law enforcement officers, for fear of the blowback that that would bring. (Michael Corleone was a fictional character.)
"Cops can't wear masks, but neither can anybody else. Work for you?"
That's stupid even for you.
The cops are public servants, i.e., THEY SERVE THE PUBLIC.
(And I've mentioned before I'm a retired federal law enforcement special agent - so NOT a cop hater.)
And the Klan laws are longstanding, and greatly in need of enforcement.
This is paranoid even for you. Somehow you blame bad behavior by your guys on "the Left," every time. Mist be a reflex.
Should police stop wearing uniforms and badges. and drive only unmarked cars, because of this massive doxing campaign going on your head, and nowhere else?
They don't want to be identified, period, so no one knows who they are. Why, you might almost call them "secret police," responsible for Staatssicherheit state security.
"I have not had conversations with current officers,"
in other words "pay no attention to my comments, I'm just talking out of my as**"
I enjoyed Mississippi Masala.
The director's son has received some attention recently.
Yes, the Jew hating NY marxist.
Tons of Jews voted for him.
Seems your quick on the trigger labeling people as Jew haters has about as much heat as when you label people Marxist.
Cheerleading never did do much to actually help win games.
Yes, some Jews favor their ideology over their people.
I guess that explains why some Jews support Trumpism given the evident groyperfication of that movement.
Are you demanding Jewish loyalty to Israel, Bob?
Pretty sure that’s legit antisemetic.
He supports globalizing the Intifada, violence against Jews world wide.
Could be NYC Jews are cool with globally being hunted, or maybe they don’t share your hyper reactive take on his positions.
“ When asked whether the slogan made him uncomfortable, Mamdani said it captured "a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights."
It’s like you never heard a politician speak.
He also said “like all nations, I believe [Israel] has a right to exist and a responsibility also to uphold international law".
You should quit making ideological demands for how American Jews can properly be Jewish. Seems like it’ll end with you going to a bad place.
At Bowdoin college, Mamdani co-founded the campus chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine. Your emphasis of his belief in the Israeli state is quite genuine.
From the river to the sea, baby. River to sea!
So don’t listen to what he said listen to what you made up that he said.
What did I make up? (A quote, Sarc, not your viby bullshit.)
You act as if, in response to the question of how how he feels about Israel, a good answer is, "he believes Israel has a right to exist."
That's a really misleading statement, even though he said it. He opposes Israel's defense policies, says he'd arrest Benjamin Netanyahu if he came to New York, and is vocally sympathetic to the constituencies who want there to be no Zionist state. You think this misrepresents him?
Are they Uncle Aaron’s, Bob?
Jew Hater and Marxist are their new favorite reflexive cudgels. Like I said above: MAGA's new race card so to speak
TBF, Marxist isn’t exactly a new one. They’ve been saying that about everyone for well over a century.
Since shortly after 1848, actually. Attacking abolitionists as, "Communists," was a thing before the Civil War.
What 'Tons of Jews'? This was ranked choice, not actual enumeration. If anything, Jews did not turn out. I hope the Jewish community in NYC does not later have cause to regret failing to turn out and vote.
Ranked choice ended up not mattering.
Do you have any evidence Jews failed to turn out? I presume you aren’t like Armchair and failing to count reform as truly Jewish.
Strictly speaking, we won't know that for several more days, when the RCV tallying is done. (And I find it weird that Cuomo conceded. While his victory would be very unlikely, he hasn't actually lost.)
I believe it is basically statistically impossible for the outcome to change at this point.
It is unlikely, but it's not actually impossible. If the Socialist Muslim™ was polarizing enough, such that people either ranked him first or not at all, then Cuomo could pick up more votes.
Unfortunately the final results won't be know until next week. What a system.
I really don't understand why this bothers the right wing so much. We have never had final results on election day. When races are called on election day (other than perhaps some local town race with a few hundred votes), those are always statistical projections. The actual formal results are not certified for a couple of weeks, typically.
It's a particularly weird complaint with respect to American elections; in foreign countries, the new government often takes over the moment the results are known, so every day of delay in finalizing the results is a day of delay in changeover. But in the U.S., we generally have almost two months or more between election day and the new administrations, so a delay in formally ascertaining the winner is pretty meaningless. (And for primaries, of course, there are months between those and the general election.)
This was ranked choice, not actual enumeration.
That is gibberish. Ranked choice is actual enumeration. Plus, so far, all we have is the first round results, not the ranked choice ones.
So are any senators going to ask Emil Bove if he’d be cool with people disregarding his opinions and orders?
A Constitution for thee, but not for me
MAGA hates immigrants, not illegal immigrants, part 10,349,827:
Charlie Kirk @charliekirk11 The lesson from New York City is that BOTH illegal and legal immigration can ruin your country. It’s not just the open border, it’s also our suicidal mass LEGAL migration policies bringing in over 1 million people a year: green cards, chain migration, refugee resettlement, anchor babies, and asylum scams. This all needs to be ended.
Charlie Kirk @charliekirk11
The lesson from New York City is that BOTH illegal and legal immigration can ruin your country. It’s not just the open border, it’s also our suicidal mass LEGAL migration policies bringing in over 1 million people a year: green cards, chain migration, refugee resettlement, anchor babies, and asylum scams. This all needs to be ended.
https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1937864307901157675
Honestly, “hates immigrants” is giving them too much credit. I don’t think there is a group out there that Charlie Kirk or Stephen Miller won’t eventually say has ruined the country. Every immigrant or child of an immigrant, legal or otherwise, could disappear tomorrow and they’d just say it’s other ethnic and racial minorities ruining the country. Those could disappear after that, and it’ll be white liberals and leftists doing the ruining. Once those disappear it’ll be crypto-marxists and race traitors who ruin things. On and on until they’re all alone.
"after that, and it’ll be white liberals and leftists doing the ruining."
And Jews that don't vote right. Remember, it's okay to deny them their jewishness and it won't count as antisemitic terrorism
Didn't some dude write a poem about that?
"...Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
Wasn't a poem, was by a pastor and referred to the Nazis.
Yet we can import wealthy white South Africans. I'm starting to wonder if the scheme here is racial in nature. Hmmm....
https://www.nola.com/news/politics/national_politics/iran-new-orleans-woman-arrested/article_bcfdc93e-01dc-4021-b5f8-a91ded5ed784.html/?123
What’s the point of doing this? Seriously how does this benefit anyone. How is anyone’s life better off as a result of this?
As several commenters here have observed, the cruelty is the point.
You are kidding. That is New Orleans, she has more to fear from the Mayor than she ever will from deportation folks 🙂
"In the May 16, 2025 New Orleans jail escape, 10 inmates breached security by pulling open cell doors, removing a toilet fixture to expose a hole in the wall, and then fleeing through a loading dock. "
Ten inmates in a jail break in New Orleans.They would kill you for looking funny.
That's some tasty looking food.
"Witnesses described Kashanian's arrest as following a familiar pattern under Trump's immigration crackdown — plainclothes agents, wearing body armor but without identifiable agency insignia, handcuffing people before placing them into unmarked vehicles and transporting them to detention facilities."
Here's the thing. You don't really know. You don't have any of the real facts about her situation. And either do I.
I can make a guess that "something" triggered her to ICE specifically. It's just a guess, I don't think there's some random lottery database of illegal immigrants that ICE picks from. I don't know what that was. And either do yuou.
I don't think there's some random lottery database of illegal immigrants that ICE picks from.
Oh no. ICE doesn't care about the "illegal" part, or even the "immigrant" part.
https://migrantinsider.com/p/ice-has-deported-at-least-70-us-citizens
Curiously, when I got to the actual GAO report, it said "potential" citizens.
"Available data indicate ICE and CBP took enforcement actions against some U.S. citizens. For example, available ICE data indicate that ICE arrested 674, detained 121, and removed 70 potential U.S. citizens from fiscal year 2015 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2020 (March 2020)"
So, in any of those years, detentions of potential US citizens were in the low two digits. You do realize that this is only potentially actions against US citizens, and could just represent a very low rate of data entry errors, right?
The number of potential US citizens is so low that it's pretty obvious that ICE actually cares a great deal, and is working very hard to avoid errors.
Oh, that's alright then. In my country the number of citizens who get deported is zero, but I guess it would be unreasonable to expect that level of perfection from ICE.
There are no freebies for illegal aliens, Armchair. Apply for legal residency, or leave.
LOL, applying for legal residency is definitely how you end up in a gulag in Guatamala.
Yep, people are getting arrested at their green card interview appointments.
Makes sense from the point of view of a lazy ICE officer. What's your evidence someone doesn't have a green card? Because they're applying for one! Just stand outside the office and probable cause walks right up to you.
Great meme picture, Europeans are dying because they can't get permission to buy an air conditioner, so AI can inhale all the power to make pictures of chicks with 5 boobs.
Gee, who could have seen that coming?
Stephen Miller owns stock in ICE contractor Palantir — a company powering deportations White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, the architect of much of the Trump administration’s anti-immigration agenda, owns up to $250,000 dollars in stock in government contractor Palantir, according to disclosures. The investment, held in one of Miller’s children’s brokerage accounts, raises conflict of interest red flags as the tech company continues to play a substantial role in the work of U.S. immigration officials.
Stephen Miller owns stock in ICE contractor Palantir — a company powering deportations
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, the architect of much of the Trump administration’s anti-immigration agenda, owns up to $250,000 dollars in stock in government contractor Palantir, according to disclosures.
The investment, held in one of Miller’s children’s brokerage accounts, raises conflict of interest red flags as the tech company continues to play a substantial role in the work of U.S. immigration officials.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/stephen-miller-ice-palantir-stocks-deportations-b2776305.html
So what? There are tons of people who own Palantir stock.
It's all a great Washington tradition. Get back to us when Miller's portfolio gets close to Nancy Pelosi's.
Really, is that the great Trumpist defence line? Pretending that there are Democrats who are as corrupt as Trump and his cronies? Have you spotted any Pelosicoin by any chance?
You guys are pathetic.
"You guys are pathetic". Fuck you very much, Martin. I made no defense of anyone, only pointed out that that's how Washington works and has worked forever. You are the one implying corruption.
No, I'm the one who is flat-out saying this is corruption. And you're the one who is excusing it.
You really, really need to stop day drinking.
Eurotrash,
Anyone who owns a Total US Stock Market index fund owns Palantir.
Are you normally this stupid, or did you work at it today?
It depends on the actual exposure in proportion, duh.
Bur you're required to defend the Trump regime,
Who is defending the Trump regime? I am pointing out Eurotrash's extreme ignorance of investing. Anyone with a 401K plan probably has direct and indirect exposure to Palantir (Tot Mkt, TDFs, etc).
As long as Steven Miller reports all stock transactions in a transparent manner (via req disclosure forms), any conflict of interest will be obvious. Owning stock in a company is not a crime. Making contract decisions involving that company in government contracting is not a crime either, provided there is complete disclosure (which there is, via gov't disclosure forms) and oversight. Regarding oversight...
Cabinet officers (e.g. Noem, Rubio, Hegseth, Rollins, etc) make the decisions, they are the oversight.
I know that you know all of this.
Who is defending the Trump regime?
You are, because Miller is a conspicuous part of it.
they are the oversight.
Is that what the law requires?
Noem, Rubio, Hegseth, Rollins
Is that list intended to give us confidence in the oversight, or is it open sarcasm? Hard to tell.
Having said that, Conflict-Of-Interest Fu is the lamest of the political martial arts. You can always do it to anyone, and in every situation no one would care if they liked the person's policies and actions. Stephen Miller is bad because he's an openly evil fascist-lite who has the ear of a mentally weak and impulsive president. Not because of his stock portfolio.
As long as Steven Miller reports all stock transactions in a transparent manner (via req disclosure forms), any conflict of interest will be obvious.
That doesn't mitigate any conflict of interest!
Yes David, that is correct. Have you identified one?
XY,
Palantir is .62% of the S&P500. So for Miller to own $250K as part of an S&P 500 index fund he would have to have over $40M invested in the fund. Do you think he does?
Of course it would be an even smaller share of a larger index fund.
I would ask if you are normally this stupid, but I know the answer.
It is an even smaller percent of the tot US stock mkt. The direct stock ownership is for his children, and the disclosure is 'up to 250K', not 250K, numbnuts.
I have my answer as well.
In my field an interesting US-EU clash has just emerged. The FTC granted early termination to Mars/Kellanova, a deal that the European Commission just sent to phase 2 yesterday.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/06/statement-grant-early-termination-ftcs-investigation-proposed-acquisition-kellanova-mars
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1604
It's a tricky one. There aren't a lot of direct product-line overlaps between them, but you can see how you'd be nervous about increased bargaining power at a time when grocery prices are already causing concerns.
Possibly the stupidest appointment of Trump's second term - makes every other person he's appointed seem over-qualified.
Trump’s shocking pick: Thomas Fugate, 22-year-old ex-gardener, now leads US anti-terror efforts as US bombs Iran
This is truly an incredible appointment and would be hilarious if it were for a less important role.
Yeah, but why would anyone worry about counter-terrorism right now?
Looked into it and it's not quite as shocking as they're spinning it.
"Leads anti-terror efforts" is kind of misleading. He leads some rather obscure office - so obscure that if you look at the Wikipedia page for "Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships" and his predecessor, you can see that both pages were only created after Fugate's appointment, presumably to call attention to it and make it look like a bigger deal than it is.
He graduated from a political science program and previously had a position at the Heritage Foundation. I don't care much for Heritage, but picking think tank employees for low level government appointments isn't unusual.
So what happened is a recent college graduate and politico landed a government job. Frankly it's not nearly as bad an appointment as known defectives and miscreants, for example Hegseth. As I see it the most damning fact about Fugate is that Noem and Trump like him.
Richard Jordan was just executed in Mississippi after almost 50 years on death row.
https://www.mpbonline.org/blogs/news/richard-jordan-executed-after-nearly-50-years-on-death-row/
Quoting the ECtHR in Soering v. UK, where it held that European countries may not extradite people to the US to face the death penalty.
106. The period that a condemned prisoner can expect to spend on death row in Virginia before being executed is on average six to eight years (see paragraph 56 above). This length of time awaiting death is, as the Commission and the United Kingdom Government noted, in a sense largely of the prisoner’s own making in that he takes advantage of all avenues of appeal which are offered to him by Virginia law. The automatic appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia normally takes no more than six months (see paragraph 52 above). The remaining time is accounted for by collateral attacks mounted by the prisoner himself in habeas corpus proceedings before both the State and Federal courts and in applications to the Supreme Court of the United States for certiorari review, the prisoner at each stage being able to seek a stay of execution (see paragraphs 53-54 above). The remedies available under Virginia law serve the purpose of ensuring that the ultimate sanction of death is not unlawfully or arbitrarily imposed. Nevertheless, just as some lapse of time between sentence and execution is inevitable if appeal safeguards are to be provided to the condemned person, so it is equally part of human nature that the person will cling to life by exploiting those safeguards to the full. However well-intentioned and even potentially beneficial is the provision of the complex of post-sentence procedures in Virginia, the consequence is that the condemned prisoner has to endure for many years the conditions on death row and the anguish and mounting tension of living in the ever-present shadow of death. (...) 111. For any prisoner condemned to death, some element of delay between imposition and execution of the sentence and the experience of severe stress in conditions necessary for strict incarceration are inevitable. The democratic character of the Virginia legal system in general and the positive features of Virginia trial, sentencing and appeal procedures in particular are beyond doubt. The Court agrees with the Commission that the machinery of justice to which the applicant would be subject in the United States is in itself neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, but, rather, respects the rule of law and affords not inconsiderable procedural safeguards to the defendant in a capital trial. Facilities are available on death row for the assistance of inmates, notably through provision of psychological and psychiatric services (see paragraph 65 above). However, in the Court’s view, having regard to the very long period of time spent on death row in such extreme conditions, with the ever present and mounting anguish of awaiting execution of the death penalty, and to the personal circumstances of the applicant, especially his age and mental state at the time of the offence, the applicant’s extradition to the United States would expose him to a real risk of treatment going beyond the threshold set by Article 3 (art. 3). A further consideration of relevance is that in the particular instance the legitimate purpose of extradition could be achieved by another means which would not involve suffering of such exceptional intensity or duration. Accordingly, the Secretary of State’s decision to extradite the applicant to the United States would, if implemented, give rise to a breach of Article 3 (art. 3).
106. The period that a condemned prisoner can expect to spend on death row in Virginia before being executed is on average six to eight years (see paragraph 56 above). This length of time awaiting death is, as the Commission and the United Kingdom Government noted, in a sense largely of the prisoner’s own making in that he takes advantage of all avenues of appeal which are offered to him by Virginia law. The automatic appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia normally takes no more than six months (see paragraph 52 above). The remaining time is accounted for by collateral attacks mounted by the prisoner himself in habeas corpus proceedings before both the State and Federal courts and in applications to the Supreme Court of the United States for certiorari review, the prisoner at each stage being able to seek a stay of execution (see paragraphs 53-54 above). The remedies available under Virginia law serve the purpose of ensuring that the ultimate sanction of death is not unlawfully or arbitrarily imposed.
Nevertheless, just as some lapse of time between sentence and execution is inevitable if appeal safeguards are to be provided to the condemned person, so it is equally part of human nature that the person will cling to life by exploiting those safeguards to the full. However well-intentioned and even potentially beneficial is the provision of the complex of post-sentence procedures in Virginia, the consequence is that the condemned prisoner has to endure for many years the conditions on death row and the anguish and mounting tension of living in the ever-present shadow of death. (...) 111. For any prisoner condemned to death, some element of delay between imposition and execution of the sentence and the experience of severe stress in conditions necessary for strict incarceration are inevitable. The democratic character of the Virginia legal system in general and the positive features of Virginia trial, sentencing and appeal procedures in particular are beyond doubt. The Court agrees with the Commission that the machinery of justice to which the applicant would be subject in the United States is in itself neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, but, rather, respects the rule of law and affords not inconsiderable procedural safeguards to the defendant in a capital trial. Facilities are available on death row for the assistance of inmates, notably through provision of psychological and psychiatric services (see paragraph 65 above).
However, in the Court’s view, having regard to the very long period of time spent on death row in such extreme conditions, with the ever present and mounting anguish of awaiting execution of the death penalty, and to the personal circumstances of the applicant, especially his age and mental state at the time of the offence, the applicant’s extradition to the United States would expose him to a real risk of treatment going beyond the threshold set by Article 3 (art. 3). A further consideration of relevance is that in the particular instance the legitimate purpose of extradition could be achieved by another means which would not involve suffering of such exceptional intensity or duration.
Accordingly, the Secretary of State’s decision to extradite the applicant to the United States would, if implemented, give rise to a breach of Article 3 (art. 3).
Does the Court allow extradition to countries where executions are carried out more promptly?
Not anymore. At the time of the Soering judgment there was no ECHR rule against the death penalty. Now there is, so this question of art. 3 is no longer relevant for the extradition question.
https://x.com/Pontifex/status/1938205854987071895
Pope Leo XIV @Pontifex It is disheartening to see today that the strength of international law and humanitarian law no longer seems binding, replaced by the presumed right to overpower others. This is unworthy and shameful for humanity and for the leaders of nations.
A load of cases from the Supreme Court today, all four featuring the three liberals voting as a bloc and Thomas and Alito taking the conservative stand, with the middle group deciding which ideology wins.
Hewitt v. United States: Anybody who is resentenced has the benefit of the First Step Act's partially retroactive reduction in penalties for gun crimes. I think the court is wrong as a matter of law but right as a matter of policy.
Medina v. Planned Parenthood: Medicaid does not create rights enforceable under section 1983 so as to allow a health care provider to sue to be a Medicaid provider. This is a big deal politically because it's not just any health care provider, it is the great baby killer Planned Parenthood. As judged by South Carolina, which does not fund abortion. Here in New England Planned Parenthood is more like the Great Emancipator and it's the "crisis pregnancy centers" that have to watch their backs.
Gutierrez v. Saenz: Reaffirming due process right to postconviction DNA testing.
Riley v. Bondi: Aliens must challenge deportation orders before they learn whether they are eligible from withholding of removal. The petitioner here wins because the government failed to object to a non-jurisdictional deadline. I think the court is right as a matter of law but wrong as a matter of policy.
Thanks for the short takes.
Please log in to post comments
Mute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?
Jeff Luse | 8.28.2025 4:45 PM
Veronique de Rugy | 8.28.2025 4:30 PM
Jacob Sullum | 8.28.2025 4:15 PM
Jack Nicastro | 8.28.2025 4:00 PM
Eric Boehm | 8.28.2025 3:45 PM
