Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[DaveM]

The retail prices for medical care in the US have to be the most inflated in the world. No insurance carrier ever pays these fictional prices, and they aren't passed on to the insureds, either, who only make copays and deductibles on the adjusted prices.

On your next *final* medical bill, look for a column labeled "adjustments". As you'll see, it can sometimes be many multiples of what the actual price actually paid turned out to be. I've seen it to be be as high as 8 TIMES the actual price. There's no explanation ever given, it's just a seemingly magic process that discards costs.

There are financial games being played here, clearly. Numbers are inflated with no expectation of being paid. These astronomically inflated numbers surely scares the beebees out of people so they get insured, but I don't think that's enough of a reason. This level of gaming feels like cooking the books in order to meet some legal threshold for allowed profiteering or some such.

[Kazinski]

I have long thought what Congress should do is require any medical provider that accepts Federal reimbursements, whether Medicare or Medicaid to offer their lowest negotiated rate for service to anyone who pays cash, or credit card with an at cost service fee within 90 days of the service.

Why should people who are paying fee for service be charged 10x as much if they pay just as much, just as fast as other payors?

[DaveM]

I love this idea, and something similar is already happening with prescription medications at large discount retailers such as Walmart and Costco. As long as you DON'T use your insurance they will let you pay the "adjusted" (that is, actual) price out of pocket. If you can use generics, the savings can be enormous.

[Armchair]

Kaz,

It's an effect of the insurance racket and the fact pricing is obscured. Secondarily, it's an effect of the medical monopoly.

What is really needed is open and clear pricing, so that clear comparisons can be made. Secondarily, it should be easier to become a doctor. One way...double the number of residency slots. Right now, that is the limiting factor. More doctors means lower prices.

[Michael P]

The Baumol effect is another factor: productivity growth in healthcare (as well as education) has been lower than in other parts of the economy, so relative prices for healthcare go up. The cartelized market is a plausible contributor to the slow productivity growth.

[Kazinski]

I think the main reason for lack of productivity is technology improves quality and outcomes but not efficiency.

And then because you are improving outcomes, now you have more old people to take care of.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Has anyone ever used this as a debtors defense, that the most they could sue for was what the insurance companies pay?

[LexAquilia]

Obamacare and the Democrats have turned private health insurance into hot garbage.

In 15 years a high deductible ($10,000) catastrophic plan went from $300/mo for a family of four to $1200.

What do you get for that $1200 a month? $6500 deductible. 20% coinsurance and a $10000 max out of pocket.

You went from $3600 a year for premiums, with a total cash out risk of $10,000 a month to $24,000 a year and a total cash risk of $10000.

But atleast gays get their party drugs covered, trannies get their stupid shit covered and no one has to pay for their own "family planning".

Democrats did this on purpose because they want to control your healthcare. Not because it will be better, we all know government programs they suck ass, but because they want you to be begging them and voting for them for more freebies and other shit to be added to their healthcare.

The Leftist ideology is so vile and so evil that they intentionally caused all this misery and suffering so they could later asset dominion over you.

These are evil people who need to be excised from any society.

[santamonica811]

Fuck you. Anyone who thinks that the problem with health insurance started with Obama has got to have mental retardation of a staggering amount.

I get that Lex is known as a troll and an unserious poster here at the VC. But this is in the running for 2025's dumbest post.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Fuck you"? Not a nice way to start the day.
The problems with "health insurance started when Medicare came on the scene, much like crazy tuition costs when government backed student loans became a thing.
If you track these you will see that their rise has always far exceeded inflation in other sectors.

[LexAquilia]

I didn't say Obamacare started all the problems. They go back to WW2, you thin-skinned twit.

I did say Obamacare smashed the gas pedal and accelerated its suck, with the sole intent to make everyone miserable so they'll be begging the government to save them with "free healthcare".

Just like they did with student loans. Which was the same time as Obamacare.

Health insurance is objectively worse 15 years after Obamacare passed. Were Democrat policy makers stupid? Or did they engineer this misery on purpose?

I'm guessing engineered.

[Krayt]

Congress could solve the student loan problem tomorrow by refusing to guarantee any student loans to a university for any year the tuition and R&B go up more than 2%.

This will start a slow unwinding of the problem. We got into it over decades, and here's how we get back out of it.

It vitiates the perverse incentives to nickle dime the population, since 10 extra bucks a month on your loan is way easier to accept than looking at it as a big whomp every year, hence high single or low double digit increases every year for decades.

[Joe_dallas]

A better solution would have the universities bear the risk of default on the student loans. The current structure allows the schools to obtain all the benefits of increased tuition revenue with none of the normal market risks. Its one of the reasons, if not the primary reason, tuition rates have risen much faster than the rate of inflation.

[M L]

Just end government involvement in student loans altogether, including guaranty, direct lending, and the meddling they did with bankruptcy laws.

Poof - "student loans" don't even exist any more.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or let the schools underwrite the loans from their endowments.

[LexAquilia]

In 2010 the Democrats passed Student Loan reform with Obamacare which clearly made things worse, as 10 years later it reached crisis levels and Biden went to extraordinary lengths to capture more government dependents.

The Democrats made it worse so you and I can suffer and we will beg the party of "Big Government" for relief, they could take dominion of yet another aspect of our lives and indenture us to forever begging them for relief.

Just like they're doing with healthcare.

They are evil, evil people. They aren't humans, they are Anti-Human.

[M L]

The poster could be wrong about everything as far as I know . . . but I don't see anything wrong in this particular comment.

[jb]

I mean, other than the fact it's just a bunch of made up numbers untethered to reality and a completely unserious attempt to try to understand the causes, sure there's nothing wrong with it.

[M L]

I think it's actually worse than his numbers suggest. Before Obamacare I could purchase a high deductible plan for a young healthy person for like 30-40/month (in nonblue states). That was taken away.

The insurance companies were popping champagne when the ACA (which was written by them) passed.

[jb]

I'm sure for some cherry-picked individual cases, costs have gone up a lot. I'm equally sure there were lots of people who couldn't get coverage at all, or the insurance was worthless due to limitations on preexisting conditions. There's a reason why attempts to repeal the ACA have proven to be very unpopular and unsuccessful.

And of course all of this analysis basically ignores skyrocketing health care inflation before the ACA was passed. It's not like plans from 15 years ago would cost anything vaguely the same now. Meanwhile, the ACA's shift to Value Based Payments has led to a significant reduction in overall health care inflation so that the overall cost of the system isn't spiraling out of control (as much).

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Paul Ryan’s reform plan was hilarious—it ended up being better than Obamacare but it was also more expensive and so Ryan ended up pulling the legislation. The worst part of Obamacare are the Exchanges which Republicans wanted to double down on because the Kushner family is heavily invested in them…thankfully it was too expensive even for the party that flushed $5 trillion down the toilet in the GWOT. If Democrats could do Obamacare over again they would just do Medicaid up to 250% FPL and not do the private plans.

[LexAquilia]

Why would anyone willingly choose to be on government healthcare?

They shit it up just like they shit up everything else.

They have to make it "free" at the point of exchange. That's the only way to get mass adoption.

[PaulS]

Alot was spent setting up exchanges. If instead of exchange plans people were allowed to go to the government website and buy the same plan that federal government employees purchase - that would be of interest. They are less expensive than the exchange and one can go to pretty much any doctor in any state.

[Joe_dallas]

Prior to obamacare, there was a reasonably vibrant individual health insurance market.

[Sarcastr0]

No there wasn't.

Preexisting conditions leading to denial was an issue. So was just straight people not being covered. And HMO's having little local monopolies (hence the exchanges).

I know the GOP's talking point was the status quo ante was fine. But there's a reason they keep failing to pass a bill to go back to that.

[M L]

There was, except in a few deep blue states like NY, which had already wrecked the market with their own mini versions of Obamacare.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I had a good private health insurance policy prior to Obamacare…but I lied for 10 years to keep it. So I just kept using my parents’ home address and if I ever had a big expense they could probably have kicked me off. So when I moved states I was supposed to get a new policy and every new policy would have not covered preexisting conditions.

[Kenneth Almquist]

You don’t provide any source for your numbers, which are shall we say, implausible: https://www.in2013dollars.com/Health-insurance/price-inflation/2010-to-2025?amount=300

Nor do you offer any explanation of how a law designed to decrease health insurance costs could actually increase them. If you look at Figure 1.12 in the report linked below, you can see that premiums for family coverage increased by 8.73% per year from 1999 through 2009, and by 4.42% per year from 2009 through 2024. (I use 2009 because the report doesn’t provide a number for 2010.) If you are going to argue that the Affordable Care Act increased premiums, you need to provide another cause for the slower growth in premiums post ACA.

https://files.kff.org/attachment/Employer-Health-Benefits-Survey-2024-Annual-Survey.pdf

As for the ACA causing “misery and suffering,” I would think that dying causes misery and suffering. Are you trying to suggest that the ACA didn’t reduce deaths?

[LexAquilia]

>Nor do you offer any explanation of how a law designed to decrease health insurance costs could actually increase them

Simple. They shifted from risk-rated insurance to community-rated insurance with a large and encompassing minimum set of coverages.

Now your healthcare insurance is more of a buyers club than it is a means of indemnification of risk.

Obamacare made health insurance a fundamentally different product.

Did you know the ACA made that change?

To illuminate this distinction. The ACA (via regulation) mandates "free" yearly checkups. Zero'ing in on this, suppose this was a single insurance product. Let's say the typical cost of the checkup is $100. Why would you buy insurance to cover a known, fixed & trivial cost occurrence? What do you think your insurance company is going to charge you in your annual premiums? More than $100, less than $100 or a $100?

[Chuck with no fucks left to give]

Obamacare made health insurance a fundamentally different product.

^ This right here ^

It changed health care plans from a risk pool to a cost sharing pool.

[Michael P]

Nor do you offer any explanation of how a law designed to decrease health insurance costs could actually increase them.

Well, shucks, laws always do what they are intended to do, right? Especially hastily passed laws that were expected to be significantly revised before enactment -- but were not revised because the bill was so unpopular -- and where "decrease health insurance costs" was at best a politician's promise that was belied by the variety of other, more directly implemented, objectives of the law.

[Chuck with no fucks left to give]

You don’t provide any source for your numbers, which are shall we say, implausible:

Having worked with employer provided health care plans for the last 20 years, his numbers are spot on.

[Frank Drackman]

Lighten up Francis

[Poxigah146]

Health insurance is expensive because you're paying for all of the migrants and our homegrown migrants who don't pay a penny.

[David Nieporent]

Every time you think he can't get dumber.

[Life of Brian]

^^^^^ Hasn't tried to get actual emergency care in an emergency room for at least the last decade if not two, categorically pooh-poohs the accounts of those that do try and get stuck behind the hours-long backlog of people using the ER for brazenly non-emergency care, and is willfully blind to the structural reasons why that problem exists.

Happy Monday!

[jimc5499]

I agree with you to a point. Try getting a quick appointment with your Doctor. There's a 95% chance that you won't be able to. It's the same with getting an appointment after 4 PM on a weekday and forget about the weekend. I used to work at places where if you missed two days, you had to have a Doctor's excuse to return to work or be terminated. I've been forced to go to the Emergency Room when a visit to my Doctor would have taken care of the issue. We just started having "Doc in a Box" places open in my area. When I lived in Florida in the 80's I didn't have a PCP, I went to the Doc in a Box. Never had a complaint, my insurance preferred them.

[Life of Brian]

Yes, agreed -- I'm strictly talking about true hospital emergency rooms. Non-hospital-owned urgent care facilities aren't forced to take all comers like ERs are, and thus don't experience the same flood of people who don't actually need urgent care but have no ability and/or no intention to pay for the care they do need.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Obamacare and the Democrats have turned private health insurance into hot garbage."

It was hot garbage before they got there, due to tax policies that linked health insurance to employment. But the employer mandate didn't help.

What we need it to break the link between health insurance and the employer to allow a true market to develop.

[M L]

Agreed, but there was a lot more about the ACA that was very destructive beyond just the mandate. The ACA instituted price controls, subsidized boomers, all sorts of stupid required coverages, and so on. In some blue states where leftists had already destroyed health care/insurance at the state level, there wasn't even any products for individual insurance left on the market, so ACA did actually improve things for some people there. But that's kind of like starving people getting cow dung to eat.

[Sarcastr0]

Health care is a degenerate market - the demand is anemic until it's nigh infinite.

Easy to price gouge without continuous, collective pressure.

Adopting a lassez-faire policy would create an aristocratic elite that can pay for 'full medical' and everyone else whose lives are nasty, brutish, and short.

[M L]

The usual socialist drivel. No. Free market would be better for everyone.

[Sarcastr0]

Regulation is not per-se socialist.

For a millennial, you sound like a reactionary 70-year-old.

[M L]

No, that would be, Keep your government hands off my medicare!

[Sarcastr0]

Yelling socialism for skepticism of blind market worship is at least as dumb.

Need I remind you if Heritage’s take till it became an Obama plan?

[LexAquilia]

Heritage's take was a single payer catastrophic plan that left all the non-catastrophic care up to the free market.

Right? That was nothing like the Obama plan.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Vibes?

[Mr. Bumble]

Hitachi?

[Commenter_XY]

El Vibrador operates exclusively on vibes. It certainly isn't reality.

[LexAquilia]

That's only the catastrophic portion of healthcare.

There is a large market of non-catastrophic healthcare that's been shitted up by your commie bullshit.

[Moderation4ever]

Health care prices are high but that also correlates with level of care that people are receiving. Today's medical care is far ahead of what would have been provided even a few years ago. My newspaper routinely reports on new treatments that are both amazing and costly. Add to this that the American population is aging and older people use significantly more health care than younger people. The combination of these two factors will likely cause health care to continue to rise. Can we lower cost? I believe this requires action at three levels. First people must take better care of themselves and do a better job of reducing their use of healthcare. The medical industry need to look for efficiencies in service, Government need to better direct services where they will do the most good and not to the people most likely to vote.

[Longtobefree]

1. What we know refer to as "Health Insurance" is actually pre-paid medical care. Insurance is designed to take a risk (auto accident, unexpected health event, house fire) that is too large for an individual, and spread that risk over a large, like group. Routine checkups, colds, pregnancies, and the like are NOT unexpected expenses.
2. The single major expense now facing medical care providers is the administrative overhead of federal mandated reporting.
3. By allowing pricing of health care to vary depending on who is "paying", the federal government aggravates the expense even more.

Solutions:
End federal government mandates of coverage for routine medical care, and for elective treatments. (in a true libertarian solution, put the period after 'coverage'. Or better still 'government')
Stop allowing (requiring) discriminatory pricing based on the source of payment. Everyone pays the same amount for the same treatment.
Force all federal employees, judicial, executive and especially legislators and their staff, to use only Medicare providers until Medicare goes away.

[apedad]

"Everyone pays the same amount for the same treatment."

That . . . doesn't feel very 'Libertarian.'

[Bob from Ohio]

"Routine checkups, colds, pregnancies, and the like are NOT unexpected expenses."

People complain about auto insurance prices but imagine what it would be if oil changes and other routine maintenance was included.

[hobie]

I went to get a physical at a prestigious clinic in Houston. When it was time to pay, the lady said 'that'll be $400, what insurance are you using?' I said, 'I'm paying cash'. 'Oh! Well then you bill is $200.'

[Frank Drackman]

I’d pay $400 NOT to do your Physical

[Kazinski]

For a change I will comment on something I actually know a little bit about, the Cambodian Thai border skirmishes.

I can say without much equvication that the fault of the current border clashes is the fault of the Thai Military, they are using it as a political weapon to depose the populaly elected Prime Minister that the Oligarchy oposes (for the record I think the Oligarchy has the issues right because the PM's party is close to Peronist, but I certainly don't support another coup, or starting a war with a weaker neighbor for political advantage).

The object of the war is an ancient Hindu temple on the Cambodian Thai border. The BBC describes the border issue thus:

"The dispute between the two countries date back to over a century, when their borders were drawn after the French occupation of Cambodia"

But the temple itself is undoubtedly built by the Khmer Empire hundreds of years before the Thai migrated down the Mekong from China and invaded the Mon and Khmer Empires around 1300.

There is no doubt that the French when they became the colonial power in Indochina in the 1860's interupted the Thai and Vietnamese dismemberment of the remains of the ancient Khmer Empire, The Vietnamese were asuming control of the Mekong Delta, which still has a substantial ethnic Khmer population, and Cambodians refer to as Khmer Kronm*. And the Thai had subjegated the Khmer Battambong province on the border with Thailand.

Well the French didn't care much about whether Vietnam or Cambodia controlled the Mekong Delta*, because either way the French were the colonial power, but they did care about Battambong and made the Thai move back to borders that more cloesly resembled the recent historical past, and the ethnic majorities.

But the Thai never forgave the French interference and briefly took back Battambong province from Cambodia during WW2 with Japanese aquiescence. In fact the Victory Monument in Downtown Bangkok commemorates their victory over the French, there is no acknowledgement that they meekly gave it all back after the war, after the Allies told them they couldn't keep it.

But that is basically what the current Cambodian Thai border war is all about, a power struggle between two Thai factions, and an old grudge against Cambodia to gin up the population.

And to put Cambodia in context with its neighbors:

Vietnam (101 million),
Thailand (72 million),
Cambodia (18 million)

* From the Wikipedia entry for Khmer Krom:
"Kampuchea Krom (Khmer: កម្ពុជាក្រោម, Kâmpŭchéa Kraôm [kampuciə kraom]; "Lower Cambodia") is the region variously known as Southern Vietnam, Nam Bo, and the former French Cochinchina.[1] Bordering present-day Cambodia, the region is positioned in Cambodian irredentist narratives as a "once-integral part of the Khmer kingdom that was colonised by France as Cochinchina in the mid-nineteenth century and then ceded to Vietnam in June 1949".

[Commenter_XY]

Another week, another major trade deal signed; EU. Our NatGas industry will be busy. So will the tariff income bean counters.

Next up, China. They won't get a good a deal as the EU.

[Martinned]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Trump "trade deals" are only ever about tariffs, and they're only ever good as long as Trump doesn't change his mind. It's not like we're talking about Senate-ratified treaties here. Everything is an emergency, remember. Even the trade surplus with Brazil.

That said, it's good that Europe has made a clear choice that it doesn't mind relying on the US for weapons. I'm not sure if I agree with that choice, but at least it's a choice. Now we don't have to worry about making sure that we have Israel as an alternative supplier, so we can finally impose a comprehensive set of trade sanctions on Israel, which is the bare minimum we should do when a country commits genocide and all sorts of other international crimes.

[Commenter_XY]

eurotrash, waving the antisemite flag as a distraction. Loser.

[Martinned]

Just because you're happy to condone genocide, doesn't mean that I'm an antisemite for pointing out that that's what you're doing.

[Michael P]

Your insistence that Israel is trying to commit genocide is what means you are an antisemite. The major genocide in the region is by Hamas and other Islamist parties. (Over the last 50 years, some secular parties in non-Israel countries have broken customary international law in genocide-like ways as well, but it's been decades for all of them except Syria.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"Your insistence that Israel is trying to commit genocide is what means you are an antisemite."

Exactly. Its the poisoning the wells or blood for Matzo dressed up in a keffiyeh.

[Frank Drackman]

You forgot to say "Allahu Akbar", I'm telling Ayatollah Mamdani

[Michael P]

The trade deal with Europe involves quite a bit of non-tariff spending (by Europe), and not just in the weapons that you mentioned. So does the one with Japan. As usual, you have serious issues with basic facts.

[Martinned]

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. So far it's just politicians saying things to each other.

[Michael P]

Future performance is a distinguishing characteristic of a "deal" of this kind, as opposed to completed trade or a good bargain. It's incoherent to complain that "Trump 'trade deals' are only ever about tariffs" and then object that non-tariff elements are not relevant because they, like the tariff rates, are forward-looking promises.

[David Nieporent]

The issue isn't that they are forward looking promises that people might not follow up on; the issue is that Trump always makes up shit and claims that counterparties agreed to it when they didn't.

[Kazinski]

What they are saying to each other is telling:

"Trump worked out exactly where our pain threshold is."

-Financial Times

https://x.com/Geiger_Capital/status/1949626014906163511

[Kazinski]

Its interesting that the EU, Japan, SK, and likely China are falling in line agreeing to these trade deals they would rather not agree with when there are two contrary court decisions, and firms like Cantor Fitzgerald are buying up rights to future tariff refunds at 20-30 cents on the dollar.

I think its pretty obvious these deals have gone too far and are too favorable whatsoever the courts ultimately decide. For Instance the EU will pay 15% tariffs, and the US 0% (ok there will be a 15% tariff on EU goods going to the US, regardless of who pays).

I hope Congress is working on a few more reconciliation packages to codify these tariff deals. I don't think there is any cognizable argument that these tariffs do not qualify as taxes providing significant revenue under the Byrd rule to qualify for reconciliation.

And of course I am not claiming that the tariffs have no impact, you don't have to go much further than GM's 2nd quarter results to see there is some pain, but I think the deficit reduction is worth it. Apple and Ford next week will probably provide some more pain to go along with GM, but for the most part 2nd quarter corporate profits are stellar as the stock market is showing.

[Martinned]

there will be a 15% tariff on EU goods going to the US, regardless of who pays

The US pays.

[Kazinski]

I'm ok with that, Spanish ham is worth it but French wine is not.

[Armchair]

Correction. The importer pays.

Whether or not the importer passes those costs onto the end consumer is a different question. Sometimes they can. Sometimes they cannot. But it is incorrect to say, in all cases, "The US pays".

[David Nieporent]

And the importer is… American.

[Frank Drackman]

Not necessarily

[Life of Brian]

And the importer is… American.

Only if you're somehow keeping your face straight enough to posit that all US corporate entities are "American" in a sense that meaningfully impacts this discussion.

Back in the real world, foreign companies routinely create US subs to receive and further distribute their own exports. If consumer shelf prices don't go up in that sort of vertically integrated scenario, the foreign exporter is the one ultimately eating the tariff.

I'm sure there are other examples, but that's one of the more obvious ones.

[Commenter_XY]

That was the correct answer = Armchair above.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Everybody along the supply chain pays. How much depends on a lot of specific facts.

[santamonica811]

Kaz,
Can a treaty be ratified as part of a reconciliation bill? I'd be surprised if that were true. (You said codify, but I think treaties have to be ratified, don't they???) Going back to Jr. High memories; I thought you needed a 2/3 supermajority of Senators...which sure doesn't jibe with jamming it through reconciliation.

[Kazinski]

No treaty has to be ratified, the only thing that Congress needs to do is codify the tariff rates the president negotiated, or explicitly delegate him the authority to set them.

Tariffs can be set by treaty, or unilaterally imposed, or anything in between. But the constitution is clear even if the President can't set tariff rates Congress can by majority vote.

[jb]

Can't they only do reconciliation once per year? (i.e., even if your approach is theoretically sound, this mechanism wouldn't allow Congress to formalize the tariff until 2026?)

[Kazinski]

There can be a maximum of 3 reconciliation bills, but that is per fiscal year too, not calendar year. The new fiscal year starts October 1.

But in any case at the rate the courts are not moving fast on this and you can bet on a stay until the Supreme Court rules on it.

[jb]

Sort of. There can be one for spending, one for revenue, and one for the debt limit. But if you deal with all of those things in one big beautiful bill then you don't get to do two more.

[Sarcastr0]

No way an actual treaty, even one about trade, passes the Byrd test.

This is all silly anyhow because these bills are all one-sided memos the admin puts out.

[Kazinski]

Treaties need 2/3 vote in the Senate.

But Congress doesn't need a treaty to codify a trade agreement, it can be done in a reconciliation bill.

And while the Byrd Rule may or may not rule out another reconciliation bill this fiscal year, the next fiscal year starts in barely 2 months so its not a problem either.

[Sarcastr0]

Not sure it'd be smart to shoot their reconciliation shot on some random trade agreement.

Though as has been noted, these are not actually agreements.

[Kazinski]

It would not be a random trade agreement of would be all of them and approval for the baseline tariffs with countries that haven't reached agreement.

And doesn't matter if they are formal agreements or not, if Congress sets the tariff then that's the tariff.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Biden already did that with a big assist from Putin. Trump wants to send our cheap natural gas to China to power their economy but China is wisely investing in renewables. Biden did it the right way—natural gas is for our allies and subsidize renewables so American consumers don’t get dinged by higher natural gas prices because of LNG exports. Trump wanted American consumers to pay higher utility rates while enriching energy companies just like Lizard Cheney.

[David Nieporent]

No trade deals were signed. God, are you gullible. Someone meets with Trump, and they announce they've reached an understanding, and Trump touts it as a trade deal, even though they haven't reached an understanding, let alone signed an actual deal. Look at Japan, where Trump's claiming they agreed to just pay him billions of dollars, and Japans said, "WTF? No we didn't."

[John F. Carr]

According to the French Prime Minister, a dark day for Europe.

C’est un jour sombre que celui où une alliance de peuples libres, rassemblés pour affirmer leurs valeurs et défendre leurs intérêts, se résout à la soumission

[Bob from Ohio]

Weird, the French usually like surrenders.

[hobie]

What does that have to do with Epstein?

[Martinned]

As you may have noticed, I've been away-ish for a week. Did you talk about the ICJ's advisory opinion on climate change yet?

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf

[Martinned]

Unsurprisingly, EJIL:Talk! already has two good blog posts:

https://www.ejiltalk.org/state-responsibility-in-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change/

https://www.ejiltalk.org/treaty-and-custom-in-the-icjs-climate-change-opinion/

[Martinned]

Verfassungsblog is also a consistently good source. They have a whole series going: https://verfassungsblog.de/category/debates/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-debates/

[Kazinski]

I think this is one of my favorite ICJ court rulings of all time.

There is nothing Americans like more than ignoring ICJ court rulings.

Especially since American Natural Gas is our ace in the hole for global AI domination, not that Chinese coal should be disregarded, but they are constrained on chips more than electrons.

Europe is fucked.

[Martinned]

Meanwhile, the world's willingness to give a damn what the US thinks about anything keeps eroding by the day, while the Americans scratch their heads, stamp their feet, and wonder why those foreigners aren't doing what they're told.

Wonder why? Here's why. Telling people to go fuck themselves has a price. For example, the Israeli government is maintaining its objective of turning Syria into a failed state, and the fact that Trump decided that the Al Qaeda president of Syria is a swell guy, and that Rubio is making furious phone calls on a daily basis, doesn't move the needle one bit.

Everybody and their uncle comes to Washington with copies of the letters they sent to the Nobel committee, and as soon as they cool their heels they do whatever they like and laugh at America's embarrassing president.

[Krayt]

You also giddily stray from American freedom of speech by jailing people who say mean things.

Having said that, Europe and some US states agree: you need to register to surf the Internet so government can track you.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Meanwhile, the world's willingness to give a damn what the US thinks about anything keeps eroding by the day"

LOL You are losing touch with sanity now.

Meanwhile, EU reps get put on a bus in China like a visiting marching band.

[Kazinski]

But in terms of Europe absolutely killing any competitive edge, either industrial or digital, they might have by their Net Zero suicide pact, is a complete own goal. We certainly didn't make them do it.

We didn't tell them to do it, and we are trying to help by supplying as much low carbon gas as we can.

To see what's happening graphically here is G7 per capita income since 1990.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:G7_Countries_GDP_Per_Capita_(1990-2029).png

That Yellow line that shoots skyward out of the tangled pack about 2012 is the US.

[Sarcastr0]

Noting Europe is doing comes near to the brain drain this war against US researchers has caused and will cause.

You also assume causality from causation. Yet again. You do love a good just-so story!

[Kazinski]

There are a lot of things that have caused the US to go from being tied with Canada at about 55k GDP per capita, to now sitting dozen years later at 85k, while Canada in 2nd place still hasn't cracked 60k.

One of them is not joining the net zero suicide pact.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz: The best part of that deal is the 750B of NatGas sales. We will upgrade our NatGas distribution infrastructure on the EU's dime. This is stupendously easy money.

It is really a shame we cannot dedicate that money to debt retirement. That, combined with Golden Visa revenue, can retire a lot of our national debt.

Every 1MM Golden Visas we sell, it is 5T dollars. Could we sell 10MM Golden Visas? I bet we could, there are ~55MM-60MM people worldwide with sufficient assets, with roughly 1/3rd already having green cards. Bye, bye national debt.

I hope there are many EU buyers of Golden Visas; they want to invest here. It is a good match. The Euro is strong vis a vis USD. If ever a time, now is the time to pull the trigger on a Golden Visa.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

And Trump wants to export cheap natural gas to China when we are already 15 years into probably a 30 year cycle. So if you want to export natural gas you that means you believe renewables will be cheaper than natural gas in 15 years when production begins to decline.

[Mr. Bumble]

You weren't missed.

[Riva]

Yes, the climate change grifters are amusing, especially when they threaten with advisory opinions that hold no more credibility than the underlying fraud they further. Meanwhile in the real world, parts of the US are starting to feel the effects of Canadian wildfires, with an Air Quality Index in the upper 150’s in some areas. As noted in Powerlineblog:

Every year, we spend untold billions of dollars on pollution control, trying to squeeze another part per trillion of some chemical or element out of the atmosphere. And all that effort and expense is lost in a single afternoon of careless Canadian forestry management.

Maybe they should issue an advisory opinion on this?

[tylertusta]

I'll never not stop being entertained from watching European radicals push deindustrialization while their politicians pretend that they have more geopolitical relevance than they actually do.

[John F. Carr]

Australia is adopting Tuvalu so that debt is paid off.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Did you talk about the ICJ's advisory opinion on climate change yet?"

No. Why would we?

[LexAquilia]

>Our findings reveal that numerous off-target products are produced by mRNA-based corona vaccines following translation of the encoded spike monomers. These off-target products may be responsible for both acute vaccination reactions and long-term side effects.

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2025.1635478/abstract

No refunds you idiot Vaxxies.

[Martinned]

Congratulations! What are you going to be an expert in next?

[LexAquilia]

Yes Martinned, go through life like a typical serf never being skeptical of the dictats from your betters.

lmao, I'm so glad my ancestors didn't have the serf gene. I'd be a sniveling, bootlicking Euro just like you!

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Covid was a bioweapon developed in a Chinese lab…I chose the mRNA vaccines over the Chinese bioweapon. Operation Warp Speed was the best thing Trump did followed closely by his surrender to the Taliban that effectively ended our nation’s longest war. A prolong war benefits nobody…except for he Military Industrial Complex which Sun Tzu didn’t have to deal with. 😉

[LexAquilia]

a bioweapon developed in a Chinese lab ... with US funding from Fauci, et al.

>I chose the mRNA vaccines over the Chinese bioweapon.

That's the great thing about being in America, we are one of the last places where individuals could make their own risk assessment and choose their own paths. The Left tried to take personal medical freedom away from us, as authoritarianism is baked into their DNA.

This is why we must resist Leftist solutions at all cost. They are designed to harm, until you suffer so much you concede all control and sovereignty over to them (and property if you're a Marxist).

[Dr. Ed 2]

And if vaxed leftists cant have children, is that a bad thing?

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

Not at all. The only part Im pissed about is the vaccine shedding.

[Riva]

Interesting reply from someone who just posted a comment furthering the climate fraud and bad international law at the same time. An “expert” bureaucrat with the time to make multiple comments here, just what the world needs.

[jb]

mRNA-based vaccines have proven highly effective in reducing severe disease and mortality. However, both the virus itself and mRNA vaccines have been associated with cardiac symptoms, which are commonly classified as myocarditis, pericarditis, or a combination thereof based on clinical presentation. Although vaccine-induced myocarditis remains a rare adverse event, recent longitudinal studies have raised questions regarding its long-term impact.

This study tries to understand the mechanism by which those adverse events happen, and does not change the fact that the vaccines save lives, and that severe side effects are rare.

Helps to read the whole thing and not just skim for "gotcha" quotes that reinforce your priors.

[Commenter_XY]

The problem is, we don't fully understand what is happening with mRNA vaccines in our bodies. Other vaccines, like polio and the usual US childhood series of vaccines (MMR, etc), we have a better understood MOA (mechanism of action).

Those of us that vaccinated during the pandemic took our chances. That is the bottom line. We all signed the releases knowing the Covid-19 'vaccine' was in fact, an emergency biological experimental treatment. We live with the consequences, we made our choices. The mandatory Covid-19 vax mandates; a very different matter. No jab, no job was completely wrong. Add to that, mRNA technology is still in it's infancy, there is cause for concern.

It would really be great to thoroughly understand the MOA of mRNA and how it interacts with our immune systems.

[jb]

I think the study is useful and continuing research into mRNA vaccines is a good idea. I also think trying to take one random sentence out of the synopsis that gives a false impression that the authors think mRNA vaccines are a bad idea is scummy and dishonest, so wanted to save people a click and give some more context.

[Martinned]

This is a good analysis piece about the Trumpist attempts at election interference in Europe, which will continue unabated despite their singular lack of success so far.

https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar0ec480cc

[Kazinski]

Turnabout is fair play.

There is no doubt the EU tried to interfere is US elections when they threatened Elon trying to cancel his live interview with Trump during the campaign.

And UK's Labour party recruited 100 volunteers to come to the US to work on Harris's campaign.

I think all in all there is less US interference in Europe's elections than vice versa mainly because we don't care as much, on the other hand I don't see many signs Europe cares much about what we think about their elections either.

[CountmontyC]

Read your article and it is pure trash as most of the complaints amount to little more than President Trump supports candidates whose views he supports. How dare he!!!!

[not guilty]

In the comments to Saturday's Calabresi post about appointment of interim U.S. Attorneys, there was a lot of MAGAt blather about the language of Article II, § 1 of the Constitution: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

With regard to the method of appointment of inferior officers of the federal government, Article II, § 2 provides in relevant part that "the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Determining the method of appointment of inferior officers is accordingly a legislative power, not an executive power. Article I, § 1 states in relevant part, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Justice Robert Jackson famously wrote:

The actual art of governing under our Constitution does not, and cannot, conform to judicial definitions of the power of any of its branches based on isolated clauses, or even single Articles torn from context. While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity. Presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). The plain language of Article II, § 2 treats appointment of "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for" -- a presidential prerogative -- distinctly from appointment of inferior officers -- as to which Article I, § 1 and Article II, § 2, read in pari materia, vest in the Congress the legislative authority to prescribe a different method of appointment. Whether the Congress will designate inferior officers to be appointed by the President alone, will designate inferior officers to be appointed by the Courts of Law, or will designate inferior officers to be appointed by the Heads of Departments, is a legislative prerogative of Congress.

"A legal instrument typically contains many interrelated parts that make up the whole. The entirety of the document thus provides the context for each of its parts." A. Scalia and B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts § 24, 167 (2012). The provisions of a text should be interpreted in a way that renders them compatible, not contradictory. "One part is not to be allowed to defeat another, if by any reasonable construction the two can be made to stand together." Id., at § 27, 180, quoting Thomas M. Cooley, A treatise of the Constitutional Limitations Which Rest Upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union 58 (1868).

There is no conflict between Article I, § 1 vesting all legislative Powers granted by the Constitution in the Congress and Article II § 1 vesting executive authority in the President. The two provisions are complementary. The MAGAts, however, argue for an expansive construction of the vesting clause of Article II, § 1 that would render the language of Article II, § 2, "but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments", nugatory. That just cannot be. The latter part of Article II, § 2 describes a legislative function, not an executive one.

[LexAquilia]

Yawn, you're the TDS version of Ilya. One note. One trick. Every analysis is just a pretentious veneer in front of ideological goal-seeking.

It would be nice if you had any dignity or shame.

Do better.

[not guilty]

LexAquilia, how would you even recognize cogent legal analysis when you see it?

When and where did you get your legal training, if any?

[Michael P]

That was a very effective way to demonstrate his points. Bonus points for being briefer than your usual.

[Armchair]

Credentialism.

[Sarcastr0]

Is a thing, when credentials are not relevant to the job.

But there's a reason why we hire PhDs to do science, and JDs to do law, and why you want a surgeon with an MD and years of experience to do your heart surgery.

At some point the war on expertise becomes a war for idiocy.

[Armchair]

The "job" in this case is a discussion online about the Constitution.

"Credentialism" in this case, is a way to shut down the argument without actually discussing it, and is a lazy ad hominem-type argument. Rather than discuss the case, the argument goes "I'm right on this point because I went to law school, and you're not, because you didn't".

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, competent legal analysis is an enemy of ipse dixit posting.

You announce, and not for the first time, that you are not a serous poster.

[David Nieporent]

"Credentialism" in this case, is a way to shut down the argument without actually discussing it,

Um, no. NaziAquilia's entire post was:

Yawn, you're the TDS version of Ilya. One note. One trick. Every analysis is just a pretentious veneer in front of ideological goal-seeking.

It would be nice if you had any dignity or shame.

Do better.

That was not an argument or attempt at discussion; it itself was an attempt "to shut down the argument without actually discussing it."

[Bob from Ohio]

"JDs to do law,

Very recent degree. Is the legal profession any better than the old reading law days? Clarence Darrow, widely considered the finest American trial lawyer, attended but did not graduate law school so no JD,

"why you want a surgeon with an MD"

osteopathic surgeon erasure

[LexAquilia]

Too many of them must be White.

[LexAquilia]

Your lot hires people based upon skin color and lifestyle choices.

Not merit.

[LexAquilia]

I can tell you simply where your analysis fails.

Congress’s ability to "vest" appointment power is a convenience, not a grant of legislative dominion. All executive power resides in the President, and Congress cannot fragment or reassign it. That would be a violation of separation of powers and an extreme undermining of our checks and balances.

Had you worked from first principles outward instead of your goal backwards you would've come to a similar conclusion.

[David Nieporent]

Congress’s ability to "vest" appointment power is a convenience, not a grant of legislative dominion. All executive power resides in the President, and Congress cannot fragment or reassign it. That would be a violation of separation of powers and an extreme undermining of our checks and balances.

The constitution cannot be a violation of itself. "Separation of powers" is not in the constitution; Congress's authority to vest certain appointment power elsewhere is.

[LexAquilia]

Thank you for the clarification. Would you mind a brief overview of where the "Separation of Powers" concept comes from?

I didn't realize I had just made up the concept.

[CountmontyC]

I thought the TDS version of Ilya was Ilya.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Youngstown Sheet and Tube is famous because of Black Monday in 1977. But it wasn’t a victim of technological innovation like Bethlehem Steel and other Big Steel companies…it was a victim of conglomerates and poor management. Basically a shipping company from New Orleans that had no clue how to run a steel mill acquired the iconic company and then ran it into the ground.

A few years later mini mill technology and recycling scrap would bankrupt Big Steel…and now the company that benefits from steel tariffs is the company that bankrupted Big Steel and isn’t hiring more employees it’s just increasing profits!! So hilarious! But at least Trump visited East Palestine which is near Youngstown. Btw, nobody in EP died from toxic exposure but Trump and the right wing echo chamber played that tragedy like a fiddle!!

[Lee Moore]

Determining the method of appointment of inferior officers is accordingly a legislative power, not an executive power.

Correct, or strictly it is a legislative activity (ie determining rules for something is legislative activity) and it is the exercise of a legislative power. But it only falls within the legislative power of Congress because this legislative power to determine the method of appointment of inferior officers is explicitly granted in Article II.

Thus, for example, if Congress felt that it ought to codify some rules for how officers might or might not be dismissed, that would also be a legislative activity, but an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power, because the constitution does not grant the Congress any such power. That is why SCOTUS is gradually meandering round to the constitutionally obvious conclusion that the President, as the wielder of "the executive power" has the executive power to dismiss executive branch officers, of any kind, whatever Congress might choose to say on the subject.

But but but, the actual appointment of officers is an executive activity, which the constitution reserves to the President. Except when it doesn't. This business whereby the Congress can make a rule allowing members of the judicial branch (the courts of law) to perform executive tasks, without the say so of the President (appointing inferior officers) is an explicit exception to the President's otherwise exclusive executive power.

Thereby demonstrating that although the constitution sets up a neat separation of powers - Article I for the legislature, Article II for the executive and Article III for the judiciary, it is not quite as neat as it first appears.

Thus, for example, the President gets a slice of legislative power in his power to make treaties, which with the consent of the Senate (but no role for the House) become the law of the land. Thus it is not quite true that the Congress has "all" the legislative power. The constitution makes an explicit exception. (Strictly the Presidential veto is not a legislative power as such, it is the power to prevent Congress exercising its legislative power.)

In the same way, the Senate's right to grant or refuse consent to the appointment of Presidential nominees is not an executive power, it is the power to prevent the President exercising his executive power.

The judiciary gets an executive power, in this inferior officers appointment thing.

The legislature gets a teaspoonful of judicial power - impeachment, judge of elections and qualifications of members. And an executive power - granting Letters of Marque.

Anyway, in relation to the controversy du jour, it does not seem to me textually controversial, contra Calabresi, to conclude that Congress giving the power to make inferior officer appointments to the courts is constitutional. It's right there in Article II.

[OpinionsVary]

"Thus, for example, if Congress felt that it ought to codify some rules for how officers might or might not be dismissed, that would also be a legislative activity, but an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power, because the constitution does not grant the Congress any such power."

To pick this out - under a strict reading of this, it would be constitutional for Congress to give a Department Head the power to appoint a lesser officer but unconstitutional to give them the power to fire that very same officer. That's a 'how they might be dismissed' after all. Or the a Court of fire its lesser officer Clerk. Or, well, you get the idea. All firings would go through the President, if firing is actually a matter for the vesting clause rather than the appointment clause.

Or do you think there is *some kind* of removal authority in the appointment clause too?

[David Nieporent]

Thus, for example, if Congress felt that it ought to codify some rules for how officers might or might not be dismissed, that would also be a legislative activity, but an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power, because the constitution does not grant the Congress any such power.

It doesn't grant the president any such power either, at least not explicitly.

[Lee Moore]

No not explicitly. But inferring it is hardly a wild flight of fancy.

Since firing executive branch folk is an executive activity then if anyone has the power of firing it must be the President in whom the executive power is vested (minus any explicit constitutional exceptions, which do not touch on firing.)

Or else no executive branch officer can ever be fired. Which will come as a bit of a shock to the next President.

[jb]

"No not explicitly. But inferring it is hardly a wild flight of fancy."

That's true, but inferring that if Congress has some role to play in appointments they also have a role to play in dismissals also doesn't seem like a wild flight of fancy.

[Riva]

Define your own issues, NG. That's not my position. And if your position is that the Chief Executive is somehow divested of his authority to manage the executive branch, including inferior officers, by virtue of section 2, then you're welcome to engage in sloppy constitutional analysis and rely on non-controlling, irrelevant precedent. That seems to be all the vogue in the federal judiciary so you have some company.

[Bob from Ohio]

"sloppy constitutional analysis and rely on non-controlling, irrelevant precedent"

His entire oeuvre.

[Kazinski]

The real key to the dispute is the definition of inferior officers, and are US Attorneys inferior officers.

In Edmonds (1997) the Supreme Court defined "inferior officers": "Generally speaking, "inferior officers" are officers whose work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by Presidential nomination with the Senate's advice and consent." The Edmonds court also cited Morrison "In reaching that conclusion, we relied on several factors: that the independent counsel was subject to removal by a higher officer (the Attorney General), that she performed only limited duties, that her jurisdiction was narrow, and that her tenure was limited." And "the fact that an independent counsel may investigate and prosecute only those individuals, and for only those crimes, that are within the scope of jurisdiction granted by the special three-judge appointing panel."

So it seems based on both Edmonds and Morrison that a US Attorney is not an Inferior Officer, and even if he were he an inferior officers then he would be removable by the Attorney General or the President.

Judge Cannon in Trump's Florida case ruled Jack Smith was not an inferior officer, and of course his scope of duty was much narrower than an Acting US Attorney.

[jb]

"Judge Cannon in Trump's Florida case ruled Jack Smith was not an inferior officer, and of course his scope of duty was much narrower than an Acting US Attorney."

Judge Cannon is a partisan hack. Generally, when more serious judges reviewed her work, it was overruled. The fact that Smith resigned before there was a chance to review this particular decision does not make the reasoning any better.

[Bob from Ohio]

"it was overruled"

Every district judge gets overruled on a regular basis.

[jb]

Sure, but in particular on the Mar a Lago documents cases, I think all of decisions that were appealed to 11th Circuit were overruled. And given that her overall decision about the Constitutionality of Jack Smith's role was explicitly at odds with Supreme Court precedent on the same topic, it seems dubious to rely on here.

[Kazinski]

You still aren't addressing Edmonds, and also Morrison, even if you can make the case that a special counsel is an inferior officer, and that is in dispute, its a much heavier lift to claim a US Attorney is.

The Special Counsel inferior officer argument is somewhat of an oxymoron anyway: he is completely independent to do his job but he is supervised enough by the AG to meat the Edmonds test. (""Generally speaking, "inferior officers" are officers whose work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by Presidential nomination with the Senate's advice and consent.")

So which is it, are they independent or supervised by the AG?

Edmonds is in definite tension with Morrison, and Scalia who dissented in Morrison wrote Edmonds (a 9-0 decision) 9 years later.

[OpinionsVary]

If interim/acting/full US Attorneys are all full officers that means they can't be held without senate confirmation. Including Alina Habba. Maybe some routes under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (maybe Marco Rubio can get another hat?) but much of it does rather rest on a Bush II era Office of Legal Counsel opinion that acting officers and inferior officers.

[jb]

I'm not addressing the other cases because I wasn't arguing your overall point. I was just noting that citing Canon's decision as if it were decisive on the topic is silly.

I do think the Trump administration's shenanigans with trying to get around limitations on the duration of interim appointments is problematic, though. What's the point of the Congressionally-mandated limits on duration if they can be trivially worked around? Presumably there's some risk that, e.g., the actions Sarcone takes in his special assistant capacity will eventually be held to be unlawful. Why doesn't Trump just appoint someone moderately competent to do the job?

[Bob from Ohio]

"interim U.S. Attorneys"

Which woman is sitting in the US attorney office today? Haven't seen any news.

[Life of Brian]

No sign it isn't Habba, but I do see that some rando NY solo practitioner filed a motion challenging her appointment (and just strictly as an afterthought, I'm sure, asking as a remedy to dismiss the indictment against his gangbanger client set for trial next week).

[Bob from Ohio]

Interesting that the 3rd Circuit moved the case to a judge from Penn.

[santamonica811]

RIP Tom Lehrer. Other than Monty Python, you were responsible for more of my smiles and laughs than any other source. Only a total of a few albums, but a dramatic impact on my funny bone.

You will be missed. 🙁

[Paladin_44]

Tom was one of the funniest men alive. Interesting that he opened up his entire collection, making it freely available to anyone who wants to perform. But, of course, nobody could perform it well as he did.
RIP.

[Frank Drackman]

Did someone attack him with a Banana?

[LexAquilia]

I saw this and couldn't help but share it with everyone I could, it's so powerful.
---
Elon saved the world and most don’t understand.

He exposed and ended USAID.

Universities are being brought to heel.

Colbert is gone.

The View is gone.

The Democratic Party will soon be broke.

The rioting is stopping.

Elon stopped the money laundering operation.
---

https://x.com/Manhattva/status/1948955730373214273

Dr. Manhattva is correct. Humanity was on the brink. Human flourishing was being suffocated by Leftist ideology.

But Elon via Trump and DOGE has given us a chance again. Our kids will remember this moment.

Thank you, Mr. Musk!

[Malika the Maiz]

He’s also been very on the case of Trump’s Epstein cover up:

“Perhaps prophetically, Elon Musk alleged President Donald Trump was “in the Epstein files” back on June 7—not long after Attorney General Pam Bondi gave that same news to Trump, according to a blockbuster report in The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday—and while the world’s richest person deleted his initial X post with that allegation, he’s continued to press Trump on the issue since.“

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2025/07/23/musk-claimed-trump-was-in-the-epstein-files-in-june-and-has-trolled-him-ever-since/

[LexAquilia]

If Leftists can't propagandize you into doing what they want, they'll take away your option to do otherwise.

Look at these what these sick Leftist freaks want to do to meat because we have too much freedom and we still choose to eat meat.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.70015?af=R

" Herein, we argue that if eating meat is morally impermissible, then efforts to prevent the spread of tickborne AGS are also morally impermissible. After explaining the symptoms of AGS and how they are transmitted via ticks, we argue that tickborne AGS is a moral bioenhancer if and when it motivates people to stop eating meat."

...
" If this practice can be applied to ticks carrying AGS, then promoting the proliferation of tickborne AGS is morally obligatory."

They want to bioengineer ticks to create allergies in humans to meat.

Same thing they are doing with healthcare, make healthcare in the free market as unpalatable and miserable as possible so you'll run to government healthcare which was their original goal.

Evil people. I've never met a Leftist who wasn't evil.

[Malika the Maiz]

“If Leftists can't propagandize you into doing what they want, they'll take away your option to do otherwise.

Look at these what these sick Leftist freaks want to do to meat because we have too much freedom and we still choose to eat meat.”

Uh huh, Leftists!

“On May 1, 2024, Florida Gov.Ron DeSantis signed SB 1084, the first law in the country to ban the manufacture, distribution, or sale of cultivated meat.”

https://ij.org/case/florida-cultivated-meat-ban/

[SRG2]

On the main Reason boards, pretty much all the cultists supported DeSantis using idiotic arguments like, "it will be too expensive" and "most people won't buy it".

[Krayt]

Let that be a problem for venture capitalists to deal with, in our freedom-based economy, capitalism properly defined as a corollary of freedom, not just another plug-and-play ism, like dictators thus worldwide decree.

Why would nominal conservatives be into command and control economies? Don't they rage at BS like making hospitals get on bended knee to open more beds, or please, sir, may I buy an MRI?

No, no, something's not right here!

[SRG2]

I think that they believe that fake meat is the thin end of the wedge, or they don't like the people who advocate for it, or they're receiving campaign contributions from meat products.

[David Nieporent]

I think it's about 99% the last of those three, and the other 1% is also the last of those three.

[LexAquilia]

They make that stuff off of cancer cells. They call it "immortal cells" to dupe the low information types.

Cultivated meat bans are the same as banning the OTC sale of heroin.

[Malika the Maiz]

“to dupe the low information types”

Dupes and low information types? At least Lex’s talking about something with which he has familiarity!

And of course, Desantis and the GOP didn’tt cite public safety as the reason for the ban.

https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2024/governor-desantis-signs-legislation-keep-lab-grown-meat-out-florida

[Malika the Maiz]

Also, who saw this coming?

“CLAIM: Lab-grown meat is made out of cancerous animal cells.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Meat grown in labs is made using cells taken from animals, but those cells are not cancerous and there are many safeguards in place to ensure that the end product is safe to consume, experts told The Associated Press. The false claim stems from the fact that, like cancer cells, those used in lab-grown meat often go through a process that allows them to divide indefinitely. But cells must exhibit other traits to be considered cancerous….

The false claim stems from the fact that these cells are then put through a process called immortalization, which allows them to replicate indefinitely. This means companies do not have to continually create cell lines from scratch, allowing for higher-scale production.

Cancer cells are also considered immortalized, but that is only one trait that makes them cancerous. Other characteristics that can indicate cancer in cells include unpredictable, uncontrollable behavior or the creation of separate blood vessels, Swartz said. But cells intentionally immortalized to create lab-grown meat have behavior that is, by necessity, predictable and controllable.“

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-lab-meat-cancer-animal-cells-449786524119#

[LexAquilia]

Woah! A fact check by the always trusted AP!! You might as well have provided a fact check by the Cultivated Meat Council since that's likely where that fact check came from.

But I love this... it's not cancer because we can control the growth! Otherwise, it's exactly like cancer, therefor lets sanitize the name to something cool that the bootlickers will love.

[Mr. Bumble]

Curious; how are the existing fake meat companies doing and has there been a growth in their market share?

[Malika the Maiz]

You’re not curious at all, and any answer would, of course, be irrelevant to this discussion.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. You, as always are a great credit to the comments section.

[LexAquilia]

Look how easy it is to get a Lefty bootlicking corporate interests.

What an amazing trick they pulled to get the Left from Occupy Wall Street to the craven corporate bootlickers they are now.

[Malika the Maiz]

lol! The guy defending the meat industry’s protectionist use of state force says opponents of the law are corporate bootlickers.

We deserve a better class of fascist bootlicker than Lex.

[Malika the Maiz]

Just like your initial misunderstanding (it has to be cancer because cancer is immortal!) you inaccurately state that controllable is the only difference:

“Other characteristics that can indicate cancer in cells include unpredictable, uncontrollable behavior or the creation of separate blood vessels,”

You might want to leave cell biology to people with reading comprehension.

[LexAquilia]

Are you David NotAPedant's sockpuppet?

[M L]

Is that how they do it in Star Trek? Modified cancer cells that aren't technically "cancer" any more and are safe? Pretty smart.

[Malika the Maiz]

They don’t do it in Star Trek because Star Trek, like Lex’s claim, is fiction.

[M L]

Yes the fictional Star Trek is what I am referring to.

Anyway, sounds like in the real world it is cancer cells but they are modified so technically you can say they are not "cancer" any more but they have some of the characteristics of cancer.

Regardless, I yearn for the day we can ban traditional meat, given this safe alternative! It's taking too long, amirite? Or at least make it too expensive for the hoi polloi, Zuckerberg can still visit his cattle. https://agupdate.com/midwestmessenger/business/people_and_industry/world-reacts-to-zuckerberg-s-post-on-cattle/article_cfe705ff-6c8d-5350-a918-4970102ecf60.html

There actually is a serious war on the domestic cattle industry right now and has been for some years, by the way.

[Malika the Maiz]

I love that for people their hypothetical paranoia about x is the justification for them supporting x against things they don’t like.

“Anyway, sounds like in the real world it is cancer cells but they are modified so technically you can say they are not "cancer" any more but they have some of the characteristics of cancer.”

Sounds like that to those who can’t read or think logically.

[windycityattorney]

The price of beef in the midwest is pretty ridiculous. It's the new eggs. You can get a couple pd package of pork steaks (shoulder) for like 7dollars whereas a single moderate sized T-bone is like $20. Even mid grade sirloin steak is expensive as well as ground beef.

With pork every product except bacon is much much cheaper.

[Malika the Maiz]

You’re the one into sock puppets Magnus. It should come to no surprise to you that most people think you’re claims are dumb and inaccurate.

[M L]

That's a new one. Did you see the Bill Gates work on involuntarily vaccinating people by bioengineering mosquitoes?

[Malika the Maiz]

July 15th

Specifically, did [Bondi] tell you at all that your name appeared in the files?" an ABCNews reporter asked the president on July 15, a week after the DOJ released its memo.
"No, no, she's—she's given us just a very quick briefing," he said, adding that Bondi had "really done a very good job" on reviewing the documents related to Epstein.

Last week

President Donald Trump was told in May by Attorney General Pam Bondi that his name appeared multiple times in Department of Justice documents about sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, The Wall Street Journal reported.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/07/23/trump-jeffrey-epstein-files-wsj.html

[Martinned]

Cue Johnson on Meet the Press giving the most embarrassing "guilty guy trying to weasel out of answering"-answer ever.

https://bsky.app/profile/acyn.bsky.social/post/3luxesv2hss2w

[Stephen Lathrop]

Spare a moment to consider the onrushing employment crisis which AI technology puts in prospect. When it happens, it will be called a surprise, as industry after industry is suddenly undermined as an employment source.

The replacement technology—even when it does not supply goods and services as good as provided formerly by the replaced workers—will be used by capitalists to cut costs—and if necessary even to reduce revenues—if doing it that way increases profits, or strengthens the capitalists' grip on whatever is left of economic power.

The dismissed workforce will find itself without sustenance. The technology used in their stead will eliminate employer-paid government revenue raised now to sustain unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Medicare, among others.

Has anyone seen even a hint that any of that is a factor in today's political reckonings about the near-term future? What policies should a government consider, as it actively promotes and abets technical agency to make all that happen?

Anyone who thinks that scenario unrealistic should ask what happened to the centuries-old skilled trade of typography, and to the typographers, when WYSIWYG enabled a mere automated boost available to people unskilled in typography. During an interval of about 3 years, circa the late 1980s, that entire trade disappeared, throwing its practitioners out of work without recourse to any alternatives save menial labor for subsistence wages.

Nobody cared. Government did not recognize a challenge, and did not stir even slightly to ameliorate. Capitalists and technology fans gloated, treating objectors to lectures about buggy whips. After all, the typographers were merely following the path to personal financial catastrophe already blazed by other workers, skilled and unskilled, when globalization policies wiped out their jobs.

What happens when the same thing happens to almost all jobs, except the most menial? Shouldn't there be discussion of that question already? Where is it?

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
Interesting question that you raise
I recommend that that you watch the interview debunking the AI hype with Nobelist Daron Acemoglu from the MIT Sloan School.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zF1mkBpyf
At present AI is not capable of doing what you fear in the vast majority of white-collar jobs. Twenty years from now, it may be different. So don't panic, but you're correct to warn that we should start thinking seriously about what could happen.

[Mr. Bumble]

...with enough data centers and the power to operate them.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, I have no need to see AI hype debunked. I already think present approaches are likely too buggy, and also unfixable without fundamental re-invention of the algorithms.

But I learned by experience something about market logic which I worry makes your reasonable reassurance suspect. The market does not care as much about logic and efficiency as it does about serving whatever tendency sells product now. And when a new class of product starts selling, the market loves a stampede.

That means that no matter how deficient the product, whichever class of market player enjoys the most advantageous position to cut the others off at the intersection is going to get served first when the light turns green. I expect that to remain the rule for as long as the green light lasts, and for a dangerously long interval afterwards.

If I have left anything unclear, let me answer this from you:

At present AI is not capable of doing what you fear in the vast majority of white-collar jobs.

That was exactly the case in the instance when WYSIWYG wiped out professional typography, almost 40 years ago. It remains true even today. Automating human skill did not deliver market advance to the typographic industry, or to anyone else. It delivered degenerate quality, which persisted to become the new standard. And it did so without lowering costs to end users.

The market did that because the players best positioned to decide what happened would profit if it happened, while everyone else, including the ultimate customers, lost out. Their losses became the profits won by the decision makers.

On the brink of that inflection point, the most-skilled participants in the former system felt confident. They could explain better than anyone the illogic, and the costs it would inflict. They were the ones taken most by surprise, and utterly wiped out.

[Martinned]

Just like every previous time when a revolutionary technology was introduced, labour markets will be OK.

At the micro level there's a question of upskilling of junior lawyers and bankers, but if that's the worst problem...

[Don Nico]

The same comment that I made to David: Try looking at depth first before dismissing the concern

[David Nieporent]

What happens when the same thing happens to almost all jobs, except the most menial? Shouldn't there be discussion of that question already? Where is it?

I believe it's here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

[Mr. Bumble]

Waiting for the day when you're replaced by AI.

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

How do you know he already hasn't been?

[Sarcastr0]

I agree with you in the lack of broad concerns in the long run. Capitalism is *great* at finding ways labor can be productive.

Some sectors like animation and voice acting are going to have no shortage of churn, though.

Some very smart and serious people like the late Kevin Drum were seriously concerned.
I think they're wrong, but it seems not an unreasonable position.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sarcastr0 — What makes you so sure capitalism is great at finding ways to make labor productive? The theory of comparative advantage relies tacitly on that assumption, and takes it to an extreme, positing labor is fungible, at least long term.

This nation's experience, at least, strongly suggests that whatever long-term might mean, a full human working life often proves too brief to vindicate the theory. Maybe It is past time to notice that comparative advantage was a notion invented when labor had an overwhelmingly menial character.

That made moving workers between job types less complicated to do than it is now. Menial work is fungible. Brain work, dependent on advanced education, plus professional training, plus long-term career development, not so much.

My professional economist friends sometimes struggle to stay civil when I ask them about comparative advantage and labor fungibility. Economists seem to dote more on comparative advantage than on anything else they have to offer. They love that it is slightly non-obvious to laymen, but readily explained to a smart person who pays attention. That makes it the go-to pick to answer the question, "What non-trivial invention have economists come up with to most benefit human affairs?" So of course it is demoralizing if the benefit part turns out illusory when the labor type changes.

[Don Nico]

Nothing like pooh-poohing a concern when you know zero about the topic.
It has nothing to do with Luddites. Try thinking next time.

[Malika the Maiz]

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
Lud·dite
/ˈləˌdīt/
noun
1.
DEROGATORY
a person opposed to new technology or ways of working.
"a small-minded Luddite resisting progress"
2.
HISTORICAL
a member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, especially in cotton and woolen mills, that they believed was threatening their jobs (1811–16).

[Don Nico]

Wow! You know how to use a dictionary.
Maybe you can now graduate from the 5th grade.

[Malika the Maiz]

It looked like someone needed to help you given people worried about new technology taking their jobs is literally the definition of the term you said has nothing to do with that.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned — You write: "Just like every previous time when a revolutionary technology was introduced, labour markets will be OK."

An old friend expert on questions of worker retraining made a career out of the hope you extend. She worked for decades in the headquarters of the AFL–CIO in DC, in an earnest attempt to vindicate that promise. She is as smart, organized, and energetic as anyone I know. She gave it all she had, with her organization's full cooperation. She concedes today that the effort failed.

So, no. The previous example of America's most powerful labor organization, responding full-strength to policy-driven changes adverse to labor, could not make labor markets turn out OK.

Maybe you would be wise to bypass reassuring nostrums, and take on the task to explain where money to fund social safety nets will come from when AI is doing most of the jobs.

Malika — Do you know what happened to the Luddites? Some were punished, some executed, but as a class they could not be dismissed. They won major social and economic concessions. Which was a result opposite the blinkered advocacy which gets tossed out today.

[Stephen Lathrop]

By the way, I should have mentioned that the historical Luddites got some of their most influential support for economic concessions from owners of the machines they targeted. The machine owners wanted government to clear the way to efficiency, by spreading across society the unavoidable cost burden imposed by technical change.

Seems like in early 19th century England not many people with influence wanted to take on the practical political risk to tell workers to stay out of sight while their families starved. So not like today.

[Krayt]

A "post scarcity" economy is the final result of capitalism. It is not some magical wonderland where communist shits get to relax and say, "Finally! Our goal!", thence get to shitting on the capitalism that got them there.

[Kazinski]

Seems strange that on one hand we are told we need millions of illegal aliens to come and do the jobs Americans won't do, like construction, restaurant and other food preparation, and yes also the 5-10% of illegal aliens that work on farms, while on the other hand enormous numbers of jobs are going to go away.

I too share Stephen's concern about not enough jobs due to AI, and hope we continue to deport illegal aliens in sufficient numbers to keep the unemployment rate below 5%.

[Malika the Maiz]

That’s a fair cop. Does the administration use convictions there as evidence towards deportations?you think a lot of the Americans who might have their jobs replaced by AI are going to go into picking apples and roofing?

I think that’s like when the Clinton administration thought textile workers would go into coding.

[Moderation4ever]

AI like many issues is likely to present a bigger social challenge than in any other area. Societies will likely have to rewrite social contracts so people can continue to work at a living wage. This might be accomplished by a market that is more generous with salaries or by government providing a guaranteed income. If nothing is done economic inequality to increase to an unacceptable level and you will have a greater push for socialism.

[Malika the Maiz]

He’s never wrote a picture and never drew math very well!

“We will have reduced drug prices by 1,000 percent by 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 700, 600,” Trump said. “Not 30 or 40 or 50 percent, but numbers the likes of which you’ve never even dreamed of before.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-uses-unhinged-maga-math-in-bonkers-drugs-brag/

[David Nieporent]

We covered that on Wednesday or Friday's open thread; the sycophants tried to claim — by ignoring what he said — that what he said wasn't utterly innumerate.

[apedad]

California governor candidate calls Auschwitz 'solution for homelessness,' sparks critisism

(Kyle) Langford, who is currently the leading Republican candidate in California, published a photo of himself at the entrance of Auschwitz with a text that said: “My 0% unemployment plan.”

He also doubled down after being called out by the memorial museum, posting a message that said his “German ancestors smile upon him” and thanked the organization for a “shoutout.”

His comments on Auschwitz came as a “solution” to the homelessness and unemployment crisis in California, while he also called the death camp a “beautiful work camp.”

https://www.jpost.com/american-politics/article-862394

Where do you guys find these guys?!?

[Sarcastr0]

The modern American Nazi aesthetic interests me. It's like some enfant terrible professor - young, bow ties, glasses. Usually dark hair not blonde.

But there sure are a lot of them. And the right sure is working hard to both pretend they don't exist while inviting them in and funding them.

[Michael P]

They raise them in California, apparently.

Calling him "the leading Republican candidate" seems very strained. https://www.newsweek.com/mel-gibson-california-governor-poll-gavin-newsom-2044755 claims Mel Gibson held that spot in March. https://www.270towin.com/2026-governor-polls/california has Langford with the lowest numbers of four candidates.

[apedad]

Yeah, I guess the "Auschwitz" theme doesn't poll very well.

[Sarcastr0]

They aren’t here to win elections. They are Sartre’s antisemite.

Doesn’t mean they won’t win elections through trolling. Populism can be a helluva drug. Especially with the Internet in play.

[Michael P]

The (just) criticism of Langford's dumb twitting is from late July. It cut off the date of his twit. Assuming they were not raising old news, an event in July seems ... unlikely ... to have affected polls in March and April.

But facts and logic have never been the left's forte.

[Sarcastr0]

We all know what party he is in, and where he’s getting support.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its just nut picking, anybody can run for office.

"He earned a high school diploma from Lake Oswego High School. His career experience includes working as a construction manager and as the executive director of California First PAC.[1]" Ballotpedia

He's not a serious candidate no matter what a phony poll says.

[Malika the Maiz]

Yeah, the GOP tends to nominate black nazis to statewide office.

https://www.axios.com/local/raleigh/2024/09/19/mark-robinson-cnn-report-nc-scandal

[Bob from Ohio]

He was already Lt. Gov., not some rando. And hid his idiocy.

[Malika the Maiz]

After it came out he got 83% of the votes of self-identified Republicans.

[John F. Carr]

A lot of California Democrats also want the homeless to quietly disappear. Leave our city and be somebody else's problem (as you starve in the desert).

[Malika the Maiz]

A Venezuelan American murderer and ex-US marine, who killed three people in Spain in 2016, was released to the US during last Friday’s high-profile prisoner swap between the US, El Salvador and Venezuela, according to media and NGO reports.

Dahud Hanid Ortiz, who was convicted last year in Venezuela of a triple homicide in Madrid, is one of the 10 US nationals that arrived in Texas last Friday.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/23/ex-marine-released-prisoner-swap-deal

[tylertusta]

I think we should be skeptical of the fairness of Venezuelan criminal trials under the current regime.

[Malika the Maiz]

That’s a fair cop. Does the administration use convictions there as evidence towards deportations?

[tylertusta]

That's a good question that I'm unable to find a solid answer to. My impression is that we do not. Nor do we extradite people on behalf of the Maduro regime.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, I agree that the Venezuelan criminal justice system is pretty sketchy. So maybe we shouldn't be deporting people there.

[tylertusta]

South Sudan it is then.

[damikesc]

We don't deport to Venezuela. We have to use El Salvador because Venezuela refuses to take their deported citizens back.

[hobie]

Heard a radio interview of that Venezuelan cosmetician sent to Salvador. He said he was beaten regularly by the guards and was forced to give one guard oral sex.

[Mr. Bumble]

Now do prisoner tales from US jails and prisons.

[Martinned]

By the way, this is what Trump cheating at golf looks like: https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3luxntm6j622g

As the youngs say: CRINGE

[hobie]

Pedophilia and insurrection are one thing...BUT THIS!

[damikesc]

It's BlueSky, so we know the poster is a rabid leftist and a bit of a loon.

But having seen this crap on X, they seem confused on the concept of what a drop is in golf.

[windycityattorney]

I haven't watched all the clips; just shortened versions. But it appears Trump may have hit into the bunker. Then a ball drops with an assist from a helper (and why does that person have balls to drop?) and now he is hitting from outside but near the same bunker.

Given this isn't a tournament or anything, probably not a huge deal. But the fact that it was so casual makes me think its also very common. Dude cheats at everything (wives, taxes, his own golf tournaments he always seem to win) so this is not shocking. But I would bet he didn't actually add a shot/penalty to his card for the drop and that also would not be shocking.

[Martinned]

Speaking of things that didn't happen while I was away: Do we think Elon Musk still remembers that he started a new political party?

[Kazinski]

Maybe he's getting some counseling:

Tesla investors have a very clear message for Elon Musk: Stay away from politics

https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-investors-message-for-elon-musk-stay-away-from-politics-2025-7

[hobie]

And EV buyers across the globe are saying: Doesn't matter what you do or say Elon.

[Mr. Bumble]

..we're still not buying them.

[damikesc]

I await home insurance policies adding riders preventing charging in your house of EV. That whole risk of fires that are exceptionally hard to extinguish thing.

[Martinned]

And no, it is still not OK to threaten TV networks with yanking their lincence for having the wrong opinions: https://bsky.app/profile/justinbaragona.bsky.social/post/3luvxareu4k22

Just because Trump has been talking like this for a year, doesn't mean Americans should ignore it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your week away did little for the quality of your comments.

[Martinned]

Given the apparent Israeli strategy of committing international crimes in order to distract international public opinion from the other international crimes they're committing, it's always good to look at places where the Israel government doesn't seem to want people to look. Like the West Bank:

Settlers Torch Palestinian Homes in West Bank, Residents Flee Village

[John F. Carr]

It is possible that the backlash against Trump will be so severe that America gets a pro-Palestinian President in 2029. Not because America cares about Palestine. Almost nobody cares. Because the more people Trump alienates the more likely a far left candidate wins and brings a new Middle East policy along for the ride.

[Mr. Bumble]

What "backlash"?

[Malika the Maiz]

IKR, his approval rating is 90%!

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/shows/maddow/blog/rcna219651

[John F. Carr]

Trump's (approval - disapproval) spread is at -8%. He has lost most of the people who aren't solidly for or against him.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and as always subject to change without notice.
Rasmussen has him at -4%.

[Magister]

With Rasmussen having a Republican bias of close to 4%, that's not really significantly better.

[Mr. Bumble]

Here's another take:
"Not much has changed since the November 2024 election of President Donald Trump to his second term, according to the latest poll by Emerson conducted July 21 to July 22, with 50 percent of 2024 voters approving of the President’s handling of the job, with 46.8 percent disapproving."
https://dailytorch.com/2025/07/poll-50-percent-of-2024-voters-approve-of-trump-46-8-percent-disapprove-as-democrats-cling-to-narrow-generic-congressional-ballot-lead-for-2026/

[damikesc]

...as opposed to who?

Care to look at the Dems polling?

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump's polling has always stunk. 42%+/- ride or die supporters, 42%+/- insane haters, rest swing-y in the wind independents.

[Malika the Maiz]

I don’t want to opine on the wisdom of community (charitable) bail funds or the actions of any specific one, but how can state governments say who a private group of people can or can not bail out if bail is available?

“Since 2020, more than a dozen state legislatures and Congress have introduced bills to restrict or regulate community bail funds.

At least four states — including Texas, Indiana, Georgia and Kentucky — have adopted laws restricting the use of bail funds, like adding more reporting requirements, saying the funds cannot be used for people charged with a violent crime, and limiting how many people a group can bail out in a given year, though that law is being challenged in court.“

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/21/nx-s1-5442534/bail-fund-backlash

[Poxigah146]

Because the state has an interest in public safety. See U.S. v. Salerno.

The idea of bail is that it'll hurt you or your family to lose that money, so you are incentivized to behave while out on bail, and to show up to court.

If the money is being fronted by random people, the incentive as it relates to the defendant is not there. That detracts from public safety.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"how can state governments say who a private group of people can or can not bail out if bail is available..."

I believe it's called the general police power.

[apedad]

Federal judge tosses Trump DOJ lawsuit against sanctuary policies in Chicago

The Trump administration’s battle with Democrat-controlled jurisdictions and their sanctuary polices suffered a blow on Friday when a federal judge in Chicago dismissed a case challenging their legality.

Judge Lindsay Jenkins of the Northern District of Illinois, a President Biden appointee, granted the defendants’ motion for dismissal, ruling that the city’s ordinances are lawful protections not subject to federal enforcement mandates.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judge-tosses-trump-doj-lawsuit-against-sanctuary-policies-chicago

Can't wait until the Republicans fligp-flop back to being state-rightists.

You guys are idiots being played.

TRUMP DOES NOT GIVE ONE FUCK ABOUT YOU.

[Poxigah146]

I don't give any credence to any ruling from a district court judge appointed by Obama or Biden. Let's see what SCOTUS or appellate courts do.

Jenkins is a dull, low IQ woman.

[Malika the Maiz]

“Jenkins is a dull, low IQ woman.”

I think most writing teachers would flag that as repetitive.

[Bob from Ohio]

Dull also means "lacking interest or excitement." In fact I think that is a much more common usage.

[Malika the Maiz]

You think he was criticizing by saying a federal district court judge was lacking excitement?

[damikesc]

I just do not want to hear any bitching when red states become sanctuary cities for gun rights. No federal background checks. Readily available licenses.

[ReaderY]

It appears that Trump Model Management specialized in bringing in extremely young and often underage women from overseas into the United States with dubious visa and work elegibility status, and keeping them under squalid conditions by a system of debt peonage in which all their “pay” got sucked up for various expenses charged to their account. They were kept under crowded and it sounds like rather squalid conditions.

It seems to me that when these girls were then rented out to billionaires who could give them rides on private and a taste of luxury, this created enormous psychological pressure to go along with whatever was asked to avoid going back to squalor.

It may be that their lawyers divised legal papers insulating the model agency from anything happening on the client side. But I don’t think it can be denied that the agency created “bad cop” pressure tending to induce the girls involved to go along with the “good cop.”

The behavior also strikes me as an example of what strikes me as the real motivation for Trump’s support for cracking down on immigration. It creates a class of people who are completely helpless and beholden, who can be removed from the country the instant they complain or try to assert rights, and who can then be abused, effectively enslaved, even raped, with impunity.

I am suprised Professor Somin hasn’t caught on to this. His idealism and focus on general ideas may have prevented him from seeing just how nasty, how abusive, Trump’s personal behavior has been in practice.

Just as the fact that the state can legislate morally doesn’t justify people killing or abusing prostitutes, the fact that the federal government can regulate immigration does not justify people using immigration law as a weapon to enslave or rape immigrants.

[ThePublius]

Where are you getting this from?

[Mr. Bumble]

As ng is fond of saying, "outahizass".

[ReaderY]

https://www.nydailynews.com/2016/08/30/models-for-donald-trumps-crooked-modeling-agency-say-they-worked-in-us-illegally-under-conditions-that-resembled-modern-day-slavery/

[loki13]

Again, I do not understand why people are surprised by any of this. Trump ... you know that he was a developer, and owned hotels and golf courses, right? You know that as a matter of fact, he employed undocumented immigrants, and that he used their status to screw them (out of pay, etc. ... or, you know, screw 'em).

To be fair, he screwed a lot people that did business with him. But there are ... court records for this. Like when he knowingly employed undocumented workers to build Trump Tower, kept them off the books, paid them well below minimum wage (when he did pay them)... and there are actual judicial findings that Trump (his organization, his people) knew about the status of the workers.

It's all out there. Over and over. I seriously don't know why any of this is surprising. I feel like people's knowledge of Trump begins and ends with him as a reality TV guy, and they are constantly shocked (SHOCKED) to learn about the things everyone else already knew. And then they are shocked (SHOCKED) to find out that maybe we don't have a person with sterling moral character in the White House. It's weird.

[Krayt]

Politicians creating entire classes of people completely beholden to them!

Whoa! Someone should look into this!

[Bob from Ohio]

"appears"!

[hobie]

Last week was reading about the lawsuit filed in 2016 by a woman who said that when she was 13, both Trump and Epstein raped her in Epstein's NY apartment in 1994.

She was scheduled to give an interview on Nov 02, 2016, two days before the election. But on that day she abruptly dropped the lawsuit and no one has ever heard from her since

[damikesc]

BlueAnon is a helluva drug.

[hobie]

This was on PBS...you know, one of them silenced press outlets

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/assault-allegations-donald-trump-recapped

[damikesc]

In what way are they "silenced"?

We are obligated to fund them?

[David Nieporent]

If that's a reference to the person calling herself (at one point) Katie Johnson, that one was never credible. I don't remember the details now, but at the time her story first came out in 2016 I concluded it was obvious that she was a fabulist — either crazy, or looking for attention, or both. And her behavior immediately confirmed that, as she filed suits, dropped them, filed them again, dropped them.

[Mr. Bumble]

She didn't have Reid Hoffman (real friend of Epstein) backing her up as he did with E. Jean Carroll.

[Mr. Bumble]

On a lighter note:
Does anyone else think Sydney Sweeney has "good jeans"?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14945609/sydney-sweeney-woke-backlash-american-eagle.html

[Krayt]

The woke left tackling Hollywood and the fashion industry, the other third rail of Democratic politics. Wealth donated to you and power to slay with a public word.

Good luck with that!

I haven't seen anything this stupid since Cate Blanchett upbraided a red carpet filmorapher for doing elevator eyes on her from behind. In her booku expensive dress the designer probably wanted to push, and she wanted to look FAF in, to boost her coin, the designer's coin, Hollywood's coin, whatever awards show that wazziz coin. But woke dictates females frown on elevator eyes because her career has nothing to do with presenting herself as a supreme beauty over all others.

I luv U, Cate! If you ever leave your husband and wanna hook up with a rando loudmouth from the Internet, let me know. Transparently, you love loud mouths!

[apedad]

I'm kinda proud that I don't understand any of that.

[jb]

"The woke left" here is some random people commenting on TikTok. The only actual TikTok account that story links to has...370 followers.

[M L]

I'm annoyed that I've now heard of a "Sydney Sweeney"

[Mr. Bumble]

You have something against smart, good looking women?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yes, but I only put it against them with their consent.

[apedad]

So . . . where are we on dead-body processing, i.e., burial, cremation, dump body in the ocean, etc.

I'm doing the cremation thing.

[Mr. Bumble]

I though composting was the up and coming thing.

[Bob from Ohio]

When you starting?

[Paladin_44]

He already did...

[hobie]

I'm going to donate my body to Arby's

[Mr. Bumble]

Way to put Arby's out of business.

[damikesc]

Cost-wise, burial is legitimately absurd. My mom died last year and she left zero plans for anything. We had to figure out everything quickly. We decided to cremate because she had no plot nor did she explain any preference where to be buried. But before the choice, the pricing of burial was toe-curling.

[Mr. Bumble]

Another good reason for more nuclear power plants?

"Silicon Valley Startup Claims it Can Turn Mercury Into Gold"

https://www.newsmax.com/us/silicon-valley-mercury-gold/2025/07/28/id/1220320/

[Kazinski]

Using a fusion reactor. Now's the time to get in on the ground floor, it should be commercially viable in about 20 years.

Might also cost about a trillion in research.

[hobie]

Fusion should be the preferred choice. Achieving it the other way around using radioactive decay is just not viable

[Jerry B.]

Curious as to why, if the Biden Administration had access to the Epstein files, and there was evidence of wrongdoing by Trump, they didn't trot them out during the 2024 election campaign.

[Josh R]

That makes sense. But then, why won't Trump trot them out?

[M L]

My guess, there isn't any "evidence of wrongdoing by Trump" per se. But there is probably something that's a little bit bad optics for him, and/or perhaps other parties he is trying to protect for some reason. Meanwhile, the Biden or even the Obama admin probably had just as much reason or more that they didn't want to go there, with many parties on their side being implicated as well. If "there's no big there there," to quote the ignominious Peter Strzok, then there wasn't a silver bullet to use against Trump. But with Trump back in office, the topic makes a suitable drip-drip insinuation campaign (familiar). Combined with the other factors of not wanting to open the Epstein can of worms for any number of reasons involving implicated parties, this could explain the situation.

Personally, even if you assume some conspiracy theories were true, it seems like they could say "Yup Epstein had dirt on prominent people, Hollywood CEOs and politicians, might have blackmailed some, and was connected to some intelligence people" and it would blow over in a few weeks, like when the government said yeah there's aliens. But who knows.

Krauthammer said something about things like this which stuck with me: "There is no end to this hall of mirrors. My rule, therefore, is: Stay away." https://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/columnists/2017/03/11/down-conspiracy-rabbit-hole-charles-krauthammer/99065468/

[Josh R]

That makes sense because Trump is such a baby, he can't stand bad optics even when there is no wrongdoing. And, he will lie (e.g., Bondi did not tell me my name is in the files) to avoid bad optics.

The same thing happened with the original Russian interference investigation. Had Trump cooperated, Comey would have cleared him within a year without Mueller. But bad optics convinced Trump to stonewall, leading to Mueller and Trump's likely obstruction of justice.

The MAGAverse thought the Russia investigation was a deep-state operation and rallied around Trump. This time they think the deep state is hiding the Epstein files. So, they are wondering why Trump is defending the deep state.

[damikesc]

Comey refused to repeat to the press what he reported to Trump: That he was not a target of any FBI investigation. Yeah, he'd clear him for anything.

...not like he cleared Hillary late in the campaign by...not investigating anything.

The whole thing was manufactured and watching Brennan and Clapper getting criminally charged will be, bare minimum, cathartic.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

How would the Harris campaign do this without breaking the rules regarding releasing such internal documents?

Anyway, I don't know what more could have submitted to cause problems for Trump in a way that actually would obtain much traction (for good or ill). His record with Epstein was clear and public, as was other evidence that he was, to be blunt, a sexual predator. Simply put, and this doesn't say much for us as a nation, enough people simply didn't give a damn.

[Moderation4ever]

I think you are missing the point on what is happening. The Democrats did not campaign on releasing the information while Republicans did. Now that the Republicans are attempting to avoid releasing the information they are the targets. Biden and Harris had plenty on Trump. The reality is most people did not care. It maybe the same here and Trump supporters will rationalize away his behavior with minors.

[Mr. Bumble]

The point is any party that would fabricate the Russian collusion hoax to defeat Trump would use anything to defeat Trump.

[Moderation4ever]

Except they did not fabricate the Trump campaigns connection to the Russians nor did they fabricate that the Russians tried to influence the elections. If you rationalize the Russian hoax would you not also rationalize that Trump was not wrong to have sex with minors?

[windycityattorney]

Some of the MAGA warriors online already are rationalizing it. A) It was a long time ago and times were 'different.' B) the girls in question were teenagers who had adult like developed bodies, not little pre-pubescent little kids. That's two I have read thus far.

What they are not saying or doing: 1) saying Trump wouldn't do that because its out of character for him 2) its a DNC or democrat led hoax.

I am waiting for some sort of "its not a crime anymore because statute of limitations has run" (which I don't even know if that is the case and is jurisdiction dependent).

[Mr. Bumble]

"It is the story of the real Russian conspiracy: how high-ranking officials in the Obama Administration seeded this false claim with the help of an eager, unquestioning press corps."
https://jonathanturley.org/2025/07/27/the-usual-suspects-declassified-russian-investigation-material-reveals-a-familiar-rogues-gallery/

[Moderation4ever]

Jonathan Turley is just on of Trump's flying monkeys. Most of the Obama staff he mentioned were Republicans and Republican appointees. I myself will go with Paul Manafort admitting he passed information to the Russians.

https://www.businessinsider.com/paul-manafort-exclusive-interview-trump-campaign-polling-data-russia-kilimnik-2022-8

or maybe Trump's son Eric talking about who paying for the Trump mortages

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/332270-eric-trump-in-2014-we-dont-rely-on-american-banks-we-have-all-the-funding-we/

[M L]

America First: Eurocrats Lament ‘Juggernaut Trump’ Rolled Brussels in ‘Disaster’ Trade Deal

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/07/27/america-first-eurocrats-lament-trump-rolled-over-brussels-in-disaster-trade-deal/

[JoeFromtheBronx]

NYT reported in its live news segment today:

Trump said on Monday that children in Gaza “look very hungry” and that “we have to get the kids fed,” indicating disagreement with Israeli officials who have denied that anyone is starving there, as he opened a day of talks in Scotland with Britain’s prime minister.

(Trump is also frustrated with Putin.)

Some quotes from a separate article:

Abhorrence of Israel’s devastating war in Gaza has resonated for months in capitals and in university campuses abroad. Now, a growing number of Israelis are speaking out against what they describe as atrocities carried out in their name in the Palestinian enclave.

“We are on the edge of the abyss,” said Tamar Parush, 56, a lecturer in sociology at Sapir College in southern Israel, speaking at a recent antiwar protest attended by hundreds of Israelis at the busy Shaar Hanegev junction near the border with Gaza.

“Revenge is not a policy,” she said, adding: “We could have fought a smarter war."

About 1,200 people, mostly civilians, were killed by Palestinian assailants during the October attack, making it the deadliest day in Israel’s history, and about 250 others were taken hostage. Many Israelis held Hamas solely responsible for the subsequent suffering in Gaza and said they felt little sympathy for civilians there.

About 60,000 Palestinians have since been killed in the war, according to Gaza health officials, whose tally does not distinguish between combatants and civilians, but includes more than 10,000 children. The war has displaced most of the two million residents of Gaza several times and brought the territory to the brink of famine. More than 80 children have died from starvation and malnutrition, according to the Gaza health ministry.

Despite the desperate humanitarian crisis, a survey conducted in May by the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University found that 64.5 percent of the Israeli public was not at all, or not very, concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Some prominent Israelis have also raised alarms. Ehud Olmert, a former prime minister, decried what he called the “cruel and criminal killing of civilians” and the starvation of Gaza as a government policy. Moshe Yaalon, a former military chief and defense minister, has warned for months of ethnic cleansing. Yair Golan, a former deputy chief of the military and leader of the Democrats, a left-leaning opposition party, caused a furor when he said the government was killing babies “as a hobby.”

https://archive.ph/ZE8wZ

‘Revenge Is Not a Policy’: Israelis Voice Dissent Against the War in Gaza: After a long silence, prominent Israelis and activists are increasingly raising alarms about potential war crimes being carried out by the government.

[Commenter_XY]

hamas can end the war today by releasing the hostages. That is as true today as it was in October 2023. And what you see in gaza is a whole of society effort, an entire society steeped and marinated in Judeocide, as told by dozens of released hostages. The people of gaza support hamas, and would love to see every Jew on the planet exterminated....Just ask them. They'll happily tell you, and do so nightly on Al-Jazeera.

Not feeling the tugged heartstrings.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its just the usual suspects, Israelis always ready to support the enemy.

Olmert has been after Bibi for 20 years. Olmert is willing to libel his nation to get Bibi.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Taking a break from the news and all, yesterday, I re-read The Mouse On The Moon by Leonard Wibberley.

This is one of five books (one a prequel) about the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. It was an amusing satire of the space race, politics, and Cold War diplomacy. We also had some charming plot points regarding some of the series' regulars, including a bit of romance.

There were two films made from the series, including this book, with one of the main changes being that they made the duchess into an elderly Queen Victoria-like doofus, while in the books she is a young woman who is mostly a clear-headed sort.

Her desire for a mink coat plays an important part in the plot.

===

Wibberley wrote lots of books, including an enjoyable one that took place during the ministry of Jesus. It is a faithful account, so it might not be appreciated by more skeptical sorts.

[John F. Carr]

My favorite book about the life of Jesus is Lamb by Christopher Moore.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Sounds good.

One of the great mysteries of history is the early years of Jesus, with the (official) gospels providing only limited information. For instance, Jesus might have been about 30 when he died, and the gospels basically have a black hole of his time between 12 and 30.

[Mr. Bumble]

I only Mr. Peabody were real.

[John F. Carr]

Users of doxing site doxed.

The "Tea" app, which allows women to do background checks on potential dates, suffered a data breach. Users had to upload pictures of photo ID to prove their identity. Those pictures were kept on internet-accessible storage instead of being destroyed after identity verification. The database was a couple years old. The company might have better security practices for newer data.

I expect the company will have to pay a class action plaintiffs' lawyer a few pennies or even a dollar per user to compensate for its carelessness.

I wonder what the company's legal exposure is for background check mistakes. The company can disclaim liability to its own users, but the men it potentially defames have not waived their rights to sue.

The app also allows users to post derogatory information about dates. This side of the business is protected by Section 230 and couldn't exist without it.

[MaddogEngineer]

It looks like the Morning Call has "unpublished" their original story about the Chilean asylum green card holding grandfather deported while seeking a replacement card at a Philadelphia ICE office. Unpublished as of July 25:

https://www.mcall.com/2025/07/25/luis-leon-chile-allentown-grandfather-photos-update/

As of me posting this, Snopes has not updated their entry about this (last updated 7/22).

Given that these journalists were apparently lied to, one would think they would want to follow-up about all that. Given that in their original reporting, there was mention of some connection between the family sources and at least one person who spoke recently at a Bethlehem city council meeting against recent immigration enforcement.

When it's too good to be true, perhaps better to wait a day or two to make sure it's legit (SarcastrO).

[Kazinski]

Or maybe just look at the facts alleged and realize at the outset it isn't remotely plausible.

But Sarcastro will just go back to blaming the INS for being unable to provide any information about people that don't exist.

[MaddogEngineer]

That's exactly what I did, when someone dropped this one me. But I was told I was terrible person defending a fascist administration because I was skeptical about what was being reported. Because it fit into someone's confirmation bias that OF COURSE this administration disappears people without a trace, and erases all record of their malfeasance. If they'll do it to a poor innocent green card holding grandfather, imagine what other bad things they might be doing!

I do not agree with the administrations aggressive enforcement in many cases, especially trying to use the AEA (whether legal or not, but I could see a way it might be legal). But I also realize that the anti-administration side thinks that most immigration enforcement is against the rule of law. Having established this extra-legal idea that only unauthorized immigrants with criminal convictions can be deported. I would absolutely start with those, but not exclusively so.

[Commenter_XY]

Wrong vibes, dude.

[M L]

They don't care. The fake story accomplished its objective and 99% of the people reached will never hear about the retraction.

[Sarcastr0]

Bad faith in all who disagree with ML!

Speaking of which, I do hope Brett is on vacation and doing well.

[Mr. Bumble]

Missing someone to troll?

[LexAquilia]

Instead of reflecting on how passionately you were attacking our Democracy after being misled, you resort to attacking M L.

Do better.

[Life of Brian]

Speaking of which, I do hope Brett is on vacation and doing well.

That's a really weird thing to say, bordering on unhealthy. Brett posted (in response to you, no less!) barely 24 hours prior.

Periodic reminder that not everyone gets to sit around and play on the internet all day whilst sucking the governmental tit.

[tylertusta]

When it's too good to be true, perhaps better to wait a day or two to make sure it's legit.

Exactly. Additionally, the angrier you get from a headline, the more you should exercise restraint.

Headlines are designed to prey upon your emotions. Don't let them.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Glenn Kessler, editor and chief writer of The Fact Checker, announced on Monday that he is leaving the Post, ..."

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

If someone offered you a spot on the Supreme Court at 50 years old with the condition that you must keep the job for 30 years…would you accept it??

[TwelveInchPianist]

So he's probably going to be working there for a long time.

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess it's not only judges pulling stuff out of their ass in coming up with decisions; arbitrators can do it too.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/07/mike-lindell-proves-me-a-fool.php
Lindell wins appeal of having to pay $5 million challenge.

[John F. Carr]

Judge Talwani ruled that Section 71113 of the "Big Beautful Bill Act" is unconstitutional as applied to Planned Parenthood because

1. It violates the free speech rights of Planned Parenthood and does not survive strict scrutiny.
2. It is a bill of attainder.
3. It denies Planned Parenthood equal protection under the law.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70721678/planned-parenthood-federation-of-america-inc-v-kennedy/

I expect the Supreme Court to vacate the injunction with at least three dissenting votes. Getting to the Supreme Court will take some time.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Getting to the Supreme Court will take some time."
Isn't that part of the plan?

[apedad]

But Judge Talwan's injunction will have been vacated if Mr. Carr is correct (which I think he will be), meaning the "take some time" will be against PP.

[Bored Lawyer]

The injunction says PP has to be paid. So delay favors PP.

[hobie]

It is most definitely a bill of attainder

[LexAquilia]

No it is not. It's an appropriations bill with qualifications on who gets funding. Planned Parenthood no longer qualifies.

Something Congress does all the time.

A Bill of Attainder if Congress had declared Planned Parenthood guilty of murder and sentenced them with punishment.

You people are ridiculous.

[Bored Lawyer]

It's also a Bill of Peking Duck. Very expensive, but very delicious.

(My comment is as silly as Hobie's.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Isn't it Beijing Duck now?

[John F. Carr]

Prosecutors refuse to return Karen Read's car, which was seized when she was accused of using it to murder her boyfriend. It is not needed for evidence any more.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/07/28/metro/karen-read-lexus-cell-phone-motion-return-acquittal/

She was convicted of DUI instead of homicide. In some places cars of drunk drivers are subject to forfeiture. Generally this wouldn't be an option for a first offense and the prosecutor has not claimed to be seeking forfeiture. More likely he is a sore loser. Or the company with possession of the car demands five figures in storage fees.

Mayor Giuliani wanted to greatly expand forfeiture in traffic cases to include some speeding tickets. NYC went another route. Ticket cameras rule the streets, tough on money but soft on crime.

[Commenter_XY]

Does she get her car back? What does Boston law say?

[Nelson]

Trump says his name is in the Epstein files because Biden put it there.

Simple question: Do you believe that?

[Moderation4ever]

I think its time for Trump-Epstein bingo. Players get a card with a variety of Trump excuses arranged in a five by five matrix and try to match what he or one of his flying monkeys (thanks to Kathleen Parker) say. Get five in a row and you have BINGO.

[LexAquilia]

Do you believe as hard as the Obama and Biden people went after Trump that they sat on Epstein evidence to somehow protect him?

[David Nieporent]

Your premise is weird, since they didn't go hard after him at all. They slow-walked and soft-pedaled everything.

Now, do I think that there's anything anywhere in the "Epstein files" showing he abused underaged girls? No, because I don't think that there's anything in the "Epstein files" showing that anyone other than Epstein/Maxwell did that.

But do I think there's things that make him look bad in there? Yes, for many reasons, including his continued and ongoing attempt to avoid disclosure.

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

You dont live in reality.

[Moderation4ever]

You are rationalizing.

[LexAquilia]

You think an armed raid of Mar-a-Lago was soft pedaling things?

The obviousness of the timing was they wanted all this indictments and news to happen closer to the 2024 election so he could be constantly dirtied up in the news cycles.

As we've seen from some of the stuff that's be declassified, many of those federal and state Trump investigations were coordinated.

It backfired.

[hobie]

We're not supposed to talk about that, Nelson. Can you please change the subject?

[Bored Lawyer]

No. Next simple question.

As usual, Trump just can't help himself. If he just told the truth, the scandal would go away. The truth is, he knew and socialized with Epstein, but had no idea Epstein was doing underage girls. And he had a falling out with him before it all came out.

Lying his way out of trouble has worked for him before, and he is betting it will work again. Time will tell if it works this time.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Time will tell if it works this time."

He's not in "trouble", its a tempest in a teapot, push by deranged Dem politicians and their reporter minions.

[Moderation4ever]

Except for the fact that he is in trouble with his MAGA base. The Democrats are just taking advantage of that fact to pile on.

[Mr. Bumble]

He's hardly in trouble except in your fevered mind.
Hoping for a third impeachment?

[Commenter_XY]

No.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I think it was Ted Cruz's dad.

[LexAquilia]

Peter Strozk deleted his X account, and somehow got WaybackMachine to purge his timeline too.

That's not how innocent people act.

[hobie]

I hope MAGA reopens the Russiagate just like they did Epstein. Lots and lots of beautiful crime in both that you don't want people to remember. But most of all, please, please keep pushing the 'Obama tried to steal an election' talk. A narrative like that couldn't possibly backfire

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey hobie, anyone you know?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14948633/JD-Vance-fury-woman-beaten-mass-brawl-Cincinatti.html