Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Politics
Eugene Volokh | 8.18.2025 8:00 PM
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
NEXT: Advice to Entering Law Students - 2025
Hide Comments (724)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Here is an interesting comic strip by Garry Trudeau: https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury
I wonder if the MAGAt hatemongers realize how much of the American economy relies on the availability of immigrant labor.
Modern slavery?
Not at all, Bumble.
I recently read an article from the late '70s that mentioned how an end to the baby boom would soon mean better wages for those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder as the surplus of teenage labor dried up.
Instead we had 45 years of massive immigration and an even greater stratification between the rich and the poor with the middle class essentially evaporating. No Mas!
If you weren't here, legally, by 1990, GTFO!
Instead we had 45 years of massive immigration and an even greater stratification between the rich and the poor with the middle class essentially evaporating.
Yeah, that didn't happen. The middle class has not even remotely "evaporated," and while it has shrunk, that's because people got wealthier and graduated up out of the middle class.
See — as one of just many many many examples (this just happens to be the top hit in my google search): this Cato essay.
Here's another chart, using Census Bureau data, and a few years newer than the Cato one.
Only because what had been one-income families circa 1977 jumped to two-income families and now are three/four income families as people also pick up side hustles.
They are working way more hours and the Millennials are not meeting the financial milestones of their parents -- and it isn't just student loans because half don't have them.
the Millennials are not meeting the financial milestones of their parents -
Wrong again. (Again, this ust happens to be the first link in my google search; one can find this info in many places):
Millennials are wealthier than Gen X, boomers at the same age Millennials are wealthier now than older Americans were at the same age. The median millennial had a net worth of $84,941 in 2022, according to an analysis from the personal finance site LendingTree. Adjusting for inflation, Generation X had a median net worth of $78,333 at the same age. Boomers had a median net worth of $58,101.
Millennials are wealthier than Gen X, boomers at the same age
Millennials are wealthier now than older Americans were at the same age. The median millennial had a net worth of $84,941 in 2022, according to an analysis from the personal finance site LendingTree. Adjusting for inflation, Generation X had a median net worth of $78,333 at the same age. Boomers had a median net worth of $58,101.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/03/04/millennials-building-wealth-fast/81150248007/
The folks have more money when adjusted for inflation but housing costs have outpaced inflation by more than double.
https://anytimeestimate.com/research/housing-prices-vs-inflation There's a great chart here showing median home sales vs CPI.
https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/the-state-of-the-american-middle-class/ Pew shows that while some of the middle class shrinkage is due to households rising higher, there's also some falling down into the lower income brackets.
Good points by shaw_dude.
To add to them, in either case, middle class shrinkage, whether caused by exits up, or exits down, still results in politics and policies less favorable to those left in the middle class. Pension policies, for instance, and health care availability, in addition to housing, are less favorably available than previously. Higher education debt is especially disabling to middle class ambitions, compared either to those of the poor, or to the upper middle class.
Plus which, a new policy, bolstered by Supreme Court decisions to disfavor affirmative action for blacks, is destined to hit the black middle class hard. The effects of that will not show clearly in measurements until later, but for those newly discouraged there is no delay before the dismay.
It will not be surprising if adverse employment effects from AI turn out to scourge the middle class earliest and worst. Before the lawyers take an AI hit, their assistants' opportunities will go into sharp decline.
Note also, wherever automation, AI or otherwise, replaces human employment, huge hits to the income stream for the social safety net will happen. That is the part of the economy most needed by the poor and the middle class.
Concern about the future of the American middle class is not misplaced, no matter how prosperous those who have exited upward may become. More the opposite. To the extent that prosperity shrinks the political power of those left out of it, those upward exits menace middle class prospects more than they improve them.
"People getting richer is bad!"
I question the assumption that $100K is "upper class." Lower/Middle/Upper is largely subjective and depends on location. $100K in po-dunk Tennessee might be great but it won't get you much as a household income in most East/West coast cities. $35K (your second link) is decidedly not "middle income" territory any more, even in 2022-adjusted dollars. Middle class used to represent a certain amount of aspirational buying power that included a home and a modest family vehicle along with one good family vacation per year. A $15/hour minimum wage, by comparison, is $31.2K per year which would qualify someone for food stamps. So $35K per year is just slightly above qualifying for food assistance ($3,408/mo for two persons.) How's that "middle class?"
Median home price in the US is $435,300. Assuming a 20% down payment, to afford the remaining $347,940 mortgage, you'd need a household income of roughly $110K to afford that at today's interest rates. That's "high income" from your second link. And that won't get you much in New England or the US West coast.
So for the "middle class" band in your second example, people at the bottom are on public assistance and few can afford a family home and the "high income" band starts with people who can barely afford a home and family car in some parts of the country and not at all in others.
More good points.
and few can afford a family home
No, few can afford the median home, assuming your data is correct. But half the homes out there cost less than the median.
With the noted difference that under actual slavery, the slaves did what they could to escape, whereas with immigrants, the "slaves" are doing everything they can, often at great risk, to run to what you are calling slavery. I think that's a pretty important distinction.
Plus, unless you want to abolish capitalism, having an underclass is an inevitability. Capitalism cannot function without an underclass; the question is whom it will consist of. And yes, other systems have underclasses too, but capitalism is the system we have here. So pick: abolish capitalism, or resign yourself to having an underclass.
Two words: Ben Franklin. He was a slave who escaped from Boston.
I assume that's from your dissertation. Because it's not from anything in this reality.
Benjamin Franklin signed an indenture agreement with his brother and, at some point, fled to get out of it.
He was an indentured servant, which was legally significantly different from being a "slave."
http://www.benjamin-franklin-history.org/benjamin-franklin-printer/
JoeFromtheBronx — In early 18th century America, indentures were of different kinds. An agricultural indenture in the South was akin to slavery in its work demands, and a notably deadly risk besides. It was still not chattel slavery.
Franklin's indenture was more akin to a trade apprenticeship. That was a more favorable situation, however low-status it remained during the course of the indenture. Franklin's escape was facilitated by an acute shortage of supply for skills Franklin had already learned.
Also, Franklin turned out to be a person of such freakishly broad capacities that his biography makes him an exception to almost every conclusion used to characterize life at the time. Almost nothing about Franklin is illustrative of anything generally applicable to anyone else.
Yes; indentured servitude, while it could be unpleasant, was not slavery. But your link says, "Benjamin decided to ran away from his brother and taking advantage of a clause in his indenture he was able to free himself from the contract that tied him to James." (Emphasis added.) So even if you replaced "slave" in Dr. Ed's claim with "indentured servant," it appears that Dr. Ed's claim would not have been accurate.
I looked a bit, and don't know what that "clause" bit means.
So, I let that part be. Didn't want to rely on a bare mention.
"Modern slavery?"
Its a type of peonage. Instead of debt as the leverage, the lever is the immigration status itself.
It sure seems to be popular among the peons. They're better off with it than without it.
The defining feature of slavery — any form, whether it be chattel slavery, peonage, or anything in between — is that the person has no choice. Immigrants can quit at any time, and thus it is not any "type of peonage."
Nieporent — Except when it is. Some immigrants arrive without incurring debts to others along the way. Others become victims of human traffickers who charge outlandishly to facilitate transportation, border crossings, initial employment, and not infrequently long-term employment.
(The) Zoran Ramadan-a-Dingdong hasn’t won yet. What’s with his buying 767 simulator time?? “Doonesbury”is still around? Snuffy Smith is funnier
Frank
Remember when you supported spending $5 trillion to improve Iraq and Afghanistan?? That was weird, right?
A dumb take.
The best estimates for how many illegal immigrants came in 2021-25 is over 10 million.
Less than 2 million have gone home.
How can the economy function with only 8 million more serfs than we had 4 years ago.
to put that 8 million in context, in 219 before the pandemic, there were 158 million jobs, now there are 163 million, a gain of 5 million.
I don't think we have to start sweating it until we deport at least another 3 million,
Kazinski, before you call that dumb. see if you can figure out any reason why immigrants, legal and otherwise, might be reluctant to show up for work these days. Not surprisingly, state terrorism terrorizes its targets. You like that, apparently. Why?
Once again, conflating illegal aliens with legal immigrants.
A problem is that de-conflation is the job of immigration authorities, who are not doing it.
Why do you like state terrorism, Bumble?
Assumes facts not in evidence. Why do you like chaos and mayhem? Are you also safe in Whitelandia?
State terrorism is less bad than non-state (immigrant) terrorism.
What he doesn't realize is what happened during the American Revolution -- when we join with the immigrants to (collectively) pillage Whitelanda.
Girls like Mollie Tibbets, Rachel Morin, and Laken Riley are the ones being terrorized by illegals.
All illegals should be presumed a threat to public safety unless they prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt!
All drivers are presumed drunk until they prove otherwise -- what's the difference?
Let's have roadblocks and arrest all the illegals.
Z Crazy is crazy.
In Trump's America, any legal immigrant has to behave like an illegal alien would, because they sure as fuck can't count on ICE to care about the difference.
Yes, they're all hiding in the shadows.
What, is quibbling about whether somebody is an illegal "alien" or illegal "immigrant" the new fallback rhetoric, since you couldn't get people to take "undocumented" seriously?
Legally, any difference has no relevance.
Did you see that illegal Trump failed to deport that killed 3 people with his semi?? Trump failed to build the wall but his voters don’t care.
Yes dumbass, an illegal in America with a California CDL is Trump's fault.
Well, he could take over the California DMV.
He could not.
Well, that obviously was before my first cup of coffee...
No, Brett.
The point is that ICE doesn't seem to care about the distinction.
Who cares? They should all be presumed to be a threat unless they prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt!
That's cute how you're trying to pretend that's a thing y'all care about anymore.
Trump has been revoking legal status from people who entered the country completely legally, including Afghan interpreters. He's also been jailing and trying to deport legal immigrants based solely on their speech inside the US. The reason why people are conflating "illegal aliens with legal immigrants" is because Trump's immigration policy is to get rid of both.
Got a cite or example other than your vibes?
Revoking TPS and ending parole for Afghans, including interpreters: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/04/25/were-breaking-our-promises-afghans-who-helped-us-risk-of-deportation-trump-ends-protections.html
Revoking legal status purely due to speech: https://www.aei.org/economics/trump-administration-uses-obscure-immigration-law-to-threaten-campus-free-speech/
TPS is temporary, and under the law, it can be revoked.
And I heard kicking immigrants out for their speech has been legal since the 1950's!
No matter what you have heard, Z Crazy, kicking immigrants out for their speech has not been legal since the 1950s.
As SCOTUS opined in Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590 (1953):
"The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But, once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country, he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders. Such rights include those protected by the First and the Fifth Amendments and by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. None of these provisions acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens. They extend their inalienable privileges to all 'persons,' and guard against any encroachment on those rights by federal or state authority."
Id., at 596 n.5, quoting Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 161 (1945) (concurring opinion).
Neither do the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment guaranties of Due Process and Equal Protection distinguish between aliens who are present lawfully and those who are here unlawfully. As the Supreme Court opined in 1982:
Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessv v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 345 U.S. 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 163 U.S. 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 118 U.S. 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz,</i< 426 U.S. 67, 426 U.S. 77 (1976).
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982) (footnote omitted).
"uses-obscure-immigration-law-" Got a problem with the law, blame Congress. TPS, the "T" is for temporary.
It's somehow both amusing and depressing how quickly you went from trying to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration to trying to justify why Trump is kicking out people arrived here legally and had completely legal status.
I'm not saying what he's doing is against the law. I'm saying stop pretending this is about illegal immigration. It's not. It's about kicking out as many brown people as possible, regardless of their legal status.
I don’t think “kicking out as many brown people as possible” is the primary driver. I think it’s to kick out:
1) Any legal immigrant who is anti-Israel or questions its approach. Note I didn’t say antisemitic because it’s not the same thing. 2) Any legal immigrant who is critical of the administration and the administration can make a pre-textual, though even remotely plausible, argument to deport. 3) Anyone the Biden administration “legally” allowed in, such as TPS, through creative liberties of immigration laws. 4) Anyone here illegally.
I mean, you're describing terrible viewpoint-based authoritarianism and spite without strategy.
But even so, ICE is going after a wider group than that.
Steven Miller is a lunatic, even within this admin. And he seems to have been given free reign.
When you're kicking out Afghan interpreters over the objections of the military personnel they assisted and instead extending refugee status to a bunch of rich South Africans, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that you're primarily choosing based on race. I realize that the South Africa thing is mostly a trolling exercise*, but if those are the decisions you're making you own the optics.
Regarding your #3, let's keep in mind that these aren't programs invented by Biden. Trump himself protected Venezuelans at the end of this first term.
* Or a symbolic gesture to his white nationalist fan base.
It amazes me that anyone can defend Trump on this.
Are Bumble and jay.tee serious?
How could you possibly interpret that as defending him?
I find #s 1 & 2 deplorable.
Not surprising from someone who doesn't know the meaning of "temporary" or that the action is allowed by a law passed by Congress.
So what?
As long as it works, its worth it!
They were here legally, but with temporary status, they were not legally admitted, or ever immigrants.
Temporary means they can't stay here.
You seem to imply this is a bad thing...
I have two legal immigrants living in my household.
Anything Trump and Noem can do to keep them from going out to the mall several times a week would be appreciated, but so far it doesn't seem to be working.
Hopefully you'll still think the fascist takeover of America is funny in a few months and a few years time.
Whats wrong with fascism?
lathrop, it is a dumb take.
Every day, 200MM+ Americans rise, say their prayers, eat their wheaties, and go about their daily business. They are completely unconcerned about the prospect of state terrorism, mainly because you have to be batshit crazy to think that enforcing immigration laws passed by Congress is state terrorism.
You and eurotrash are made for each other.
Kaz thinks maybe 3MM will start him sweating, I am thinking 15MM deportations of criminal illegal aliens, and I'll start madly cheering.
They are completely unconcerned about the prospect of state terrorism
Yes, that's the crazy part. In Serbia things have been kicking off much more than in the US, and that's in a country where (for now) they don't have to worry about masked secret policement randomly kidnapping people off the street.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024%E2%80%93present_Serbian_anti-corruption_protests
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/tensions-soar-in-serbia-as-angry-protesters-clash-with-police-and-set-fire-to-party-offices
Seek help.
Every day, 200MM+ Americans rise, say their prayers, eat their wheaties, and go about their daily business. They are completely unconcerned about the prospect of state terrorism,
What about the other 100+ million?
you have to be batshit crazy to think that enforcing immigration laws passed by Congress is state terrorism.
Using masked thugs to kidnap people and send them off without a hint of due process, and with no reason whatsoever, is not enforcing the law. It is breaking it. But haters like you don't give a shit.
I dont care. After what illegalkind did to Laken Riley, they deserve it!
Talk about dumb takes. Your arithmetic is silly, and seemingly based on the "lump of labor" fallacy.
Immigrants are also consumers, thereby creating, as well as filling, jobs.
Wrong. That't the best estimate for the total number in the U.S., not the number that came under Biden. You are also apparently unaware that — just as immigrants have always done throughout our history — many go home on their own. They come here, work for a few years, and then return to their native country. Thus, the gross number of illegal immigrants is not the number present in the U.S.
That't the best estimate for the total number in the U.S.
Sorry, Rip Van Winkle, but 10M was the estimated population before Biden shuffled in and opened the valve, not after. Even the more flattering current estimates are 30-40% higher.
Perhaps you could share such an estimate? Is it a report from someone in the administration who fears being fired if the numbers make Trump look bad? The highest estimate I could find is still below 13 million.
I took the 10 million as coming from the earlier post and standing as just the order of magnitude; David Nieporent's point remains that 10 million is nowhere close to the number of illegals who entered during the Biden administration. If 10 million entered during the Biden administration, then even with your estimate, 6 to 7 million would have had to leave one way or the other, which would be well above the Trump administration's own target, showing what incompetent slackers they are even when with their jackbooted secret police tactics.
Well, that's a curious request given that David didn't share his source and you didn't share yours. But if the highest you could find is below 13 million, you certainly didn't look very hard.
I did not look very hard, no; Life of Brian is a worthless quibbler and needs to be pinned down before undertaking much effort. But now I'll at least look at the links provided.
Center for Immigration Studies has a significant anti-immigration bias that makes its numbers questionable; per Wikipedia, "Reports published by CIS have been disputed by scholars on immigration, fact-checkers and news outlets, and immigration-research organizations."
The Migration Policy Institute apparently counts "humanitarian parole to allow entry of migrants arriving without visas" as contributing to the unauthorized immigrant population, but those migrants are unquestionably authorized by humanitarian parole.
Double fail for Life of Brian. But even so, the rebuttal of "The best estimates for how many illegal immigrants came in 2021-25 is over 10 million" is correct.
The Biden Administration estimated the Illegal population was 10.5 million in 2020, in this report.
https://ohss.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/2024_0418_ohss_estimates-of-the-unauthorized-immigrant-population-residing-in-the-united-states-january-2018%25E2%2580%2593january-2022.pdf
And I have seen estimates ranging from 6-10 million came in 2021-24, but nobody knows.
Cheap labor ain't cheap...
Kick the immigrants out and those of us born here can make a decent honest living.
Immigrants are often willing to do jobs that the rest of us find distasteful.
For instance, two of them married Donald Trump.
Yep. America needs an underclass alright. Keep going, this mask slipoff is gold.
Dems 1865: Don't take away our slaves! Our economy will collapse without them to do our menial labor for us!
Dems 2025: Don't take away our slaves er I mean undocumented immigrants! Our economy will collapse without them to do our menial labor for us!
I'll give Dems this...160 years of consistency
I assume you support removing the RE Lee statues??
Whether I do or not is a lot less concerning that a major US party that claims to be all about the underclass and fighting the evils of slavery literally wanting to perpetuate both, don't you think?
So you think Latinos are becoming a permanent underclass?? Because the data shows they are upwardly mobile. Trump accepted a 747 from a country with a permanent underclass of immigrants—Qatar.
I think we can help them along by encouraging them not to break laws and refraining from classing them as 'the guys that mow my lawn and scrub my toilet and do other things I and my fellow white brethren are too good for' while spinning a pocket watch with your diamond cane and top hat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump accepted a 747 from a country with a permanent underclass of immigrants—Qatar.
So you wanted Trump, the guy you've been whining about for ruffling foreign leaders, to spit in their face and refuse it? For what? So you can whine about the extra money that would have had to be spent otherwise?
You bought some crap from China. An actual threat to the US. And you didn't even need to for the sake of politeness.
Robert E Lee saved the union.
By 1865, the Civil War was *not* popular in the North -- Lincoln almost didn't win re-election in 1864. Had Lee not formally surrendered -- and had his army surrender his weapons -- there would have been a guerrilla war until at least 1870 and at that point it would be like the British during the American Revolution, or the US and Vietnam, the North would say Bleep It and recognize the Confederacy.
There would still be slavery down there today.
Dr. Ed 2 history. In 1864, Lincoln won 55% of the popular vote and 91% of the electoral college. Pretty sure nobody has ever put up a statue of Robert E. Lee for betraying the Confederate cause.
No, there would not still be slavery. In a few years all of Europe declared the slave trade illegal and banned the practice.
Since slaves were brought from the Dutch and English controlled areas of Africa, their supply would have dried up.
As for the slaves already here, there was a faction of southerners who thought slavery was evil, see Robert E Lee, but were opposed to abolitionism. They wanted a gradual release of slaves. Mechanization in the 20s would have ended slavery if it hadn’t already.
Yes, and Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if Trump had been president!
Putin’s asinine invasion has worked out for the best for America as it made us energy dominant and degraded Russia’s military forces to such a degree we can now focus on China.
Jazzizhep — Some advice about history. Whenever you purport to write about history, and find yourself using, "would have," you are doing it wrong. You have just inadvertently labeled everything which follows as, "Stuff I made up." Meaning, not even plausible. You cannot know the first thing you are talking about.
Speculative reasoning about the future can make sense. It can aid planning. It can help winnow bad ideas. That is only possible because the future has yet to happen. Whatever judgments a person makes about the future cannot reasonably be subjected to brutal fact check.
None of that can apply to the past. Because the past already happened. It is frozen in concrete. Everything which did happen is all that could have happened. Not a jot of it can change, no matter how probable or improbable the actual events seem in retrospect.
Permit me to illustrate, with an example from . . . you.
You wrote: "In a few years all of Europe declared the slave trade illegal and banned the practice." Thus, your counterfactual assumes without basis that what happened in Europe was unaffected by prior events determinative of the future of slavery in the United States. Which had been among the principal markets for the trade you discuss.
You have no way to know what you assumed. If it were even slightly affected, ever-so-slightly different, the entire chain of events you posit would spin off in some other direction nobody has power to anticipate. Each slight resulting change would spawn a separate chain reaction of other changes, with a result that a current world-wide present would arrive unlike anything you see now.
That is why historical counterfactuals are always stupidity double-distilled. Stay away from them. Or indulge them for pure amusement, in idle parlor conversation, among people whose opinion of your judgment remains an indifferent concern.
Awful lot of words to say you disagree with my opinion about somebody else’s opinion.
I have never claimed I can see alternate realities or timelines. Why you think I can is beyond comprehension.
I will spell it out more clearly. I was offering an opinion and I stated actual facts to back it up. Europe banned the slave trade then slavery. Many powerful southerners, like Robert E Lee, thought slavery was evil (yes, I know he owned slaves). I know mechanization would have replaced farm workers because that is what happened.
Here is my problem with the Civil War—Lincoln picked Andrew Johnson as his VP. That could be the most consequential event in American history as inconsequential as it was at the time. Johnson basically pissed away all of the Union sacrifices and so by 1877 we ended up not making much progress with making former slaves full citizens.
Jazzizhep, doubling down on stupid is double-stupid.
You do not know, and cannot know—because nobody can know—any of the consequential conclusions you posit are accurate, including the one about the 1920s. For all you know, a 6-decade interval following the 1860s, featuring pro-slave politics dominant in Congress, might have suppressed mechanization of agriculture nationwide, or perhaps only for crops distinctive to the South.
What did happen consequent to a past which did happen, is not the same subsequent which would arrive consequent to some different past you hypothesize.
But my apologies for taxing your attention span.
Well hot-damn! I'll just hop in my Time Machine, go back to 1619, and tell those lazy (Redacteds) to pick their own Cotton! Or maybe go to 1861, with the blueprints for AK-47's, or maybe even a couple of samples, and help the South win, picking your own Cotton sucks!!!!
WTF Frank Dreg-man (taking a page out of your book)? I didn’t say the Civil War was unnecessary or righteous. I was simply stating why there would not be slavery today even if the south won.
AmosArch, there are some evils that should not be trivialized by making false analogies to them. Human chattel slavery is one of them.
One shouldn't create real world analogies to them, either. Whether chattel slavery or just cheap and safely abused illegal immigrants, having your economy rely on a subclass of people without full rights is a bad idea.
It's the height of chutzpah to support the performative cruelty of this administration and claim it's al to prevent illegal immigrants from being abused.
Either you care about their dignity or not.
No one who supports Trump in this area at this point of ignoring due process, concentration camps, inhumane conditions, performative family separation, etc. etc. cares one bit about these people.
No, I'm saying that the only 'value' of illegal immigrants is that they're easily abused on account of being illegal, and so can be underpaid and treated badly: If you give them the full rights of citizens, they cease being the source of cheap labor that supposedly justifies tolerating their presence.
Yep. No inherent value. Not people.
I’m not for open borders. There are costs and benefits to all sides of this many sided policy issue.
You have never seen any cost in treating these people like humans.
Of course they have inherent value as people, and are perfectly entitled to have that value somewhere else. Most of the human race lives somewhere else, it is hardly a denial of their humanity to insist that they go about being human somewhere other than in the US. The US is hardly the only place in the world where people can be human, after all.
And, yes, I see no particular cost to treating them like humans. Humans who happen to not be entitled to be HERE.
The only value [TO US in their BEING HERE] is their utility as cheap labor, which derives from their illegal status. I think that is a value we should forego, because it comes at substantial moral and economic cost.
That is not how inherent value works.
It is also not how rights work.
Strange that you think the people who are regularly accused of fomenting the "Great Replacement" would be the same ones who supposedly want to "abuse them on account of being illegal"...
Then let's do this:
Pass a law saying illegal immigrants must be paid wages comparable to others in the same job, and are covered by the minimum wage and other employment laws.
When ICE raids a workplace and finds illegals employed they examine payroll and other records to determine whether this was done.
If not, the employer must pay back wages, with interest, to those workers, as well as incur whatever other penalties apply.
Or, when ICE finds illegal workers they can prosecute those who employ them, ensure the workers are fairly compensated for their labor, then deport them in a humane manner. Of course, to support that we should have a functional guest-worker policy and an immigration policy that permits more legal immigration. And cuts out the abuses of current programs, like H1B.
Brett, the Great Protector of illegal immigrants.
I mean you guys would be the first to declare how the illegal aliens life of grinding poverty preTrump was horrid and just like slavery. Now all of a sudden its all flowers and sunshine and Uncle Tito is living the life being a good boy for kindly ole Massa.
Your strawmanning is sometimes so extreme it wraps around to being an argument on the other side. Keep trying to invoke anvilicious anti-slavery tropes in favor of MAGA. See where that gets you.
No one is saying illegals had it great before 2021. Just that the solution is not to oppress them *more*
Because Debt Peonage Slavery was so much better.
Thank goodness that America has Donald Trump and his ilk to advocate for the working classes!
"For instance, two of them married Donald Trump"
As if there was a shortage of American-born women willing to sleep with Donald Trump. Or, I presume, marry him.
So essentially immigrants could underbid Americans.
Ed, your myriad failures in life are neither the fault of women nor immigrants.
Just checked to confirm: It's still the case that Trudeau's strips aren't actually interesting. Really, haven't been in decades.
Agree, it is nothing more than agitprop.
I don't think that one even rose to the level of agitprop, actually.
I wonder if you and Brett have documentation to show your appointments to the Federal Arbiters of Humor board.
Do you think your opinions are influenced by your disagreements with Trudeau's political views? No. Of course not.
Who are we to judge insipid, midwit orthodox-leftist takes, as long as some people prefer those takes?
Oh, Trudeau's comics are Vegan rhino cutlets, but as such are very good if you like that sort of thing. I don't, but I have nothing against people who do.
Same argument slaveowners made in 1850...
Is that the talking point du jour, Bumble, AmosArch and Armchair?
It has been the relevant analytic framework ever since Democrats were strongly in favor of exploiting an oppressed underclass some 170 years ago. More recently, LBJ -- exhibiting the lack of foresight that is characteristic of the left -- proposed a 200-year regime with the same underclass as before.
Back in February the left had another one of their "day without immigrants." Nobody noticed.
Such a dumb argument, so I'm not surprised to see Democrats embrace the stupidity.
(1) Illegals work under-the-table for many jobs requiring manual labor, often getting paid less than minimum wage.
(2) According to Democrats, our economy relies on these cheap laborers.
(3) Democrats also want to grant these same illegals citizenship and for them to 'come out of the shadows.' They would make at least minimum wage if not more.
(4) Somehow, Democrats want us to accept that (2) remains after (3) happens despite economics telling us that once the cost of labor increases, the price in goods and services also increases.
Amazing how the survival of the Republic depends on 20MM illegal aliens.
The rest of us are just potted plants, I guess.
Dumb does not really encapsulate the absolute imbecility of the argument.
XY, how much more are you willing to pay for food at the grocery store and when you dine out? For overnight lodging when you travel out of town?
If the hatemongering of Donald Trump and his MAGA cult tanks the economy, my political party will inevitably benefit. I don't want to see the economy tank, despite that.
It's not a dumb argument, once you realize that they plan on importing NEW illegal aliens to replace the ones they give citizenship to.
Great Replacement rears up again. You just can't quit that white nationalist conspiracy theory.
Try keeping up: In this case the people who'd be replaced are the swarthy illegal immigrants who'd been naturalized.
Sarcastr0, the local sponsor of the Great Replacement Theory, never missing his chance to float that trope.
Now do a remark about "vibes."
Sarcastr0, the local sponsor of the Great Replacement Theory
Calling it a conspiracy is just proof I'm part of the conspiracy!
MAGA is as MAGA does.
Actually, tylertusa floated it in his (3), above. How did you miss that?
Huh? Where did I talk about replacing people?
(3) was about legalizing illegals and paying them higher wages.
You specifically mentioned "citizenship", not "legalizing" their status as Green Card holders or refugees.
You are aware that "citizenship" entitles people to vote, right?
Did you want to answer my question, or are you just going to deflect again?
Where did I talk about replacing people?
Did you miss Sarc's capitalization in saying "Great Replacement rears again"? He was referring to a so-called "Great Replacement" theory, an alleged conspiracy theory that he likes to talk about.
Nobody here but Sarc mentioned it. You twisting and turning over Tylertusta's remarks as if he was invoking that trope is the same kind of sophistry.
Brett and tylertusa are talking about the Great Replacement, just not by name.
No, idiot, I simply pointed out that, if your excuse for allowing illegal immigration is that they're cheap labor, AND you want them made legal, which would cause them to stop being cheap, you must be planning to bring in more, not yet legal, aliens.
"Rinse and repeat.", as the saying goes.
The would involve 'replacing' the legalized illegal aliens with new illegal aliens. Not every 'replacement' is 'great'.
Must be planning it!!!!! And of course illegal immigration is itself a well planned scheme - the government is *bringing them in*
You've really studied out the sekret agendas at work.
Though of course the making them citizens part, THAT is the bit where you think they're replacing white natives. Just as planned!!
You're either a liar or delusional.
"You're either a liar or delusional."
I think Sarc is sincere, and though quite literate and well-educated, he's unable to discern the difference between an argument and a good argument. So it's all just differences of opinions and "vibes" to him.
Read his arguments. They are routinely wayward and untethered from any shared understanding. That's as close as his feet ever get to the proverbial ground.
You could say he's "delusional," the delusion being his belief that he makes cogent arguments.
Brett made unsupported assertions.
Bwaah thinks that’s a good argument.
Bwaah is not very good at arguing, which is why he often takes to writing long potato about posters. Those are wrong too, but at least he doesn’t need to worry about constructing an argument when he’s writing his fan fiction.
Oh and don’t call him, MAGA. He’s a liberal, he insists!
writing long potato about posters
Covfefe!
I think you're giving Democrats too much credit. They don't think ahead. It's all sunshine, rainbows, and unicorn farts.
No, they often take home -- in cash -- more than Americans do as neither they nor their employers pay taxes. -- Both halves of FICA are about 15%, then there are things like unemployment, workers comp, etc.
So you can pay a lot MORE than the minimum wage -- in cash -- and still make money.
NG, you are angry about President Trump’s agenda for two reasons: It’s succeeding and it’s succeeding beyond anybody’s wild expectation ( to paraphrase Victor Davis Hanson)
No, the main reason angry about his agenda because it's evil. Evil and corrupt. The two reasons we're angry about his agenda are because it's evil and corrupt. And incompetent. Our *three* reasons are evil, corrupt, incompetent… and their nice red uniforms.
Some, meaning the overwhelming majority of the American people, might think securing the border, eliminating Iran as a nuclear threat, ending the DEI insanity, and safeguarding women’s sports are decidedly welcome achievements. Oh and let’s not forget ending the green new deal grifting.
But by all means keep supporting an agenda that offends the voters to the point of making them physically nauseous. Democrats are amusing when in the minority. They’re good comic relief.
"interesting comic strip"
The only mildly interesting part is the not so subtle reference to the "organic" produce stall. Not a regular place, but where multi-millionaires like Trudeau would go.
'member when Dems teased Republicans for their businesses enjoying the fruits of cheap labor? So shallow and transparent, those Republicans!
At least both sides were honest. Now they've flipped positions, and facete bullshit out the wazoo to hide their real reasons.
Social adjustments to accommodate fascism continue apace. Citizens who have achieved a measure of safety and comfort in society, by dint of prosperous careers, and high social status, will continue to moderate public resistance, with an eye to keep safe their existing advantages. Knowing what is happening is wrong, they hide that knowledge, or even denigrate it, in the hope the storm will pass by them without personal harm. That applies especially to professionals in fields most likely to affect public policy, such as law, journalism, and leadership in higher education.
To watch that happen is so painful I can hardly bear to turn on a newscast.
Herr New-Scum and his Gauliters are pretty bad, so move to Arizona or Nevada.
"Social adjustments to accommodate fascism continue apace." Stephen, what do you mean by that? I have been out of the country too long for it to be obvious.
Haven't heard about what has been happening among university administrators, and senior partners of prestigious law firms?
I did not decypher your crypto-speak. But then I don't label everything I don't agree with as fascist or communist.
Imagine being happy that the Putin/Trump summit didn't result in Trump purporting to give away half of someone else's country. That's the world we live in now. Even though the US president isn't literally (or even figuratively) "the leader of the free world", the decision of the American people to elect a dangerous lunatic still has consequences for the rest of the world.
Was Zelenskyy blinking in Morse code when he put this statement out on Xitter?
"I have already arrived in Washington, tomorrow I am meeting with President Trump. Tomorrow we are also speaking with European leaders. I am grateful to @POTUS for the invitation. We all share a strong desire to end this war quickly and reliably. And peace must be lasting. Not like it was years ago, when Ukraine was forced to give up Crimea and part of our East—part of Donbas—and Putin simply used it as a springboard for a new attack. Or when Ukraine was given so called “security guarantees” in 1994, but they didn't work. Of course, Crimea should not have been given up then, just as Ukrainians did not give up Kyiv, Odesa, or Kharkiv after 2022. Ukrainians are fighting for their land, for their independence. Now, our soldiers have successes in Donetsk and Sumy regions. I am confident that we will defend Ukraine, effectively guarantee security, and that our people will always be grateful to President Trump, everyone in America, and every partner and ally for their support and invaluable assistance. Russia must end this war, which it itself started. And I hope that our joint strength with America, with our European friends, will force Russia into a real peace. Thank you!"
Or was his account hacked?
https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1957271398902039032?t=Wwh-SCtIYSn0p0Aauq5UXg&s=19
"...with our European friends, ..." With friends like that, who needs enemies?
CBS made the laughable claim that the European leaders are all coming to keep Trump from bullying Zelenskyy.
Rubio pointed out Trump was the one who invited all the European leaders.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/media/article-15008739/Marco-Rubio-humiliates-CBS-host-clash-Putin.html
That may well be true, but it doesn't explain why they accepted.
To appear as if their opinion mattered?
To stop the crazy toddler throwing all his toys out of the pram again?
Funny, but in the last open thread on Friday one of the MAGA posters here had a tantrum because Zelensky invited all those leaders. That Rubio tried to save face by claiming "Actually, that's what we wanted" fooled nobody. Except Kazinski, apparently.
Show me the source that said Zelenskyy invited them.
You need help finding the Friday open thread (which I note you were able to find and post to on Friday)? OK...
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/08/15/friday-open-thread-33/?comments=true#comment-11167090
ThePublius is speculating and doesn't cite a source.
You and Dave could do worse, and often do, than treating TP's comments as gospel, but in this case he is off base.
When I look at the photos from today, I can't help but be reminded of Trumps press conferences where he has Hegseth, Vance, Bondi, etc lined up while he talks waiting for permission to speak if he asks then a question.
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/photos-of-zelenskyy-top-european-leaders-and-trump-can-they-end-russias-war/
Vs:
https://share.google/t5i07IKoDBzjvMtwx
Now you know why he summoned them, props for his news conference.
It's almost as if having a naive narcissist for a president results in people saying things to him like "you definitely won in 2020" and "thank you for ending this war".
Republicans hate Zelensky because he didn’t help Trump cheat in 2020…and Trump is super lucky he lost that election. And as a Kerry supporter I’m happy Kerry lost in 2004 because it would have been an unmitigated catastrophe had he won that election…Bush got his 20% approval rating and America got Obama so it all worked out best.
Eurotrash...Like the MSM, you beclown yourself daily.
You're the one kissing the ass of the most cringeworthy president America has ever had. Aren't you comforted that Trump had Putin explain to him how free and fair elections are supposed to work?
Zelenskyy is kissing Trump's ass, something he didn't do back in February. Putin did it last week with his comments about the 2020 election and not invading had trump been president.
Don't take any of this ass kissing as being honest.
I agree, it is being submissive.
It’s strange how some disgraceful overseas actors have become such warmongers in support of more Ukrainian (and Russian) deaths. Of course, such an attitude is easy when it’s apparently “Let’s you and him fight.” (Hat tip John Hinderaker)
It's strange how some disgraceful domestic actors are concerned over Nazi deaths and so want to let Hitler keep the Sudetenland and yay peace in our time!
I thought you clowns liked insulting President Trump by calling him Hitler. Now Putin is Hitler and President Trump is Chamberlain? You need to work on your messaging to keep the trolling consistent. Bring it up at the next troll meeting.
Putin always was Hitler, or did you miss the perfect aping of Hitler's demands of concern for his ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland, being abused by the local government, so he needs to save them through annexation?
Putting aside your facile obsession with Hitler analogies, Putin is undoubtedly a bad actor but a bad actor who effectively controls a large portion of the Donbas region already and also the largest number of tactical nuclear weapons in the world and the second largest number of strategic nuclear weapons. Ukraine has all but lost despite Zelensky's (and his European supporters) desire to fight until the last Ukrainian dies. It that your preference? Or do you prefer WWIII?
Imagine having US servicemen on their knees laying down the red carpet for a brutal dictator, all so Trump could negotiate...nothing at all.
This is Riva's definition of "succeeding beyond anybody’s wild expectation". No wonder why Riva gets accused of being a Russian disinformation bot.
Putin had to walk by a B-2 Bomber and some of our best fighter jets. That alone was worth the whole thing -- He doesn't have a B-2.
I'm surprised Trump didn't give him a tour inside and let him fly one of them for a bit.
A comment on another blog:
"I think it is worth noting for the record that a war criminal, guilty of the waging of aggressive war, identified at Nuremberg as the “supreme war crime”, whose aggressive war is *still going on”, just landed on American soil, shook hands with the president, and flew off unmolested."
So you and jb among others are happy for the war to continue until the last Ukrainian is dead?
Or perhaps as long as the Ukrainians are willing to continue. Big difference.
But Trump wants to hand over half the country to Putin and not give the Ukrainians a say. Wonder how much money he owes Putin?
Since Trump did zero to resolve the war at the summit, not sure how you get that inference.
Mostly it was just a great photo op and validation for Putin. Seems pretty bad for everyone else involved, including Trump.
"...just landed on American soil, shook hands with the president, and flew off unmolested."
Interesting comment. Are you suggesting Putin should have been arrested or shot or something?
As someone who has advocated direct US involvement in the war since 2014, I agree, and it's nice to see other people coming around.
Realistically, I didn't see that happening, and it is unlikely a prudential thing to do in that case, but at the very least, you could have not allowed him on U.S. soil.
"identified at Nuremberg as the “supreme war crime”
USSR, which waged aggressive war against Finland in 1940 and Poland in 1939, was one of the convenors of the Nuremberg trial.
Putin gets to continue the war without severe consequences. Ukraine got nothing. What a joke of a summit.
Putin got a boost, so it was a great deal for him. Especially the part where Trump called Alaska "Russia." I'm sure that has been played on repeat in Russia where they still claim Alaska as part of their country. Meanwhile, Trump became the butt of more jokes, fewer of them on late night comedy shows given his success is shutting those down. He certainly put the lie to American security guarantees, though Biden had his chance and failed at that too. And the Ukrainians are still hoping someone is willing to stop Putin while there are still enough Ukrainians to count.
I guess you preferred to ignore today's events in the White House.
Imagine the optimism behind something like this. What a world this guy must live in...
Witkoff claims Putin agreed to "legislative enshrinement within the Russian Federation not to go after any other territories when the peace deal is codified " and "legislative enshrinement in the Russian Federation not to go after any other European countries."
Video of him saying this: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lwmaosqtzm2f
Witkoff is a grade A idiot! He’s DEI if the “I” stands for idiots.
Great! Now it's perfectly safe to disband NATO...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
Because US security guarantees are worth, what? three pounds of vigorously-used cat litter?
The Budapest Memorandum included a number of provisions that might be characterized as “security guarantees,” the most important being that the signatories agreed, ”to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.“ Russia has obviously violated this agreement.
All promises made by the United States are pretty much meaningless at this point, given that Trump wouldn’t even honor the USMCA which he himself negotiated and signed. But even under Trump the United States hasn’t violated the Budapest Memorandum.
Today in free speech news:
Donald Trump on Sunday declared that MSNBC host Nicole Wallace would be "fired" soon. It's not clear what Wallace did to get under Trump's skin, but the comment came after Trump posted "Bela" on social media without any additional context. That word went viral, and led to confusion and speculation about what he meant.
Donald Trump on Sunday declared that MSNBC host Nicole Wallace would be "fired" soon.
It's not clear what Wallace did to get under Trump's skin, but the comment came after Trump posted "Bela" on social media without any additional context. That word went viral, and led to confusion and speculation about what he meant.
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-fired-nicole-wallace-msnbc/
Speaking of how the US is the land of the free, in Arizona the GOP thinks that PBS should be punished for reporting on the 2022 election wrong:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/arizona-senate-president-calls-fcc-revoke-states-pbs-license-over-viewpoint-discrimination
Is Monday another national holiday in the Netherlands, or is trolling here just part of the job?
Another question that Americans should be asking but, for the most part, aren't: What are the odds that you (or a loved one) are going to end up in one of these detention camps?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/08/15/ice-documents-reveal-plan-double-immigrant-detention-space-this-year/
Ship them all home!
"What are the odds that you (or a loved one) are going to end up in one of these detention camps?" FDR is long gone, so slim and none.
I hope you're right.
Bumble, you've styled yourself a careful, conforming fascist, so for the present you ought to be safe. Experience shows the early days of despotic regimes are easy ones. At the outset, pro-despots agree on targets they can all attack together.
Later on, when despotic factionalism sets in—and it always does—the conformist game gets harder. It gets tricky to tell which side to back. The cost of guessing wrong . . . . well, the gruesome history of countless despotisms tells the tale. Can you think of any such regime which has lasted even a decade without turning murderously on at least some of its erstwhile backers?
When that happens, it does no more than turn rules the backers approved against them. Despotism is a political style for the bewildered. They get into it while bewildered. They stay in it bewildered. And when dear leader decrees it, they die bewildered. That's you, Bumble.
What Trump is doing is perfectly legal according to laws on the books for decades. That is not despotism, but your gross hyperbole is noted.
It is legal to capture, retain, and deport people in this country illegally. Obama did quite a lot of it.
That should worry you, not comfort you.
Big surprise coming. Brace yourself’
It doesn’t worry me.
It didn’t worry me when Obama did it. It doesn’t worry me when Trump does it. I am kind of hard wired to accept a president doing legal things, I’m funny that way.
Jazzizhep — Save your show of equanimity for Trump's post-midterm impeachment festival, if Trump can't sufficiently corrupt the election to stave off a reckoning in the House.
But short term, will you back Trump executive orders for paper ballots everywhere, no voting machines, no counting votes after election day, and no mail-in ballots except for the military?
You lectured me on my opinion of what might have happened if _____ in response to somebody else opining about what if_____.
You are now doing the same thing. Read your own comments. If I can’t opine on what ifs, you can’t either. Your rules, not mine.
Jazzizhep — Triple stupid. Stop digging.
Go back and re-read what I wrote. Then try to notice there is not a syllable in it of counterfactual speculation about the past. Do you see the part where I say it is always okay to speculate about the future? That is what I just did.
Now try to answer my hypothetical question about the future.
Who made up these rules? One can speculate about the future, but one can’t speculate about an alternate future from the viewpoint of the past? Especially when one is countering someone doing the same thing.
You make fact-less accusations. I made fact based deductions to counter someone claiming slavery would still be legal and flourishing in 2025 Alabama.
Man, do you like tilting at windmills, or what? Keep on keeping’ on,
Jazzizhep — Whoever you think you are countering is just a grey box to me. You would do better to make it likewise.
The rules are no more arbitrary than gravitation. They are inherent in the direction of time's arrow. Causes do not act reciprocally across time, to deliver influence on events which preceded the causes.
To assert the contrary can be entertaining, in exactly the same way that science fiction time travel can be entertaining. That entertainment cannot have even a trace of valid deductive thinking behind it.
So, what is your answer to the question I put to you about a hypothetical future?
You’re confused. In America the only party that has expressed support for detention and reeducation camps was unsurprisingly, the Democrat party, the still as yet unapologetic champion of slavery.
the still as yet unapologetic champion of slavery
The Democratic controlled House and Senate passed resolutions apologizing for slavery in 2008 and 2009. The Republican base is the one with the Confederate flags and racists.
Nope my little gaslighting troll friend, the Democrat Party most certainly did NOT apologize for their slave supporting past. They have NEVER done so. Those resolutions were generally statements cowardly and inappropriately apologizing on “behalf of the people of the United States”. Taking responsibility for their own party’s conduct? Not so much.
Is there a more reliable indicator of boorishness and ignorance than repeated ungrammatical references to "the Democrat Party"? I can't understand why anyone believes that the use of non-standard English is persuasive.
Is the impulse to channel the buffoons Joe McCarthy and Rush Limbaugh simply irresistible? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoHpSY3IoAI&list=RDSoHpSY3IoAI&start_radio=1
I should show respect to the this repugnant, unapologetic institution that has been exploiting black lives for about 2 centuries? Since it bothers you so much, I'll use it again. The Democrat party sucks. Deal with it.
Riva has once again forgotten the First Rule of Holes: STOP DIGGING!
I do understand the impulse to tweak the opposing party. I used to refer somewhat frequently to "Rethuglicans." I stopped doing that when I realized it gave my critics the opportunity to kvetch about the insult while avoiding the substance of what I was saying.
I still don't understand why the GOP cult thinks that the use of non-standard English is persuasive at all.
I don’t care. And a more serious person would acknowledge that the democrats have never apologized for their party’s slave past. It would at least show a modicum of integrity on your part if you were to acknowledge this and the gaslighting crap above.
It is far from clear that "Democrat party" is grammatically incorrect. People talked about the Whig party, not the Whigish party. Similarly for the Tories. Your example of the term you abandoned might be analogous to someone calling Democrats "Dumbocrats" or similar stupid name.
And “democratic” is certainly a less accurate description given the party’s decision to remove the winner of their primaries and instead insert Harris as their preferred candidate. Admittedly both equally unpalatable but only one actually competed in, and won, the primary elections.
Retarded talking point from a year ago, recycled. Nobody removed Biden, and it was the delegates' job to select a replacement when Biden dropped out. 100% democratic.
It is both grammatically incorrect (democrat is not an adjective) and generally incorrect because the party is named the Democratic Party. The Whig party was apparently named the Whig party. Tories is a colloquial name and not the party name. Interestingly Wikipedia says that Tory and Whig were both originally insults which became neutral terms.
Either is disputable, and a minor distraction from your irrefutably false claim that democrats, as a party, have apologized for supporting slavery. That never happened. And we can add Jim Crow, the KKK, and segregation to the list.
Riva deflecting from his passive aggressive name-gaming to by making up his own silly thing to get mad about.
Thing is, it's kinda woke, actually? Like, the right-wing cartoonish version of woke. Every person and individual has gotta apologize for slavery if it can be at all traced back! (Note that this tracing stops in the 1960s. Post-Southern Strategy doesn't count, no fair.)
The logical next step for Riva is for him to become a reflexive land acknowledgment scold.
The Democrats of today are not the Democratic Party of the 19th century and early 20th century. Prominent Democrats who were in the KKK, like Robert Byrd, renounced their affiliation if they remained in the party; Byrd apologized repeatedly for it. Prominent Democrats who did not apologize for their past racism became Republicans, like Strom Thurmond (although the bulk of racist Republican politicians simply retired, and their formerly Democratic proteges became Republicans, like Jesse Helms). The Republican party has never apologized for its racism, because they're still doing it and depend on it to win elections.
It turns out that Strom Thurmond was not as opposed to miscegenation as he claimed to be.
Various individual democrat politicians may or may not have said a lot of things at politically opportune moments to further their careers. But the democrat party, the party of slavery, the party of secession, the party of Jim Crow, the party of segregation, has never done so. Just so we're clear here.
(cue another few comments whining that I'm showing disrespect to the party of slavery. Here's a hint: I am)
Don Nico, "Whig," like "Republican," is both a noun and an adjective, depending on the context of its usage. "Democrat," OTOH, is a noun, while "Democratic" is the adjective form thereof.
As the Sesame Street jingle goes, one of these things is not like the others.
"Doofus," though, is exclusively a noun.
It was actually worse than an insincere “apology.” It was a self-serving stunt to exploit the reparations issue. Democrats are truly repugnant.
I am taking the under set at 0.0001% for any of my loved ones ending up in an illegal immigrant holding facility.
Everybody I know has a social security number and if old enough an ID.
You are betting against an adversary which has already rehearsed declaring dead the social security numbers of live American residents. Taking really long odds on bets against stacked decks is no way to stay at the table. My guess is you think you are on the side stacking the deck, which is just sad.
Ah yes! The “two people claiming to have knowledge” source. I am sure nobody in the federal govt hates Trump.
Hey, it worked out so well for Russiagate. They did receive Pulitzers after all.
What good will that do them if they offend The Great Leader?
Oh, I didn’t think of that, thanks.
I have already forgotten all the dems and journalists who have offended Trump being deported. There has to be thousands of American citizens deported by now, right?
Your "but, for the most part, aren't" comment might require some additional evidence. I might agree that we aren't talking about it openly where it would get published.
There are quite a few Americans with non-American family members living in the country. Most of them are keeping their heads down right now and not shouting about how their loved ones fit the profile for deportation: non-white immigrant in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The "profile" for deportation is being in the country illegally.
Ohio doesn't have money for school buses, but apparently they do have money to send the national guard to a place that has less crime than they do.
https://www.wlwt.com/article/ohio-national-guard-troops-to-be-sent-to-washington-dc/65798198
It has never been more urgent, or more perilous, to pursue reporting in the US that holds power to account and counters the spread of misinformation – and at the Guardian we make our journalism free and accessible to all. Can you spare just 37 seconds now to support our work and protect the free press?
We value whatever you can spare, but a recurring contribution makes the most impact, enabling greater investment in our most crucial, fearless journalism. As our thanks to you, we can offer you some great benefits – including seeing far fewer fundraising messages like this. We’ve made it very quick to set up, so we hope you’ll consider it. Thank you.
Betsy Reed
Editor, Guardian US Hahahahahahahahahahaha. What a joke.
Don't look at me, I don't pay for the Guardian either.
You just cite it as if it is a credible source. Which for you, it is.
Martinned -- Ohio's not paying for it.
Ever notice how they wear FEDERAL uniforms, and not STATE uniforms, as they did up through the Civil War?
If they haven’t called up reserves, the only thing extra they are spending is the gas to get there.
Nice try, though.
Where in the world is Dayton spending their budget if they can’t buy a school bus? It’s up to them to buy their own busses. Cincinnati doesn’t have this problem. Columbus doesn’t have this problem. It’s not the state’s problem how school districts spend their allocation.
How many DEI training courses has Dayton bought over the years? What does the administration look like (I am sure nothing could be cut there)?
Also, they once gave out public bus vouchers. A kid was shot at a bus stop. The article doesn’t say why, but the legislature passed a law fining schools who use public transportation. I imagine that stems from a lawsuit worth millions. Another reason to think the lawyers.
Big yellow school buses, whether managed by school districts, or contracted for, have proved an astonishingly safe and effective way to get kids to school. You ought to look up the statistics on adverse outcomes per passenger mile. They are so good they seem almost unbelievable.
After one tragic accident, I looked up statistics for Massachusetts school bus fleets, to see what was going on. Millions of passenger miles without so much as a fender-bender was a typical fleet outcome.
Consider this. A school bus-related fatality almost always makes national news. How often do you see or hear about such a story? When was the last time?
Who cares about accidents in this context? He was shot at a bus stop. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the topic.
Even if I were to play your game, I imagine that fatalities involving passengers on public transportation busses is also rare.
That's 469 miles of logistics in addition to just the busses and fuel to get them there. They need places to stay and food to eat. They're away from their day jobs, families, and communities. Their pay changes, possibly earning less than they would at their day jobs. And while the Feds are supposed to pick up most of the cost (but not all,) Trump has a history of not paying his contractors. Not to mention the psychological cost of being sent to DC to terrorize the city into compliance with its new ruler.
The Guardian has reported that Tarrant county judge Megan Fahey, of Texas, has issued a restraining order. It's purpose is to prevent Texans, including Beto O'Rourke, from sending funds outside the state to support Democratic lawmakers who fled the state to deny a quorum for the state legislature's attempted gerrymander.
Wonder if this violates Dormant Commerce Clause.
HOW?!?
You need restraining orders to prohibit crimes?
By "sending funds" do you mean bribes? Because that is generally what it is called when money is given to a politician to take specific actions related to their job duties.
Also interesting that now you object to a judge's ruling when you have acted as every ruling against President Trump was inviolate and perfect.
Technically, staying away during the legislature's session to deny a quorum, while it may be 'related to their job duties", is a crime related to their job duties. Which is why there are arrest warrants out for them.
I'm pretty sure that sending somebody money so that they can sustain an illegal action is itself a crime.
Even more technically, it is not in fact a crime. Which is why there are not arrest warrants out for them.
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/04/texas-democrats-house-warrants-arrest-quorum-break/
From TFA, the runaway Dems were issued civil arrest warrants.
“House Speaker Dustin Burrows said he would immediately sign civil warrants for each of the legislators, empowering the chamber’s sergeant-at-arms and state troopers to arrest and bring them to the Capitol.
They will not face civil or criminal charges from the arrests. The warrants apply only within state lines…”
Right, which are "arrest warrants" in the same way that ICE "administrative warrants" are "arrest warrants," which is to say that they aren't. If the Democratic legislators' leaving the state were actually a crime and if actual arrest warrants had been issued as a result, then Texas could've had them extradited.
if actual arrest warrants had been issued as a result, then Texas could've had them extradited
Well, let's just say there's a reason the legislators fled a thousand miles to a deep blue state instead of just stepping across the border to Oklahoma as they often do -- to better assure results like this.
Which is to say, they apparently didn't share your OPF* laced bravado.
* Other People's Freedom.
From the link:
The lawsuit was filed in Illinois’ westernmost county, four and a half hours away from the Chicago suburb where the Democrats have camped out. The county voted for Trump by 47 percentage points in 2024, suggesting Paxton was seeking a friendlier venue than he might have found in DuPage County — where the Democrats are staying — which went for Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris by 14 points.
And yet, of course, no dice, because it was a frivolous suit. There are no grounds to enforce fake arrest warrants in other states.
Nothing like journalists trying to read legal tea leaves, amirite? They don't know anything about Scott Larson's judicial philosophy or even political leanings, and neither do you. What we do know is that Pritzker had promised the legislators sanctuary before they even left Texas, so the likelihood that this lawsuit would have ultimately resulted in them being shipped back to Texas was somewhat less than 0 regardless of exactly where in Illinois it was filed.
Again, if your glib pronouncements were actually bulletproof, they would have just stepped across the border to Oklahoma as they usually do. They didn't.
What we do know is that Pritzker had promised the legislators sanctuary before they even left Texas, so the likelihood that this lawsuit would have ultimately resulted in them being shipped back to Texas was somewhat less than 0 regardless of exactly where in Illinois it was filed.
Well, if you were right that would make the lawsuit even more frivolous, wouldn't it? But is Pritzker the boss of the Illinois judiciary?
Putting Chicago politics aside, he's certainly the boss of whoever would be responsible for executing this theoretical order that some theoretical judge might have the temerity to issue as one of the closing acts of his career.
Third time: they could have gone a very short distance to flee the state; instead they went a very long distance. That's a big problem for your theory, which presumably is why you keep ignoring it.
It's not a problem for my theory at all. It's not even related to my theory. What sane person would want to spend any time in Oklahoma?
"The Guardian has reported that Tarrant county judge Megan Fahey, of Texas, has issued a restraining order. It's purpose is to prevent Texans, including Beto O'Rourke, from sending funds outside the state to support Democratic lawmakers who fled the state to deny a quorum for the state legislature's attempted gerrymander."
Here is the order: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/TRO.pdf
Not a word about the First Amendment. Why am I unsurprised?
Why is the First Amendment involved? Beto's group is paying expenses for Democrats to commit a crime and to avoid doing their official duties. This is known as bribery ( and since you are one of those who believe that every ruling against President Trump must be obeyed you should support this judge's ruling).
I haven't suggested that anyone disobey the order, XY. It should be complied with unless it is vacated or modified. But I don't support the order on the merits one whit.
I'm XY....who are you addressing?
(It was my Spartacus moment, lol)
He's as bad at answering questions to defend his red herrings as he is at distinguishing commenters.
Sorry, XY. I had a brain fart while responding to CountmontyC's comment.
NG, no problem. It was just too good to pass up. Hope you are doing well in Nashville.
For a moment, I thought you were doing a version of: well, they all look alike!
Not a word about the 2nd amendment either. Funny how things not related to a case isn’t mentioned.
You posted the opinion. The question is did you read it?
Beto was using a PAC-type’s money. In Texas it is illegal to use political donations for personal expenses.
Beto's group is paying expenses for Democrats to commit a crime
False. There is no crime.
This is known as bribery
It is not. Bribery requires a quid pro quo.
The quid pro quo is leaving the state to prevent a quorum in the legislature. They are required by state law to attend and their personal expenses are being paid by a political action committee in order to prevent a quorum.
The quid pro quo is leaving the state to prevent a quorum in the legislature.
You think the donors said, "If you promise to leave the state, we'll give you $X?" Setting aside whether leaving the state is even an official act that can be the subject of bribery charges, giving someone money after someone has already done something sounds a lot more like a gratuity than a bribe, and SCOTUS just explained a year ago that a tip isn't a bribe.
So, it's a warrant, and you can be arrested under it, but that's not "arrest warrant" enough for you?
Did you read what I wrote? It's like you hear what you want to hear. It isn't a warrant; it's a piece of paper with the word "warrant" written on it. (Actual warrants are issued by judges.)
That is exactly what they are doing. They are receiving funds to leave the state so a quorum won't be established. In other words they are being paid to prevent an official government action. They are being paid because they are government officials whose action or inaction will have an effect on proposed legislation. And before you say paying a government official to not take an action what is it called when a person pays a police officer to not write a ticket?
You are papering over how this is support, not inducement.
By your definition, internal grants are bribes.
So aiding and abetting a crime? Of course you overlook the fact that they are being "supported" solely because they are government officials who can block government action that the PAC opposes and as Jazzihepp pointed out the e are limits on how PAC money can be spent.
It's not a crime.
And even if it were, that's not required for bribery so it's immaterial.
And who cares why they are supported, that doesn't turn support into inducement.
So thrice wrong....so far.
Good luck with your campaign finance violation push in this day and age.
So aiding and abetting a crime?
Once again: There. Is. No. Crime.
They are receiving funds to leave the state so a quorum won't be established.
No. They already left the state. There's no "We'll give you money if you agree to leave."
Maybe you're unsurprised because you remember the "conduct integral to crime" exception to the First Amendment.
And yes, I intentionally did not say "speech integral to crime", because in this context sending money to help a fugitive is not even expressive conduct.
There is no crime.
How refreshing. A proper restraining order stopping democrat illegal activity. I understand your confusion given all the abuses of the federal judiciary interfering in the Trump administration’s efforts to manage the executive branch.
The purpose of the funds is to defray living expenses when they are on the run, using campaign funds for living expenses violates Texas law.
You forgot to mention that was from his PAC and not from his personal bank account. PACs have restrictions on where they can spend money.
Nice little bit of omission there.
Now do campaign finance violations related to paying your hooker to keep silent while you run for office. Or using your foundation's money to buy art for your home.
Nice little hypocrisy there.
Wrong is wrong and shouldn't be justified by whataboutism.
He didn’t use campaign funds, Einstein. Get with the program. It has been over eight years. You should know the basic facts by now.
Is Bill Kristol seriously the last conservative left in America? Who'd have thought...
There’s no longer any pretense this has anything to do with crime (there are cities or parts of cities in SC and Ohio that have higher crime rates than DC — send the troops there!). This is about establishing a precedent for Trump seizing control of the nation’s capital when he wants to.
https://bsky.app/profile/billkristolbulwark.bsky.social/post/3lwkpiox7f22h
That's characteristic of police states, I gather: The central government actually controls its own capitol. [/sarc]
Here's the real problem: The local government of the nation's capitol is totally dominated by only one of the country's two major parties, regardless of which one has the governing majority at the time. A very pathological situation.
Why is is pathological? People in DC have *less* voice than the population elsewhere?
Is Wyoming pathologically Republican?
People get to believe what they like, even if that entails lots of them disagreeing with you.
The worst libertarian.
DC is a cesspool. A national embarrassment.
I've enjoyed DC every time I've been. What about it makes it a cesspool and national embarrassment? (Other than the current occupant of the Whitehouse, natch.)
Getting shot and killed and being carjacked?
See these comments from residents not visitors. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/aug/18/residents-dcs-high-crime-neighborhoods-back-federal-takeover-city/
It's pathological because the central government depends on DC for basic services and police protection, and juries for trials relating to the federal government get drawn from there. Essentially, we've recreated the exact problem DC was created to avoid: The capitol being subject to a potentially hostile government.
There have been no issues with the federal government's ability to access anything they need, based on their relationship with the District government.
You're making up issues that do not exist.
And this performative military strut doesn't even pretend that's the issue.
Like they say, denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
There is in fact a very large problem with the local jury pool consisting of in excess of 90% members of one party, when the other party is the majority in government.
Uh boy, now El Vibrador is going to do his vibes thing again....
The jury pool issue is one you made up. The only evidence is you don't think Democrats can fairly be on a jury.
Again, that says a lot about YOUR ability to serve on a jury, but not anyone else's.
Of course that's a problem Congress can fix if it chooses.
Indeed, I've pointed that out myself: As DC is not a state, Congress is entitled to enact a statute modifying where DC juries are drawn from.
And should, to produce a jury pool for federal trials more representative of the country.
And should this idea be extended to red states, or are Trumpist free from those biases.
This whole BS notion arose when it looked like Trump might face trial in DC. The point was not serious, but just intended to have an excuse prepared if he was convicted. Because you and others have been hypnotized persuaded to think Trump can't possibly be guilty of anything.
And that's all it is, BS.
" should this idea be extended to red states,"
No GOP state, not even West Virginia, has the 92-8 split as DC does.
Most GOP states also have Dem controlled cities to provide balance on juries. Federal courts are based in those Dem cities.
A simple accounting error, intentional or not, is turned into 34 felonies. It was made a felony because Trump also committed another crime that doesn’t have to be proven or even agreed upon by the jury.
—Election fraud for hush money (no jurisdiction for NYC over federal elections) when the AUSA wouldn’t file charges.
—election fraud on state statutes (again no jurisdiction for a federal election
—Tax fraud for Cohen paying more taxes because the $150k wasn’t income (Trump also added money to cover the taxes)
Not mention Merchan allowed the prosecution to introduce new evidence IN CLOSING he previously barred—the conviction of Cohen.
Anyone who thinks this is the way justice should work has absolutely no business griping about Trump.
In fact, there was no accounting error, the books balanced just fine.
Rather, a payment to a lawyer was labeled as legal expenses, when Democrats thought it should have been labeled as a campaign expenditure. (Spoiler: If it had been, that would have been a campaign finance violation, instead.)
There wasn't even, as far as I know, any evidence presented that Trump personally directed that the expense be listed as a legal expense.
Democrats thought it should have been labeled as a campaign expenditure.
Of course it was a campaign expenditure, so that's hardly unreasonable, but that was not Trump's only criminal act.
I don't know why you guys are rehashing this talking lies yet again.
Rather, a payment to a lawyer was labeled as legal expenses,
False. A payment to a porn star was labeled as a retainer for legal services.
when Democrats thought it should have been labeled as a campaign expenditure. (Spoiler: If it had been, that would have been a campaign finance violation, instead.)
Is that your expert opinion as an election lawyer?
It was not listed as a legal expense, and there was absolutely evidence presented that Trump personally directed how it should be accounted for. He expressly discussed with Cohen how to hide it.
David, Trump didn’t pay the porn star. Cohen did with his own money. Maybe your argument would have a sliver truthfulness if Trump gave Cohen the money. He didn’t.
Yes, it must be true if Cohen said it. Never mind what the accountant said. Trust the convicted perjurer.
"And should this idea be extended to red states,"
It can't be. Red states are still states.
“A simple accounting error, intentional or not...” If the prosecution hadn’t prove it was intentional, Trump wouldn’t have been convicted because the prosecution was required to prove that the business records were falsified intentionally.
In fact, the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified business records (or caused them to be falsified) with the intent to conceal another crime. One of the reasons that New York makes falsifying business records a crime is that New York State uses business records to prosecute other crimes. So when Trump falsified business records with the intent to conceal another crime, he was on notice that he wasn’t merely committing a technical violation of the law; he was making a deliberate attempt to undermine one of the main purposes of the business records law. Your complaint that the state didn’t have to prove that the crime Trump was attempting to conceal had actually been committed misses the point. What matters is that Trump thought he was concealing another crime, regardless of whether he actually did.
“Merchan allowed the prosecution to introduce new evidence IN CLOSING he previously barred—the conviction of Cohen.”
Evidence is not introduced in closing; that’s not how trials work. The conviction of Cohen was introduced into evidence by Cohen testifying about it on May 14, starting on page 3611 of the transcript. You are apparently getting your information from someone who doesn’t know enough about the legal system to even come up with plausible lies about the trial.
He did, in fact. Do you think that if my coworker says, "I'm stopping at Starbucks; do you want me to get you anything?" that there's an economic difference whether
A) I give him my order, he brings me what I asked for, says, "That was $12.73," and I give him $12.73; or B) I give him my order, give him $12.73, and then he goes to Starbucks and picks it up and brings it to me?
Hint: no. Either way, I am the one paying, and Starbucks is the one getting paid.
The claim is not even true — only 76% of DC residents are registered Democrats — and once again you don't understand how trials work.
Who cares how they're registered? Look at how they vote.
Do you see the fallacy you're committing here?
What set is picked for jury duty, Brett?
Depends on the jurisdiction.
"Libertarian" is one of those open-ended labels.
So your theory is that with the federal government in control of the citizenry, they can be forced to think the way of whatever party is in charge at the time? Or is there some other connection between what's going on in DC and the problem you're describing that I'm missing?
That is not a "real problem," and it's entirely normal to see.
I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong if the US military is still "temporarily" stationed in Washington D.C. when the next Trump coup is attempted. I'm sure they'll do their best to allow peaceful protests...
Probably would, the problem being that the left seems to think setting cars on fire and smashing windows is an indispensable part of 'peaceful protests'.
Looks to me more like the right is willing to lie about violence and crime in order to justify police state shit.
Your delusions do not make you a less terrible libertarian.
Are you saying there's no serious crime and violence problem in D.C.?
Its like Mayberry in DC according to Sarcasto.
You've asked this of me a number of times. I've pushed back a number of times.
Yet again your false choice fallacious bad faith bullshit.
No it's not that at all. You said "the right is willing to lie about violence and crime in order to justify police state shit." So, what is the truth on this topic, according to you?
No, TP, for the fourth time.
Trump lying about a crime emergency doesn't require there be no crime.
Now fuck off with that argument forever.
I didn't say "no crime," I said "serious crime and violence problem." Don't change my words.
the problem being that the left seems to think setting cars on fire and smashing windows is an indispensable part of 'peaceful protests'.
Sorry to be rude, but this deserves nothing but a big "Fuck you." It's a brainless, nasty comment - based on pure visceral hatred.
How many windows were smashed at out nation's capital on January 6th again? Police beaten with clubs and fire extinguishers? How many of them died?
You seriously made that comment and didn't expect the most obvious counter example?
" How many of them died?" How about you tell us?
None.
Guess shawn can't be bothered by inconvenient truths.
Your side has spent the last 5 years complaining that President Trump didn't have the National Guard available on J6 and now you are complaining he might have them in DC the next tine there is a riot????
What is this 'might have them in DC' nonsense?
Does it occur to you that since you have to lie and ignore what's currently going on, you may be on the wrong side?
Let me see if I can help...
Trump supported the J6 rioting in 2021 because he thought it could help him retain power, but he probably wouldn't support rioting in 2028, because it would likely be in opposition to him retaining power.
Are you thinking that Trump has some sort of otherwise principled view on this?
So I was reading some news stories about this deployment of N.G. to DC and more than a few of them said DC is unique in that its national guard can be called out by the President whereas in the individual state's, the governor of each state can do it.
Imagine my surprise after reading so many commenters here blame Nancy Pelosi for Jan 6th. Huh. Maybe it was Mike Johnson who called them out after all and is too shy to take credit.
Other Republican-dominated states are sending their guard to DC to participate in...whatever it is they're claiming to be doing.
You definitely didn’t help. Trump didn’t “support[] the J6 rioting.” Also, Trump did offer NG support ahead of J6 and was rejected multiple times. And of course, we have no indication Trump will attempt to remain in power beyond the end of his term.
How about the obvious: this NG deployment has nothing to do with J6.
Trump didn’t “support[] the J6 rioting.”
Of course he did.
He did nothing for hours but watch TV.
He praised the insurrectionists after it was over.
When he took office he pardoned or commuted the sentences of about 1600 of them, as well as ordering pending charges against others dropped.
And of course, we have no indication Trump will attempt to remain in power beyond the end of his term.
I'd say his illegal efforts after the 2020 election were a pretty good indicator of that.
“Of course he did. He did nothing for hours but watch TV. He praised the insurrectionists after it was over.”
That’s not “supporting” a riot.
“I'd say his illegal efforts after the 2020 election were a pretty good indicator of that.”
You may not have liked his post-election activities - I definitely didn’t - but nothing was “illegal” much less indicative of a plot to ignore or override the next election. We definitely don’t need the hysterics to further muddle the situation and rile up the loonies.
What a narrow definition of support. I don't think that works in this context.
support verb sup·port sə-ˈpȯrt
2 a (1) to promote the interests or cause of (2) to uphold or defend as valid or right : advocate.
We definitely don’t need the hysterics to further muddle the situation and rile up the loonies. The road to authoritarianism is paved with people telling you to calm down.
Nothing says "support" like pardoning 1600 criminals, including people who beat police officers, for their actions. But I'd go farther and say this was "encouragement" for the next time. Break laws and assault police because Trump will make sure you're untouchable.
If he didn't, he picked a very strange way to show it.
Also, Trump did offer NG support ahead of J6 and was rejected multiple times.
He did not. It's a lie. He let his advisors know that they could use the NG to protect his supporters if necessary — he was obsessed by the imaginary antifa rather than the actual MAGA threat — and was told they weren't needed. Moreover, as current events show, nobody has the authority to "reject" the president's orders to the NG.
Right. No indication of any sort. I mean, it happened the last time he lost, but that is not any indication of what he would do when he lost again.
Wow! I didn’t know the capitol police chief was one of Trump’s cohorts when he asked SIX times if the NG could be present. He was told by the House Sergeant-at-Arms the optics weren’t good. Of course the Sergeant-at-Arms had to take it up with House Speaker—daddy war bucks Pelosi.
link text
David, you again resort to gaslighting or blatant lying when something doesn’t support your version of events.
As Jazzizhep linked, you’re wrong about Trump’s rejected offer of NG support ahead of J6.
You did the same when you stated Obama and Democrats didn’t claim Russia hacked the 2017 election. They frequently did, and with sanctimony.
And again when you claimed the FISA warrants weaponized to spy on Trump only had one tiny little defect. In truth, every one of them was knowingly defective when submitted. Boasberg, the FBI, Downer himself, et al, all confirm this.
And you lied about Jack Smith’s illegal appointment….
And we’ve seen your obtuse RussiaGate denialism, including how Brennan blatantly perjured himself multiple times.
Why are you denying things that are so easily verified? You share plenty of good legal background and information, but it seems to get lost amidst the denialism.
The law allows the President to do this.
So we finally found a place where Bill Kristol does not want to send US troops!
Rare instance of someone in Trump's America recording an SA raid without getting themselves arrested too. Presumably they were white.
https://bsky.app/profile/marisakabas.bsky.social/post/3lwjq7swly225
Full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=CBJWiLdNgxg
"SA"
Oh, a Nazi reference, how unusual!
If the shoe fits...
It looks like the Project 2025 have invented, or rather: re-invented, another euphemism for fascism: Americanism. Who could possibly be against the Smithsonian having more Americanism?
Well, about that. Funny story: https://bsky.app/profile/sethcotlar.bsky.social/post/3lwjkynxo6k2i
I voted for Project 2025 and it won.
I didn't even know it was on the ballot.
Did you vote to dismantle the US Constitution? Because that definitely wasn't on the ballot.
That was on the ballot in 2008 when I voted against it.
You voted for the same Project 2025 Trump disavowed? Huh.
Well, he disavowed it with a big "wink! wink! nudge! nudge!"
Meanwhile, the FTC is still not bothered about actually doing something to promote competition: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/08/ftc-chairman-applauds-revocation-biden-harris-executive-order-competition
(Free tip: read past the newspeak. In Trump world things like "tailored action, promoting economic growth, and ensuring that American workers benefit from competition for their labor" mean the opposite.)
Bloomberg Law is reporting that the Department of Justice is having trouble meeting its workload, what with hundreds of lawyers having resigned or been fired since Donald Trump took office as President and with the flood of civil suits challenging the administration's myriad lawless actions. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/doj-lawyers-show-strain-in-seeking-delays-to-defend-trump-orders?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
I suspect that the DOJ is now a very difficult place for a lawyer with a modicum of scruples and ethics to work. I don't envy those who are still there.
"...and with the flood of [meritless?] civil suits challenging the administration's myriad lawless actions." Part of the problem? Lawless, says who?
Lawless, says who?
I mean, Not guilty said it. His name's right there. Weird how you missed that.
He attributes it to a paywalled Bloomberg Law article.
Sniff, sniff...pity the poor lawyers at DOJ. They can leave if the work is too hard.
Good lord you're so blinded by spite you don't see what a burnt out DoJ means for this administration and all the lawsuits it's facing.
Every year, law schools graduate thousands of new lawyers. There are plenty of young lawyers to replace the bureau-drones who are crying about workload.
Sure, DoJ lawyers are interchangeable drones. And fresh law school graduates are federal litigation ready.
They'll manage....they are after all, possessors of a graduate level degree. Alternatively, a smaller DOJ is a DOJ less able to do legal mischief.
They'll manage
You don't want this.
It does make me wonder if I do - is there any downside in wishing the opposition has untalented inexperienced burned out representation? Like bad pleadings make bad law or something?
Otherwise, maybe I should be rooting for a DoJ of partisan-heads, burn-outs, and untalented failsons.
I don't know about your experiences, but your typical AUSA is heads and shoulders better than most other lawyers. They cannot be easily replaced by dingbats graduating from Josh Blackman's diploma mill.
Yeah, that will definitely make the problem better. Do you even think before you post this stuff?
They'd have just as much trouble meeting their workload if they were still working there, since they were employees who were unwilling to do the work.
By "do the work" would you include violating their oaths?
Well, obviously, if you think it violates your oath of office to provide legal services to the elected administration, you should resign the office. But they're not losing anything with you going, except getting to pay you for refusing to provide the services.
To be clear, I think a lot of these folks are confusing their oaths of office with their personal politics.
Good policy would be not to ask those working for you to tell the courts to fuck off, or otherwise do things that violate their oath in the first place.
And yet again you don't understand professionalism is a thing that exists.
There are plenty of shitty EO's. It's making sure they don't lead to chaos is important independent of their ideological alignment. That'll be litigated. So creating high-quality implementation guidance that is laid out clearly and includes all the authorities needed is something people do even when they disagree with the substance. You know, people who think being a civil servant has some priorities other than partisan politics.
Living in a republic means sometimes the political winds swing against you. If you have faith in that form of government, you need to believe that so long as you maintain your personal integrity, the arc of the universe bends towards justice.
It says a ton about your personal integrity that you think every Dem is a secret saboteur.
You're right....The shoe is on the other foot now (as I told you it surely would be).
Hurts, doesn't it. Get used to it.
No one talks like this in real life. You're like some badly written movie villain.
Every time I think you can't get lower you outdo yourself.
Sarcastro -- There is no phrase more trite, or false, than "the arc of the universe bends towards justice." It is emphatically the other way round. Justice is that rarest of circumstances, and appears -- if at all -- in brief spurts surrounded by vast eons of its absence. The arc of the universe, as anyone can tell you, tends toward entropy. It takes continuous energy, great skill and insight, and subtle balance to achieve it, however briefly. It is like spinning plates on poles.
The arc of the universe, as anyone can tell you, tends toward entropy.
And right now Trump is helping it along.
You got plenty of company in your cynical anti-hope place. Ta-Nehisi Coates agrees with you.
You seem to think the arc of the universe bending towards justice doesn't mean you gotta do the work. I'd ask you to examine who said that quote, and whether he was into letting the universe arc all by itself.
I'm a big fan of entropy as a concept. My favorite part of my favorite field - physics. But it has jack shit to do with sociology.
“You seem to think the arc of the universe bending towards justice doesn't mean you gotta do the work. I'd ask you to examine who said that quote, and whether he was into letting the universe arc all by itself.” _Sarcastr0
I take it you mean by that, that you think I think we are absolved of doing the work to make the world a better place. I do not. I find great wisdom and inspiration in the Jewish adage from the Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers): “You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it”.
And of course I recognize MLK’s rendition of the phrase, which added “moral” to Parker’s original formulation, “the arc of the [moral] universe is long…” I am familiar with Parker because I was raised as a Unitarian, in William Ellery Channing’s church in Baltimore. But I remain deeply skeptical about human affairs, at any distance in time, resolving in broad and enduring justice. Rather, I see moments of astonishing achievement in human affairs, like even Ancient Athens, Renaissance Florence, or the American political achievement of the late 18th century – as deeply flawed because we, we humans, are deeply flawed, and always will be.
Indeed, what King and Parker and Channing were in absolute agreement about is that mankind needed salvation because mankind is inherently unjust. They found that justice in mercy, grace, divine intercession and absolution, but that is on an individual basis. Not one of them anticipated that the universe would, at any remove, become just. I respect all persons of genuine faith, but I can perform exegesis as well as the next rational being. So, though I am not a Christian or member of any faith, I can reasonably conclude that even they would agree that if the universe were to become just, Christ would become unnecessary and Judgment Day would become, at a minimum, anti-climactic.
So, I return to my prior assertion: No, the moral arc of the universe does NOT bend towards justice, but it may be possible to be a just man, or to have – from time to time – relatively less unjust structures to human affairs. And then they’ll fall apart. And if we’re lucky, rise again, somewhere, for a period. No arc. No endpoint.
We can just grant special visas to white South African lawyers. Simples.
White people in a pro-crime drmonstation in DC.
https://x.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1956801739492868372?t=082shZZX4tQcE-QDMSi3Tw&s=19
There is actually more black people in this video made by a woman alone in her car talking about how much safer she feels in DC after just a few days of "Trump Law": "Finally able to chill at a red light with my windows down, not worried about if one of them young n—as is coming,” beaming TikTok user bigdawglexi said in the video, before sighing contentedly.
“Riding through the city, feeling more safe than I ever felt,” she said in the short clip, filmed inside her car at night."
https://nypost.com/2025/08/15/us-news/dc-woman-goes-viral-after-sharing-she-feels-more-safe-than-ever-in-capital-after-trumps-law/
I know someone is going to explain thats just an anecdote, but I don't care if it is, if just one woman feels safer out at night alone then I am happy for her.
But you are welcome to explain to her why its better for her to have to look over shoulder constantly when she goes out.
Not alone. See this from Maureen Dowd. https://nypost.com/2025/08/17/opinion/even-liberal-maureen-dowd-of-the-times-admits-dc-is-crime-ridden/
"Dowd summed things up, writing, “But progressives should not fall into Trump’s trap and play down crime, once more getting on the wrong side of an inflammatory issue. As with inflation, they should remember that personal experiences can count more than sanguine statistics.
“Even if Trump is being diabolical, Democrats should not pretend everything is fine here. Because it’s not.”
I think that the Free Beacon's Alana Goodman effectively proved the MPD's statistics are fraudulent -- they are redefining crimes so that they fall through loopholes in the FBI database, which also doesn't tabulate Juvenile crime.
Republicans voted for -Bush in 2004…Orwellian propaganda trumps reality.
Is there a reason you talk about George Bush more than any member of the Bush family does?
Experiences count more than statistics, because you personally know the experience was real, while for all you know the statistics are fake.
Yup, lawless enforcement against mere possibility of disorder has reliably commanded grass-roots fascist loyalty. See Italy and German pre-WW II for more like this.
Translation: Get off my lawn!
Whom do I believe? Black single mothers who have to live there, or a rich lawyer who doesn't?
Its pretty telling that the mayor quickly negotiated terms with the administration rather than suing, in DC, which would be a gigantic home court advantage.
"The city's attorney general Brian Schwalb said that his "expectation is the key issue with respect to control and command of our MPD has been resolved".
Judge Ana Reyes said that, under the act the Trump administration used to take over the police service, Washington DC Mayor Muriel Bowser must follow White House directives.
But she said it does not grant the administration full control of the police force."
The new order also directs the mayor's office to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement and enforcement related to the "unlawful occupancy of public spaces".
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2018769n1yo
Alternative version: it's pretty telling that the Trump administration backed down and didn't actually try to replace the police commissioner the second DC filed a lawsuit.
So complying with a ruling is now "backing down"?
There wasn't a ruling. There was a hearing. Legal arguments are ongoing.
After the hearing the Trump administration rescinded its own order attempting to replace the DC police commissioner. For some reason, Kaz thinks this is evidence DC has a weak legal posture.
As long as they follow Trumps directives to the letter their legal position is solid as a rock: "Judge Ana Reyes said that, under the act the Trump administration used to take over the police service, Washington DC Mayor Muriel Bowser MUST follow White House directives."
Um, do you see the reference to a judge in your quote? The mayor did sue. And Trump backed down.
Crime is only a “mere possibility” in DC. Who knew?
If only we cared as much about the crime-ridden shithole red states of Ohio, Louisiana, Tennessee and Missouri. Them governors there would love a federal takeover (or a little Guard action)
Those states aren't crime ridden. It's certain cities in them that are majority run by Democrats. Show me a crime ridden city and I'll show you a Democratic mayor.
I'm confused. So far, crime in California has been Newsome's fault. And crime in Illinois has been Pritzker's fault.
I didn't say that. And, it's Newsom, not Newsome.
If 'Newsome' and Pritzker have dominion/responsibility over their cities, then I would expect the same in hayseed states
US states with crime rates higher than NYC's* (671 / 100K):
- New Mexico (781) - Alaska (759) - Arkansas (645) - Louisiana (627) - Tennesee (622)
Oh, look. 4 out of 5 are solidly Republican with Republican governors. Anchorage, the most crime-ridden city in the second most crime-ridden state (and one of the worst cities for crime in America) currently has an Independent Mayor, but until 2024 the mayor was a Republican, and conveniently 2024 is when our most recent crime data is from.
* Last week Trump said he might need to take over NYC as well, so seems like a reasonable baseline.
Only two of the states you listed have higher crime rate than NYC (assuming your figures are correct).
Oof, you're right. I was eyeballing another chart that shows NYC's violent crime rate at 538 / 100K and then copied the data from another one which does show 671 / 100K. I actually don't know which one is the best comparator to the state data I was looking at.
Those other three states are either above or close to NYC's, though, and significantly higher than #6 (California, at 499 / 100K).
I know, right? Like, what is Georgia coming to when a father of 20 can't even commit armed robbery of bus passengers without the risk of being shot to death?
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/atlanta-dad-killed-shooting-b2807137.html
And if that means 20 other women are cowering in their homes because armed men are marching through the street looking for "troublemakers" or, really, just anything to break the boredom, that's okay too?
Looks like I'll be seeing this video again only it'll be labeled "FAFO" and Ms Lexi will be explaining how some uniformed asshole harassed her for being in the wrong neighborhood.
4chan is telling UK's Ofcom to stuff it after Ofcom said they are fining 4Chan for not giving a shit about the UK's new Online "saftey" Act, which was passed in an attempt to keep the UK government safe from its people.
https://x.com/prestonjbyrne/status/1956391746029428914?t=dJSCF4nWdBOdLIQH2OFeyQ&s=19
Oh, no! Whatever will Ofcom do now?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/part/7/chapter/6/crossheading/business-disruption-measures
What will become of the free speech rights of UK residents if they can no longer libel people on 4Chan?
What free speech rights? Herr Starmtrooper and company already did away with them.
Just remember, the SCOTUS recently okayed an even more extreme age gating regime than the UK just implemented. The Courts will hopefully continue to block things like the "illegal content risk assessment" like in this case - but the age gate part? That's coming to a state near you soon.
So age restrictions are worse than content restrictions ( with the government deciding what content is restricted)?
Age restrictions are content restrictions, just with veils and extra steps. You make it so expensive, inconvenient and legally difficult to run the age gated content, the amount of people able and willing to do it is reduced to a handful of easily bullied monopolies.
So reddit is currently heavily locking down the adult subreddits for uk users. It will likely do the same for US users as the bans spread. That's legacy content - so there's a resistance to removing it entirely. But do you think the next reddit would ever allow adult content if it entered an eco system where the age gate laws already exist?
And "adult content" includes any mention of LGBT people in some US states already.
Just remember, the SCOTUS recently okayed an even more extreme age gating regime than the UK just implemented.
An honest take would note that the Court declined to reinstate a PI that was stayed by an appeals panel. That's a far cry from having "okayed" the law.
But you do you.
Sure, that one too - which shows just how far the SCOTUS may go for this. Like the UK, that law had ambiguous protect children from harmful (and not even pornographic) material rules too. But I was actually talking about Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. For one example of strictness, the Texas law mandates "a government-issued identification” or “a commercially reasonable method that relies on public or private transactional data.” (i.e. a credit card). The UK law allows alternatives that don't require registering with the government to view your porn and includes more (though still inadequate) privacy safeguards.
People mistaking your intended referent is a hazard when you are so vague in your assertions. Your allegation of "an even more extreme age gating regime" fails on its face because the Texas bill, as you yourself quoted, does not require registration with the government. Your inclusion of privacy as a factor shows how UK law is a muddle: privacy is orthogonal to age and content restrictions, and appropriate privacy rules should already exist elsewhere in the legal or regularity framework.
Describing something as 'even more extreme' because it lacks privacy protections and includes a far sticker set of age verification measures is completely normal and appropriate. 'Register with the government' when read in context is obviously a reference to the primacy given to government issued ids in the US law.
Well, let's re-frame it this way, then: several Republican states have passed into law even more extreme age gating regimes than the UK just implemented.
Whats age gating?
He means laws that restrict minors access to porn( something that has been the law for decades now being applied to the internet). This is somehow worse than a citizen being told that they will face jail time for speech not approved of by the government ( say denouncing illegal immigration for example).
One of the things that is apparently totalitarian if the UK does it but cool if Texas does it.
One is a snowflake, the other an avalanche; nowhere near the same magnitude. I think the SC bungled the age-verification case though it pales in comparison to the content-based speech controls being rolled out in the UK. They’re commissioning “elite” speech monitoring units to root out and punish internet postings that counter official positions on topics like immigration. So no, not alike.
For decades selling porn to children has been against the law. For decades places that sell porn or provide adult entertainment have been required to ban minors from the premises. All age verification does is apply that same standard to the internet. For decades ( centuries really) the British could call their leaders wankers, tossers, schlupps and comment on matters of public interest. What the British are doing is tossing away those decades and centuries of rights because when you can't even criticize immigration policy you are not free.
So you don't like it when a government uses its power to punish people for saying the wrong things, eh?
"Whatever will Ofcom do now?"
Get sanctioned? That's actually a pretty remote possibility, but not zero.
Of course they will make Internet service providers block access to 4chan, and do the censorship themselves because 4chan won't do it for them. At least for people that don't have a VPN.
Funny how you believe the UK govt only wants to stop libel.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921
They also take issue with posting the lyrics of rap songs.
A lie designed to force revelation of speakers, for sinister purposes.
Any forced de-anonymization is sinister.
Didn't the SC rule at one point part of free speech is the right to speak anoynymously?
Stop building the tools of tyranny using facetious cover stories.
Sorry. UK doing something right for a change. Banning 4chan is a public service.
I have followed and commented on the VC for many years, not sure how many. I am a former professional journalist. In all that time, I doubt I have contributed even one syllable of journalistic content. Just opinion.
In that respect, I count myself among essentially all of the VC commenters. If any among them practice journalism, they have kept it well hidden. My point is simple. Internet publishing has displaced journalism throughout this nation. It has done nothing to replace what it displaced.
You seem to have missed the fact that most "journalistic content" today is in fact only opinion.
I'm sorry for you that you don't seem to understand the difference between inconvenient facts and opinion.
In my experience it's newspaper editors who suffer from that confusion.
You have relevant experience, Bellmore? Pray tell? Tell us all about the journalism you practiced. The editing responsibilities fulfilled. The commercial successes, and prestigious journalistic awards.
You claim more insight into government malfeasance than anyone else I ever encountered, so you must have a lot to work with. What have you dug out?
"You have relevant experience, Bellmore? "
Of course. Most of us have been consuming journalism our entire lives.
Consuming journalism is not the relevant category. Skills to make journalistic contributions, and to conduct publishing activities, are the relevant categories. Bellmore lacks those, or if he has them, does not deploy them on this blog.
I used to, as a sort of hobby, take the Detroit Free Press seriously about their claim to correct all errors of fact. And engaged in lengthy correspondence with their editor, Joe Stroud.
I'd identify an error in their coverage, document it, and send it in to them. Repeatedly.
Spoiler, which is not really a spoiler to anybody who has consumed US newspapers: No, they did NOT correct all errors of fact.
Still waiting for the NYT and Wapo to return their" Pullitzers" for Russiagate "reporting".
Why? Trump still hasn't identified a single fact in any of the articles for which the Pulitzers were awarded that was false.
Are you serious? Here are just two of the many blatant lies:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html
“ American intelligence agencies have concluded with ‘high confidence’ that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.l
This is a lie; the NSA and career CIA analysts disagreed. Even Brennan contradicted it in his book.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html
“During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton. About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.”
This is not only completely unsourced, it’s a lie per the FBI and Alexander Downer himself.
Are you serious? Here are just two of the many blatant lies: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html “American intelligence agencies have concluded with ‘high confidence’ that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.l
“American intelligence agencies have concluded with ‘high confidence’ that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.l
Only trouble is, even if you were correct, the NYT didn't win a Pulitzer Prize for that article, so it has nothing to do with this discussion.
No, it's not; the only dispute is whether the word "emails" was explicitly mentioned or just implied. And since Papadopoulos himself admitted telling others about them, it's a lot more plausible that he told Downer about them than that Downer made the whole thing up as part of an international conspiracy to get Trump.
You’re repeating a lie. I’ll assume you’ve been duped by the NYT rather than intentionally attempting to mislead.
From Durham’s report: “Notably, the information in Paragraph Five does not include any mention of the hacking of the DNC, the Russians being in possession of emails, or the public release of any emails. In addition, when interviewed by the Office, Downer stated that he would have characterized the statements made by Papadopoulos differently than Australian Diplomat- I did in Paragraph 5. According to Downer, Papadopoulos made no mention of Clinton emails, dirt or any specific approach by the Russian government to the Trump campaign team with an offer or suggestion of providing assistance. Rather, Downer's recollection was that Papadopoulos simply stated ‘the Russians have information’ and that was all.”
Page 53 of https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf
Here is Downer confirming Durham’s account: https://x.com/alexanderdowner/status/1870026242914927009?s=61
Because you’ll probably true to misconstrue the statement “Papadopoulos simply stated ‘the Russians have information’ and that was all,” that assertion was broadcast on Fox News the day before Papadopoulos met with Downer: https://x.com/hansmahncke/status/1205930771346862083?s=61
So the NYT’s account was virtually completely wrong, not just about the word “emails.” FBI leadership knew Paragraph 5 of the Australian diplomat’s account was vague and likely incorrect but plowed ahead anyway, using it as a pretext to spy on Trump’s campaign rather than fully assess the veracity of Paragraph 5.
Additionally, Jeff Gerth of the CJR dismantled the Times’ story. He documented how Joseph Mifsud, Papadopoulosk alleged source, denied ever having any information from the Russians, did not work with the Russians, and never offered information to Papadopoulos. The NYT curiously omitted his denials whereas other papers, even WaPo, quoted him.
On the FBI side, Andrew McCabe of all people testified before Congress in Dec 2017 that the “Papadopoulos comment didn’t particularly indicate that he was the person that had had—that was interacting with the Russians.” So they didn’t even believe it, but plowed ahead anyway.
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-3.php
And of course, the active collusion between the media and Democrats/corrupt FBI/CIA/DNI leadership, as documented by the CJR, invalidates the legitimacy of the NYT and WaPo’s Pulitzers.
Maybe you should write to the Pulitzer Committee, instead of posting here.
I’m sure the Pulitzer Committee is fully aware. Its lack of action completely undermines its legitimacy.
Have you read the CJR report?
I did read the CJR report when it came out. I have not read it recently, but I remember being thoroughly unimpressed in places and thinking it was clearly wrong in others.
No offense, but you’re as credible here as you are on all the other RussiaGate-related topics where you’ve been thoroughly debunked.
Absent specific proven errors, I believe the CRJ’s analysis and conclusions.
Or maybe it's you who do.
You are not known for your objective views.
Yes. Any fact that displeases Bumble he dismisses as opinion. Convenient.
Was this some sort of 'coming out' post, lathrop?
Lathrop, this is what happens when virtually all “journalists” actively collude with one political party to disseminate partisan agitprop.
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-ed-note.php
You think gatekeeping is journalism.
But as for your journalism cred I am still gobsmacked by your saying you don't have any idea on how to find data like treasury reports that are sent out in a blast press release monthly, and that you wouldn't be able to do even cursory analysis of the data if you could find them.
Not what I said.
Stephen, I am afraid that is correct. Especially newspaper journalism has lost a sound business model on which to operate. One root cause is the overwhelming public sentiment that all content should be free.
Nico, the overwhelming public sentiment that all content should be free is not even slightly a problem for the newspaper business model, when that model gets adapted to internet publishing. Use of the internet typically cuts by more than half the gross expenses associated with a legacy newspaper-style business model. Costs for paper and printing go to zero. Distribution via the internet is far less costly than distribution of physical newspapers.
Those advantages far more than offset absence of subscription revenue. They are great enough to put on a sound financial footing a free-news business model using legacy reporting and editing techniques. Advertising sales could pay all the bills, while enabling handsome profits.
Given that, what has actually crippled legacy newspaper publishing? Public policy has done it. The reckless decision by an uninformed Congress to enable publishing without prior editing did it. It was the passage of Section 230, one of the most consequential blunders ever made in Congress.
No publishing business model which relies upon editing prior to publication can compete on an even footing with rivals empowered by law to ignore editing, and publish world-wide without fear of consequences whatever lies, false libels, frauds, etc., it suits anonymous would-be contributors to supply.
I think that ought to be obvious, but please take my word for it. I have discovered by trying that business reasoning about publishing models is too complicated for a forum such as this one.
The audience here comes highly motivated to deny facts they know nothing about. To the extent that audience represents public sentiment generally, it means it will take long frustration, at great cost to the public life of the nation, before any better-informed policy will get political backing needed to enact a correction.
But America's currently-mistaken polity shows no signs of giving up its utopian ambition. It continues to demand that government—not the free market—give to every individual a world-wide publishing power greater than even today's social media oligopolists can command for themselves. And those are the most powerful publishers the world has ever seen.
Paradoxical insistence that every American must have personal publishing power broader than Mark Zuckerberg's, or Elon Musk's, remains obviously ridiculous. But goes unnoticed by people who know nothing of the constraints Zuckerberg and his ilk must manage their way around. Which they now attempt to do by ever-greater reliance on government.
It is a terrible situation. It is costing this nation dearly. It shows no sign of ending soon.
A question for all the lawyers (and judges) who graduated law school before 1990. (The web actually was invented in 1993 but there were earlier technologies such as FTP and a growing effort to put statutes and decisions on line.)
Do you agree that (A) the majority (>51%) of your law degree involved how to look things up in the paper books of the era, including how to understand and follow Shepard's notes, AND hence (B) that portion of your legal education has been rendered irrelevant by the Web and the searchable resources on it?
I was trained as a paralegal in the 1980s, and I used that to do my doctoral research which -- as it involved proving that a certain statute had never existed -- had to be done via the methods of the 1920s and not today. And while law schools may still teach this stuff, in general, does anyone need to know it anymore?
Has AI *already* made the legal profession somewhat irrelevant?
1987 law school graduate here. Looking up things in law books -- or more particularly knowing how and where to look -- was an essential skill, but it was a minor part of legal education of the day.
And no, it has not been rendered irrelevant. Knowing how and where to find applicable law is still at the heart of legal research. Granted, it can be done more efficiently and quickly online.
At least until the AI ification of search gets too far.
As a chemistry student much of my work involved looking things up in paper documents. Starting with indexes and working back to journals. Then Zeroxing the articles and marking up the copies. Today I can just do research with Google Scholar, then word search articles. Quite a change.
I like to follow up your question with another. Today's Goggle searches end in a AI summary. Wondering do people trust the summary and stop there or do they go back to into the search to find an actual article. I read the AI summaries but don't yet trust them enough to no look farther into the search. I late sixties and still need to see the source article.
And lawyers wouldn't get burnt by AI if they did that...
I am working on an article about what Higher Education, if it survives, will look like 50-75 years from now. I started with the memory that I didn't get the grade in a class that I could have because I couldn't afford the 20 gallons of gasoline it would have cost me to drive to a library 120 miles away (my 1973 model Oldsmobile got 12 MPG).
And I've gone from there to what is a university when it is no longer a bunch of building surrounding a building full of paper books.
I will gladly arrange to pay you $100 if you post your 'article' here!
The Google AI summaries are a useful starting point. I have found the referenced materials highly useful to elaborate and clarify information. But even they are only a starting point.
I am several years after the date in question, but — unlike Dr. Ed — actually knowing something about the topic, I can assure him that, no, the majority of a law school education was not spent learning the very simple skill of looking things up in books.
I was trained as a paralegal in the 1980s, and I used that to do my doctoral research which -- as it involved proving that a certain statute had never existed
And yet your dissertation involved completely made-up statutes! Just like your anecdote.
Hey, CA's planned gerrymandering maps are out!
https://www.kcra.com/article/california-proposed-congressional-maps-redistricting/65795155
I especially like how the new CA-2 stretches from the far northeast of the state, all the way down to just above San Francisco. More than 6 hours in the car, and 400 miles away.
Gavin must have been talking to his buddies in Illinois.
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-extreme-risk-of-gerrymandering-becomes-reality-through-congressional-map/
About what I expected. Since California was already gerrymandered by the 'commission', any more extreme gerrymander would have to be pretty blatant.
Seriously, I'd love to see some real legal protection against gerrymandering, but it would have to be objective, and Democrats would lose at least as much from getting rid of gerrymandering as Republicans would, maybe more.
I don't think we'd presently be seeing this mid-decade redistricting plan, if the Census hadn't been so badly bungled; An accurate census would have given Republicans a comfortable majority in Congress.
Since California was already gerrymandered by the 'commission'
It's one of the most successful scams pulled off by Democrats in recent years.
UT what are the legal implications of Newsom stating a motive?
Could a GOP majority refuse to seat the CA delegation? That almost led to a shooting war in Augusta, ME back in the year Maine had two legislatures and three governors.
None whatsoever. The answer hasn't changed since last week when you asked this question.
Could a GOP majority refuse to seat the CA delegation?
No.
Special pleading.
You ignore or even approve of Texas, but you get mad at the blue states.
Even Brett at least gestures at broader reform. (Though he has a census alternate fact on top of it so you know it's Brett)
Gaslighting.
You ignore and even approve of the dozen of blue states, while you cherry pick your anger at Texas.
Be a better person.
It's hardly an "alternate fact' that the Census was bungled. They came right out and admitted it.
And the effect on the composition of Congress was pretty big, it's been estimated that it flipped maybe 8-9 seats in the House in favor of the Democrats.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to government procedures. But you'll read something and go off.
The census always has a disparity between the absolute count and a statistical one.
You have a technical background, you should know of course that's true.
I sometimes wonder about your scientific bona fides.
It’s not why there is a difference that is the problem. The problem is;
Five of the six states that were undercounted were Republican held
Six of the eight states that were overcounted were democrat held
The governor of Illinois, at the rogue Texas representatives news conference last week, was asked point blank by a journalist, what's up with Illinois' grotesquely blue-weighted districts?
"The People of Illinois are pleased with our policies, and so keep electing us!"
The term "bald-faced liar" comes from disreputable folk shaving their beards, presumably to hide their faces later after committing crimes.
When writing, sometimes I just have a myoclonic jerk to suddenly switch to a completely different, fully unrelated topic.
Yes, Sarcastr0, the census always has a disparity, it was just FREAKING HUGE this time. 5-6%.
Ah.
So an arbitrary threshold after which you decide it's bad.
IOW, outcome-oriented vibes.
I want a statistically performed census myself. But that doesn't mean our current system is suddenly illegitimate because it doesn't get to the same answer.
"I want a statistically performed census myself."
"actual Enumeration " and "counting the whole number of persons" requires an actual count, not "estimate".
Stats, properly done, are amazingly accurate. An open and transparent survey would be a superior system to what we have now.
But that's not what the Constitution says, you're right on that.
Brett thinks this means the Census was badly done.
He's right. But so are you.
I think a 5-6% discrepancy between the actual count and the statistical check demonstrates a big screw up.
I don't know which diverged worse from ground reality, but at least one of them did, and to an inexcusable degree. Neither counting nor statistical estimates should have enough play for that big a gap between them.
My point is that this demonstrated Census screw up is why we're seeing midterm redistricting: It provides excuse enough to think the Census cheated them of seats.
Yes, we know you like to appeal to arbitrary 'number was big' and do no more work. Just the most unscientific nonsense.
You have no evidence of a screw up. No sign of negligence at all. You have no theory, just an arbitrary threshold and an insistence the hard thing must equal the scientific shortcut to be deliberate.
IOW your 'should' is a lazy ass-pull, and you don't want to do the homework.
The Constitution, as Bob notes, disagrees.
Your point about an excuse is revealing as to your motives for setting your threshold and asserting a requirement. You want to say the Census is illegitimate.
As you do. Making things up is your prefered method to apologize for MAGA abuse.
Of course I have evidence of a screw up: The count and the statistical check didn't match!
And you can say, "arbitrary threshold", but the Census Bureau said, "statistically significant".
I've been consistent in saying this: Because politics involves groups who don't trust each other or assume each other's good will, it's not enough that counts be accurate, that there be no cheating, you need to convince people who are predisposed to think they were cheated that there was no cheating.
That's why you don't just refrain from stacking the deck, you allow the other guy to cut the cards. Because the moment you refuse to allow the cards to be cut, the other guy is morally certain you stacked the deck, whether or not you actually did. Because what other rational reason would you have for refusing to cut the cards?
Here the Census put out numbers which could be reasonably interpreted to mean that identifiable states got shorted on apportionment, and other identifiable states got excess seats. That's bad enough, but the discrepancies weren't random, they almost uniformly favored one party.
So, maybe a scientist from another planet would demand further evidence before concluding that the Census was rigged, but human beings on the losing side of the discrepancy certainly wouldn't, and would go looking for ways to compensate for the 'rigged Census'.
And that is why we're seeing mid decade redistricting: Because the Census gave people an excuse to think it had been rigged.
The Constitution says do it in a way that is suboptimal since we now know how to do statistical magics.
That doesn't mean it was done badly. This is what the Constitution asks for.
You, with zero evidence of such, have decided that there must be some negligence, or even a conspiracy of liberals. You never do the work to support your speculated reasons behind what you observe, you just decide that is the only possible reason.
Hard method being hard and not getting to the same answer as easier more modern method is what it is, and nothing more.
the Census was rigged See you were more careful arguing it was just badly done. Here you are, of course, with the conspiracy theory. In service, of course of Texas' actions being OK.
Instrumentalizing paranoia to rationalize your partisan lack of standards...what a sad way to be.
Sorry Brett, you are doing it again, "it" being:
A. Assuming a conspiracy against all that is good and just (i.e., the GOP) rather than human error.
B. Defending what Texas is doing as justified retaliation for your imagined plot. Do you honestly believe Texas wouldn't be doing this but for those errors? And how does this compensate anyway? No state is losing or gaining seats.
you need to convince people who are predisposed to think they were cheated that there was no cheating.
In the case of Trumpists at least, this is impossible - demonstrably so. Your idea simply amounts to counting over and over again, until one count finally favors the GOP. Then you quit. Not a very good stopping rule.
"Sorry Brett, you are doing it again, "it" being:
A. Assuming a conspiracy against all that is good and just (i.e., the GOP) rather than human error."
Good God, do you not comprehend the difference between, "If you refuse to cut the cards, the guy will the losing hand will think you stacked the deck" and "He's right to think you stacked the deck"?
Here I am trying to explain how human psychology works, and you're insisting I'm defending it as right!
Gerrymandering is a bipartisan abuse neither side should be engaged in, whatever their excuses. I'd like to see it banned. But it helps to understand what's motivating it, I think.
Here I am trying to explain how human psychology works
You demand to be indulged. I'd almost call this bad faith, because you of all people.
Appeasement doesn't work on zealots.
No one who has strapped on the tin foil will ever be convinced.
Example: Remember the birthers? I expect you sure do! No kowtowing to them mattered.
Your 'psychology' is 'satisfy Brett.' Just like BrettLaw and BrettHistory.
What Brett is also ignoring, though I've pointed it out here on multiple occasions, is that Bill Clinton's census bureau tried to use statistical sampling to make the 2000 census more accurate, and Republicans (successfully) sued to stop it.
More of your VIBES crappola. You don't like the facts, you just talk about vibes and goalposts and disregard them. That is so dishonest.
"You ignore or even approve of Texas, but you get mad at the blue states."
Well, let's look at the math.
California currently has 9 Republican Representatives. That's out of 52 total. Or 17% of its delegates. There's a certain amount of "soft" gerrymandering already going on there.
Texas currently has 12 Democratic representatives. Out of 38 total. Or 31% of its delegates are Democrats. Far, far more proportional than California.
If Texas, hypothetically, arranged things so that 5 of those Democratic seats went GOP, it would then have 18% of its Representatives be Democrats. Which...is more than California currently has. Texas would just be "matching" the current CA distribution.
So, California needs to "respond", with a "Hard" Gerrymander? To drive down the percentage of ITS delegation that is the other party to just 8%?
This ignores the massive hard gerrymander than other Democratic States (MD, IL) currently have.
(Oh, FYI, a "soft" versus a "hard" gerrymander. A soft gerrymander is a choice made that could reasonably have been done for "compactness" reasons. It just happens to seem to favor what you want. If two equal choices could be made....better to make the choice that helps you. The hard gerrymander says "to hell with reasonable choices, skew the district to do what you need to."
What arbitrary speculative line drawing is this?
What a shit attempt to rationalize being a tool with no principles or consistent standards.
Have some shame.
Shitposter like you talking about having some shame is hilarious. Douche in uno, douche in omnibus.
Armchair's math seems correct, care to point out the error? California D's have a 2:1 advantage in party registration but an almost 5:1 advantage in congressional representation. Does that not suggest gerrymandering to some extent?
It’s the line drawing. Who the fuck cares how many units of gerrymander there might be in TX vs. CA. If you are condemn one, you must condemn the other to be consistent.
Or explain why you drew your line in such a convenient place.
Or just be revealed as an inconsistent partisan tool.
Armchair's math seems correct, care to point out the error?
To start with, CA is more heavily (D) than TX is (R), so there's that. (Trump got 56.9% of the Trump-Harris vote in TX, Harris got 60.4% in CA.)
That doesn't account for the whole difference, of course.
Another problem is that breaking the electorate up into districts tends to exaggerate the partisan split in the state. This is in fact a big weakness in FPTP voting for legislature. Districts aren't drawn randomly, so it's not as bad as it could be, but if you don't draw them randomly then all sorts of manipulation and gamesmanship rear their head.
This is bizarre. If you look at California's districts, they're largely contiguous or follow geographic barriers like mountains and rivers. The majority of Californian's live by the coasts where you'll see groupings of smaller districts and large, wide ones East. The Eastern, agricultural areas are deep red while the more populous areas are largely blue (though San Diego always stands out here). This is in keeping with the patterns of the rest of the country.
Your outrage might be more believable were it not for the total lack of other gerrymandered states.
Take a wild guess at which are the coloreds only districts of Louisiana in this image. Then get back with me on blue state gerrymandering
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/new-louisiana-congressional-map-with-two-majority-black-districts-heads-to-governor/
It figures that hobie would blame a state government for complying with federal court orders to gerrymander in favor of Black voters.
You've already had it pointed out to you that those two districts absolutely were gerrymandered: They're VRA court mandated racial gerrymanders to ensure black districts.
I'd love to get rid of gerrymandering, entirely. Can't be done while the courts are mandating that gerrymandered districts be created. We may soon find out if the Supreme court is ready to put an end to court ordered gerrymandering.
You really should read replies to your posts. You posted the same thing on Friday. If you had read them, you wouldn’t have posted the same stupid thing twice.
I am sure Republicans would love to fold those long Dem districts by NOT GERRYMANDERING into Republican districts.
You people don't seem to understand how gerrymandering works. If all the neegroes in the three big cities were properly coupled with their white neighbors, Louisiana's entire congressional delegation would be black. But by stringing together all the neegro cities you keep them neegroes at just two districts.
They do the same thing in Alabama so that all the neegroes get just one district. Look at that district #2. All the dirty neegroes in Mobile and Montgomery got strung together. Were they properly paired with whitey...well, you get the picture (no you don't)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama%27s_congressional_districts#/media/File:Alabama_Congressional_Districts,_119th_Congress.svg
Louisiana as a whole has a PVI of R+11. That includes all the African Americans. What that means is that you cannot get Louisiana's "entire congressional delegation" to be Democrats (or "African American as you imply). The math doesn't work. There are just more Republican voters in LA than Democrat voters.
Louisiana is also only 32% African American. There are just more White people in LA than African Americans.
(This all of course falls into the stereotypes that African Americans will always vote for African Americans, and will always vote Democrat. It's erroneous to say that with certainty. But, if you're thinking as Hobie does, then it's a good shorthand).
RussiaGate is real—Bush Republicans that Obama and Trump foolishly appointed orchestrated a coup to remove Trump and install Pence. People don’t understand the previous impeachments as Republicans wanted to replace Johnson with a Republican because no VP was appointed. Republicans successfully removed Agnew and got Ford installed as president. And Gingrich believed he could remove Clinton and Gore and he would be installed as president. Gingrich’s PhD is in European politics and he understood that people would accept him as president like Europeans accept parliamentary maneuvering….remember Liz Truss?? I actually remember her more than the next guy!
Tearing down protest signs is not law enforcement:
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/dmv-immigration/ice-immigration-dc-washington-mount-pleasant/65-d3517d58-d9e1-4f47-974b-e8ad4575a4d4
Quit claiming it's some anti-crime initiative. ICE is acting as much like a gang taking over a city as any cartel.
You're having an attack of the vapors b/c law enforcement removed a homemade sign with profane language.
Yeah, definitely end of Republic stuff.
What a clown.
ICE is doing worse things, but this was just so purely anti-rights I thought it was notable.
You, as cheerleaders do, ignore the principle to try and pivot to consequentialism. Just like if I talked about the consequences of what ICE was doing, you would argue those people don't have rights.
There is nothing this regime would do that you'd object to. The irony of you becoming such a Good German but for MAGA continues to be one of the wonders of this commentariat.
Yeah, taking down a homemade sign with profane language in a public park is definitely Republic ending stuff!
Oh....the horror.
It's the exact sort of things that would NOT happen were ICE what the left claims it is because a true fascist leader would not tolerate this. Makes him look bad.
This was just young men not properly supervised. Hang around a college for a while and you'll understand.
Dr. Ed is dumb, but he's impressive in how dumb he is. "True fascists don't engage in censorship because it makes them look bad."
Isn't that content-related censorship by federal police?
The man will never learn because he prefers not to learn.
Tearing down protest signs absolutely can be law enforcement, if the sign isn't legal.
The First Amendment: a thing that exists.
Brett: the worst libertarian.
The first amendment: A thing that doesn't make it legal for you to post a sign on somebody else's property.
Would they have torn it down if it was supportive of the government?
It seems easy to check whether the police left any pro-government signs in place.
Is that the legal standard?
Is it unconstitutional, for example, for a cop to remove an illegally placed sign that says, “Niggers are stoopid” without removing other signs? I don’t know the answer, but it might be nice if people making first amendment claims provided some analysis.
Are you really going to argue that ICE was motivated by their concern for property rights?
Or will you have the integrity to admit this was anti-viewpoint?
Also I’m sure that means he thinks governments can disarm him whenever he’s on someone else’s property!
I am not speaking to the ICE's motives, but only the question of whether illegally posted signs are 1st amendment protected. Yeah, they probably wouldn't have torn it down if it had read, "Yay, ICE, Yay"; Somebody ELSE would have torn it down, instead.
I’m not speaking of Trumps motive shooting that guy, but sometimes trespassing allows that kind of thing.
In the end who are we to condemn?
ICE simply wants to protect people from illegals.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-michigan-town-clamped-down-on-its-wineries-now-it-owes-them-49-million/ar-AA1KEnSl
The legal regime that the court struck down in this town seems to be the kind that a lot of the leftists here would support: vast government discretion for a vibe-based but vague purpose.
So you care about heavy handed, vibe based government hurting American wineries do you?
https://nypost.com/2025/08/14/business/us-booze-exports-to-canada-fall-more-than-60-amid-boycott/
That headline where Hochul pardoned an illegal alien convicted murder so he wouldn't be deported should make every America sick to their stomach whenever they hear a Democrat speak.
The bad news for Hochul is that despite paying a political price for the pardon, the killer will still be deported. New York criminal laws don't determine who gets deported or not.
NYT's hopelessly slanted article on the topic:
https://archive.ph/aQXvj
You are, of course, incorrect. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(vi).
So you don't like violent criminals getting pardons for political reasons, eh?
You mean the dude who served his sentence and had been out of jail for 22 years? Oh the horror.
Nazis lie: film at 11. The guy was not an illegal alien.
“We’re going to get your energy prices down. We’re going to get your energy prices down by 50%.” 8/17/24 PBS NewsHour, Trump speaks at campaign rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania
Electricity prices are climbing more than twice as fast as inflation
https://www.npr.org/2025/08/16/nx-s1-5502671/electricity-bill-high-inflation-ai
In NJ, our electricity is skyrocketing. The cause? P{hailing Phil Murphy, who closed power plants w/o viable replacements.
If you artificially lower supply like the buffoon governor of NJ managed to do, prices will go up. This same buffoon killed thousands of elderly nursing home patients during the pandemic when he sent covid+ patients to nursing homes.
That 'electrical short circuit' may elect Jack, whose signs I am seeing more and more of in North Jersey.
I was hoping he could get them down by at least 1500%.
I put 200 rounds through my Smith/Wesson Bodyguard 2.0 this weekend. What a great pistol. Good shooter. Fits my large mitts. And, in an Uncle Mike's soft pocket holster, fits well in my pocket. Very convenient to carry if you're going somewhere quickly. Especially in shorts and t-shirt. Gonna have the wife shoot it this coming weekend. If she likes it, I'll get one for her, too.
.380?? you might need that many (rounds) OK, I carried a .380 for awhile back in the 80's (an AMT "Backup" it was marketed as a .380 with the size of a 25 Auto) Carried it a whole summer doing a Rotation at Univ of Louisville (On Moe-hammad Ali Blvd, now I can understand that being a violent area) where it was just too hot to conceal a .357 I still carry my East German Makarov in 9mmx18, more as a "Throwback" and I love how a pistol designed for East German Police is protecting me in Dumfuck Mississippi
The personal defense ammo in .380 is pretty good stuff nowadays. Plus the 12 round magazine in a gun that size is pretty impressive.
I wouldn't want to be shot with one
Don't think I'd want to be shot with a .17 cal bb. It could put your eye out.
Governors of three states — Ohio, South Carolina and West Virginia — are sending members of their state National Guards to D.C….
The FBI reported that fully 43 cities in those three states had higher rates of violent crime in 2024 than did D.C. More than 1.2 million people live in those cities, including more than 900,000 in Ohio alone. Yet that state’s National Guard is being deployed to D.C. to protect the capital’s 700,000-odd residents. Half a million Ohioans live in cities with higher homicide rates than D.C. Unfortunately for them, they won’t get to see National Guard troops on their streets — just on their TVs, standing around outside the Lincoln Memorial.
Or maybe the lesson here is that this isn’t really about crime at all.
https://www.pbump.net/o/more-people-in-ohio-need-protection-from-violent-crime-than-do-people-in-d-c/
It never was. The lesson here is to never let a crisis go to waste.
The thing is there really is not a crisis. Crime is always out there but more noticeable in big cities. President Trump is willing to put troops in Washington DC but does not bother that a nutcase sprayed the CDC building with bullets. Do I worry about crime? Not too much because I can avoid bad areas. I can not avoid a nut case shooting up where I work, shop, or pray. But of course that is not a crisis.
Tell the families of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim crime in DC isn't a problem. Oh, is there something about their background that matters?? that makes their murders less important than that Wife Beating Drug Addict Floyd George overdosing on the Fent-a-nol? The Capital Jewish Museum is a 1/2 mile from the US Capitol (I know, a "Bad Area" (it shouldn't be)
Frank your case is exactly what I am suggesting Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim were targeted because they were Jewish. The same way people are targeted because they are black and in the local grocery. Or because they work for the CDC. The average person who is not out at bar time, doesn't get involved in drug deals and who know what areas of the city to avoid at night very likely does have to worry too much about crime. They do have to worry about nut jobs.
Even in the US, suffering death by homicide is statistically very rare.
Statistically, people should probably worry more about dying in a motor vehicle accident. That's about twice as prevalent as dying in any kind of homicide. (Also, don't have a gun: suicide is also twice as common.)
“The Capital Jewish Museum is a 1/2 mile from the US Capitol”
One thing this guy clearly doesn’t know about is capitals.
No one said you can't manufacture a crisis.
There are plenty of moral panics that an unscrupulous politician can exploit for maximum political benefit.
What's new here is that people think that this is a new trick. Biden's administration tried to go after Catholics, parents who disagreed with transgender orthodoxy, 'white supremacists' and others.
Go after =\= calling out the National Guard. Good grief.
Today I learned that Malika thinks that political persecution is OK, but calling out the National Guard is not.
Good grief.
" does not bother that a nutcase sprayed the CDC building with bullets"
A single episode. The perp was killed. What was Trump suppose to do?
Send troops? Like he did in DC over one carjacking.
196 carjackings in DC this year, not one. How many CDC shootings in Atlanta?
He sends troops to LA, you oppose, now you say he should have sent to Atlanta.
People might conclude you are not serious. Not me, people.
I oppose sending troops everywhere. But it’s obvious he doesn’t care about crime writ large because he picks and chooses his targets based on political messaging not like where resources would make a positive impact. Taking FBI agents to do beat cop work in DC means that a lot of CSAM isn’t going to be investigated for instance. You’re not addressing crime, you’re owning the libs.
My girlfriend or daughter getting home safely matters to me.
If it's taking a hundred FBI agents off CSAM so that she is safe on her ride home on the METRO, I'm all for it because while I have sympathy for victims of CASM in a generic sense, my girlfriend or daughter is someone whom I personally care about.
Remember what Stalin said about one death being a tragedy, while a million are merely a statistic.
That’s your take on the Stalin quote?
Conservative populism, folks!
Unless that whore has sex, and then she deserves to be raped and killed, amirite?
Seems like Trump sent the troops only after a single event involving one of his “MAGA boys.”
Why is an obviously unstable individual with no discernible talents other than being a freak on Twitter allowed to call the Secretary of State and get visas cancelled?
https://newrepublic.com/post/199059/laura-loomer-bill-maher-defamation-deposition
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/16/us/politics/gaza-visitor-visas-medical-trump-loomer.html
It's called being a "Whistle Blower" These future Terrorists can get their medical care in Egypt, Iran, or a really Moose-lum Nation, like France or Belgium.
“Why is an obviously unstable individual with no discernible talents other than being a freak”
Too on the nose that the Fakeman character is the first response?
The Back to the Future Trilogy was on over the weekend.
Sometimes, people say Biff is president. That might be unfair to Biff. He seemed to set his heights lower.
Still, I blame Marty McFly. He's involved somehow.
One of my favorite jokes from Trump 1 was the guy who said that that seeing the WH McDonald’s photo would make the time traveler realize they screwed up real bad.
Need those two from Voyagers! to save the day.
Anyone else watch that show?
More of a "Quantum Leap" guy
Your favorite episode is the one where he leaps into a man with Down Syndrome.
More relatable to him.
The actress who played Stephanie on Newhart, one of my favorite characters, guest-starred on that show as Nellie Bly.
The most logical explanation would be that she's got something on Trump.
Methodological issue with original public meaning originalism:
I was reading an argument about how under the original public meaning of the 5th amendment due process clause doesn’t impose substantive limits on legislative power.
So it started, as many of these arguments do, with Magna Carta. One of the arguments was that the forerunner of the due process clause was not meant to impose any limits on Parliament or lawmaking but was aimed at courts. This was odd on its own because Magna Carta was first issued in 1215 and there wasn’t anything resembling Parliament until the later 13th century. And of course the bodies that Parliament evolved from were judicial in nature and assisted the king in his judicial functions. Indeed Parliament retained judicial functions until 2005!
That’s a modern historical interpretative error but it made me think of something else. American lawyers in 2025 were not the first to have muddled understandings of what Magna Carta was or was meant to achieve. Myths about the importance of Magna Carta were common among early modern English legal and political thinkers. Rather than a narrow feudal settlement between John and his Barons (…that Pope Innocent III annulled, which raises some other questions about what influence it did or should have when), it became seen as a document designed to protect the ancient rights of individual people against the monarchy. And the understanding of the English thinkers obviously impacted American thinkers when they wrote the 5th amendment.
But if the popular understanding of due process clause at the time it was written ultimately rested on flawed history does that cause a problem for originalism? Do originalists have to adopt a false historical narrative if that was the prevailing one at the time a legal text was written? Should they acknowledge that the English writers and founders misunderstood the document but nonetheless were stuck with their interpretation?
Well, yes, obviously, since the Magna Carta has no legal force in the US, while the 5th amendment does, even if it's the case that the 5th amendment was based on a flawed understanding of the Magna Carta, there you are: We get the 5th amendment based on that flawed understanding, because we get the 5th amendment those people gave us, not the hypothetical one they'd have given us if they'd had a more accurate understanding.
Anthony Michael Kreis on Bluesky recently had some interesting comments on the lessons of British history, including arguing that Trump is more James II (and VI) than Charles I.
I find originalism misguided and tiresome, but it has a lot of allure. Liberals repeatedly cite original understanding, but the "right way."
There is a debate over what you do when there was an erroneous understanding about something. To use one reference from as I recall, John Hart Ely Jr., what if originalists relied in part on the presence of ghosts (a stand-in here for natural law)?
Another way is not to use originalism & apply the text of the Constitution based on the lessons learned over the years, case by case, incident by incident [not just the courts apply the document], and mistaken beliefs of the past need not bind us anyhow.
Why would anyone "apply the text of the Constitution" if it had no authority in the first place? Just to keep up the charade?
Is this a thought experiment?
What is the "it" that had "no authority" here? I think the "text" and "the Constitution" overall had authority. It has today.
The debate is over the application.
No problem at all. Everyone makes mistakes--even the Founders.
Fortunately, they also included a mechanism for correcting any such egregious errors.
It helpfully often doesn't require amending the Constitution.
Is their interpretive error on the legal history of due process something that needs to be or can be undone by amendment? Let’s say we simply repass and ratify the 5th amendment. What’s to stop future jurists and scholars from saying that the current public would understand the amendment the same way the founders would because it’s the same language and continuing with their historical errors?
"Rested on flawed history" is itself a flawed premise. "Flawed" in your opinion, you mean. There's actually no such thing as a "false" historical narrative, all "narratives" in this sense are merely opinion, they are not facts.
There is no disputing the falsity or truth of matters of taste and opinion. De gustibus non est disputandum.
So, no, that people drew different conclusions about the Magna Carta does not "invalidate" the fifth amendment in any reasonable sense.
And that's my opinion.
That's actually not what that means. A gerundivum in Latin is used to express that one should(n't) or ought (not) do something, not that one can't. So the Latin means that one shouldn't argue about taste, not that one can't.
A "narrative" is "a spoken or written account of connected events."
If someone assumed Moses led the Israelites around the desert for 40 years after Ramses II kicked them out of Egypt, as spelled out in Exodus, and it didn't happen, the narrative discussing the events is flawed.
Strawberry ice cream being tasty is an opinion. It is not "right" or "wrong." If someone discusses how you make SIC, not how you "should" make it, it can be a false narrative. If they like the ice cream partially since the strawberries are all natural, & they aren't, the opinion is partially based on a flawed premise.
You can make various arguments about applying the Magna Carta; that is a matter of opinion. OTOH, if argued that it was made in a certain way or applied in a certain way, and it was not, it would be a flawed narrative.
"Flawed" and "false" are also not the same thing.
To be clear.
A "flawed" diamond has a defect. I would argue that a historical account that has the facts wrong is "flawed." But that is partially a judgment call. A propagandist might argue it's fine.
A "false" account is untrue. History is not mere opinion. If someone says George Washington did something & he did not, it is false.
The "narrative" might include opinion. They might talk about him chopping down a cherry tree to explain his honesty or to promote honesty as a virtue. That is a mix of fact and opinion.
A lawsuit seeks to invalidate Massachusetts' permitting process for nonresidents to carry guns. Plaintiffs allege it takes up to nine months to get a permit good for one year. Residents' permits are good for six years. Applicants have to attend gun safety training in Massachusetts even if the course is identical to one they have already passed. They have to appear in person for an interview in the Boston area which may be scheduled several months after the application is received.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71102366/lawson-v-campbell/
The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief. It also seeks to enjoin some laws including the law authorizing issuing of licenses to nonresidents. Perhaps the state will agree to that much of the requested relief and then it will be illegal to issue nonresident licenses to carry.
Some of the laws cited in the complaint are not yet available in the online General Laws. See https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2024/Chapter135. This is the law that was declared an "emergency" by the governor to avoid it being suspended by initiative petition.
The results of this lawsuit will depend on where gun licensing falls in the hierarchy of rights. It's a rational scheme but not narrowly tailored to promote a compelling government interest. The Supreme Court has been unhelpful providing guidance. Given the politics of the local judiciary it's likely the District Court and First Circuit will go slowly.
"The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief. It also seeks to enjoin some laws including the law authorizing issuing of licenses to nonresidents. Perhaps the state will agree to that much of the requested relief and then it will be illegal to issue nonresident licenses to carry."
I don't understand. Why would they seek to enjoin the law authorizing issuing of licenses to nonresidents?
The lawyers' instincts were to list all parts of the set of laws without thinking about whether each part harmed their clients.
If gun licensing were a Trump policy we'd already have a universal injunction against it. I think individual plaintiffs should get preliminary relief while the court considers the scope of a declaratory judgment.
With a Republican majority Congress could improve the situation. Some mix of civil rights and interstate commerce legislation and the federal funding carrot.
Prof. Gerard N. Magliocca has a very interesting article discussing Victoria Woodhull's petition to Congress regarding women's suffrage, which two House members supported. It is interesting on a historical level, but also as a discussion of constitutional analysis.
https://repository.law.wisc.edu/s/uwlaw/media/324857
One lesson of the article is to examine the often forgotten people involved in the constitutional text and legal developments overall.
Women are one such group. The Nineteenth Amendment was pushed, for instance, not only to provide women the right to vote.
[ETA: See also, Adkins v. Children's Hospital.]
People thought the vote would bring many substantive ends. It would affect policy. Equal suffrage was part of a wider philosophy of what equality meant. Victoria Woodhull, for instance, thought it included a woman's control over her body.
There can be a "thick" understanding of voting rights.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/2174/
Overall, a complete understanding of people involved in constitutional history helps to provide a fuller understanding.
Many historians and legal scholars have taken the time to examine these various angles & it provides for some good reading.
Remember that the Suffragette movement was the legacy of the Abolitionist movement, with a lot of the same people.
Anybody worrying about what happened in Alaska? Did Trump have an episode or senior moment up there? I wondering if all the people so quick to jump on Joe Biden lapse are just going to give Trump a pass.
I still don't see what Ukraine is getting for turning over its minerals to the Trump Family
???????????
What are you talking about? What did you expect to happen?
I expected that Trump would act tough like he had been talking, but we got more TACO. I am also talking about things got cancelled fast, like lunch and clearly administration staffer were surprised. We can finish with the weird tweet. By the time leaders meet things should all be worked out. Clearly that was not the case or perhaps Trump had an episode. Not unheard of at his age and physical health.
You mean besides the fact that he said he was going to "Russia" and meant "Alaska?"
Explain TACO to the IRGC.
I expected Trump to be played by Putin. Again.
And ... Trump was played by Putin, again.
I mean, Putin got- A. Recognized as a serious and respected world leader, when our allies consider him a war criminal. B. A platform to speak about his nonsense, while Trump just stood there. C. The ability to be seen as an equal to us, while cutting out the actual people involved. D. Oh, and the bluster from Trump? That became the usual, "Nevermind. No tariffs, no nothing, no deadlines. And you give us bupkes. Not even a ceasefire."
Putin got all that he wanted out of it. We got nothing except ... nothing, and the promise that all of our threats were meaningless. As usual.
Well, Trump got plenty: Vlad's approval.
"A. Recognized as a serious and respected world leader, when our allies consider him a war criminal." You can't broker a peace without talking to the heads of the combatant nations "B. A platform to speak about his nonsense, while Trump just stood there." What is that supposed to mean? "C. The ability to be seen as an equal to us, while cutting out the actual people involved." Who are these actual people involved? "D. Oh, and the bluster from Trump? That became the usual, "Nevermind. No tariffs, no nothing, no deadlines. And you give us bupkes. Not even a ceasefire."" Who are you quoting, or are you making that up?
Trump promised very severe consequences if Putin did not agree to a ceasefire.
ThePublius, as usual, is either remarkably dense, or is playing at same. Given that he has repeatedly done the same shtick and it's been pointed out to him ... eh, no idea.
Protip- if bubkes isn't a giveaway, I can't help you.
The word is bupkus.
As you should know (you state below you lived in NYC in 1991), it's a yiddish expression.
Bupkes is the more common variant; bubkus is far less common. Go on, you can look it up. Again, I recommend learning about things before confidently correcting people.
If you're feeling really frisky and you don't trust those "MSM Libtard dictionaries" you can always use google's ngram viewer to verify that you are wrong!
Lighten up, Francis.
Maybe stop telling people that are correct that they are wrong. Consider, for a moment, that other people know stuff too.
Pubes being confident he’s right and you’re wrong and ascribing the worst to you but then it’s demonstrated he’s wrong and then he says why are you picking on me is classic Pubes.
Bring on the gaslighting.
It's either bupkis or bupkes, from the Yiddish bobkes.
Yea, I guess there are multiple spellings. All three are used.
I will give Trump one very small thing (assuming it leads to something good). In his post prior to Zelenskyy's arrival, he stated that Ukraine would have to give up Crimea (along with no NATO membership). Now, it would have been much better (even remarkable!) had he also said Putin had to withdraw from the rest of Ukraine. But at least Trump did not say Ukraine had to give up any land other than Crimea.
Who knew the TACO trade would also work for Trump's approach to negotiating wars?!
"You can't broker a peace without talking to the heads of the combatant nations"
A president, Trump or other, should never speak to an aggressor leader. That work should only be handled by designees, either the SS or another special designee. It is only when the deal is worked out should an aggressor leader get the recognition that comes from being seen with the President. In talking to Putin Trump gave away far too much.
Diplomacy 101.
The thing is, I believe Trump wanted to be seen with Putin because he values the "tough guy" persona and wants it to rub off on him. Can you imagine having one of the most powerful militaries on the planet in your pocket with the largest economy to back it up and you're still simpering around trying to get the world bully to invite you to the "tough guy dictator" club? Trump sees proximity to Putin as improving his reputation and not the inverse. He holds most of the soft and hard-power cards around the world able to call on major economies and militaries for assistance and diplomatic backing and he acts like none of it is worth anything if Putin doesn't think he's cool.
Just the level of analysis I'd expect from a middle-schooler. You betray your lack of understanding of diplomacy.
Putin had to stand there in the shadow of American bombers.
Don't overlook that...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, sweet summer child. I have to admit, I am not even mad. I am amazed. That's some impressive mental gymnastics.
Vassals gotta kneel.
Loki, Putin got very little in the end. He was not made to look respectable; he was acknowledged to be the person who has to be dealt with. The meeting got 7 EU heads of government plus the Sec. Gen of NATO to come to the White House for a show of unity especially over the issue of security guarantees. I'd say that it was Putin who was played.
Again, how so?
Russia was facing deadlines. Sanctions. Consequences.
And now? Nothing. Of course. He got what he wanted- time and space and the ball and pressure back on Ukraine. The photo ops showing him looking strong and in command, and a platform to give out his side as an equal to the US.
And what did he give? Nothing. Is there a ceasefire? Did the sanctions happen?
If that's losing for Putin, he's happy to keep on getting played by Trump.
The California government just killed thre in Florida
"Florida troopers, with the assistance of ICE, determined the driver, Harjinder Singh, entered the U.S. illegally after crossing the Mexico border in 2018. He then obtained a commercial driver’s license in California."
https://www.clickorlando.com/traffic/2025/08/18/semitruck-driver-arrested-after-illegal-u-turn-on-florida-turnpike-causes-fatal-crash
Gavin Newsom sends his regards.
“The California government just killed thre in Florida”
With causation analysis like this it’s a wonder you made it out of 1L, let alone pass the bar.
“entered the U.S. illegally after crossing the Mexico border in 2018.”
Interesting. I wonder who was in charge of securing the border during that time? Arguably this person is just as responsible.
CA government killing three is a bit over the top, IMO. CA did enable the crime by granting Singh a CDL. Note I’m not attempting to make a legal argument, just pointing out that no CDL for Singh likely means he’s unable to cause this accident.
“I wonder who was in charge of securing the border during that time? Arguably this person is just as responsible.”
Failing to stop someone from committing a crime (crossing the border illegally) significantly differs from granting someone a privilege who subsequently uses that privilege to commit a crime (granting a CDL without regard to immigration status).
So when citizens jackknife a rig and kill motorists, do we blame their home state governors for those deaths? Maybe we should blame their parents for giving birth because if they weren't born, no deaths would have occurred. This same argument goes for legal tourists, legal immigrants, or any other arbitrary characteristic.
Further your logic is that failing to prevent someone from entering the country isn't a pre-requisite to them being able to cause a fatal traffic accident in that country, which doesn't make sense. He couldn't cause the accident if he wasn't here to begin with. You're arbitrarily assigning more value to one causal factor in the chain of events than another and waiving away the unfortunate truth that accidents happen and, without evidence to the contrary, there's no reason to connect this accident to the person's status as an immigrant.
“So when citizens jackknife a rig and kill motorists, do we blame their home state governors for those deaths?”
As long as the individual met all the qualifications and the CDL was lawfully granted, of course we do not blame the home state. But that’s immaterial.
“He couldn't cause the accident if he wasn't here to begin with.”
Yeah, that’s the whole point: he shouldn’t be here, and he definitely shouldn’t have been granted a CDL. And no CDL, no driving a big rig. And no driving a big rig, no negligence that kills people.
“there's no reason to connect this accident to the person's status as an immigrant.”
Stop gaslighting. He’s not an immigrant, he’s an illegal alien. And yes, his status is directly connected to his negligence that killed people.
Like you said, if he’s not here, he can’t drive a rig and negligently kill people. If he’s doesn’t have a CDL, he likely doesn’t drive a rig and negligently kill people. The chain of events should have stopped by preventing him from crossing the border. Failing that, the chain of events should have ended by denying him a CDL. But hey, apparently ideology trumps all else in CA.
When the federal government does not recognize a foreign country's CDL, a state may grant a non-domiciled CDL under 49 CFR §384.212. A state granting such a license is supposed to require proof of employment eligibility or an I-94 form (record of arrival through a proper entry point). I did not see any rule requiring the CDL to expire when the immigration documents do.
They key to making cities safer and more pleasant in which to live and work and play and travel is not in 'fighting crime,' pursuing and arresting and prosecuting criminal offenders; though that's important, too. The key is in restoring order. It is akin to 'broken window policing.' Once you ignore petty offenses and annoyances, graffiti, sleeping in the subway, smoking in the subway, aggressive panhandling, loud music, public urination, minor vandalism, shoplifting, and so on, you teach the populace that that's all O.K.; and it festers and escalates over time, to where we've arrived at D.C., where we have gun wielding 13, 14, and 15 year olds carjacking. Cities have to be reconditioned to recognize and desire and respect order.
Here's an excellent article on this I posted yesterday in the Friday Open Thread. It's a long article, and it's old (1991), but is as applicable today to D.C. and many other cities as it was then in NYC.
Reclaiming The Subway
This guy, living and working in D.C., gets it: https://x.com/Wid_Lyman/status/1956786479067210024
1:28 "I'm all about order. We all need order out here, just so we can get along, have some kind of peace, it'll be good, the kids will come outside, start playing in the neighborhood, stuff like that...." 3:05 "Everybody's on edge. We don't want to be on edge no more"
I hope and pray that the federal takeover of the MPD, the NG presence and FBI presence, will restore order. Then things will improve, people will have some kind of peace, and not be on edge all the time.
(The MDC and the rest of D.C. government has been unable to do this for a long time, and probably doesn't even recognize it. I'm not at all impressed with the MPD Police Chief. She was elevated to the position by mayor Bowser from her previous role as head of DEI. When asked by a reporter about the chain of command D.C. Police Chief Pamela Smith asked “What does that mean?”)
Still no crime emergency in DC.
From talking to folks who live in the District (not hunting up some twitter rando who agrees with my priors), the feds would be better spent policing the menace that is MD drivers, than doing performative arrests on the national mall and 14th street.
Sorry MD folks - I just report the facts as they are related to me.
You know, you've become a snarky, miserable guy. Did you even read the article I linked, and consider what I had to say on this topic? I doubt it.
Not to point out the obvious, but-
1. Why should someone read a 1991 article (that is from 34 years ago ...) in order to talk about crime issues today. You understand, don't you, that the crime issues in 1991 (which was still in the crack epidemic) are a little different than today? Have you looked at any statistics?
2. You also realize that since "broken windows" theory was first developed back then, they've actually researched it ... empirically ... and it's one of those social science "just so" things that feels really good, but doesn't actually have empirical evidence to back it up? You're welcome to look at studies that were done comparing municipalities that adopted BWP and ones that didn't, and you'll find no measurable difference; in fact, what happened was that BWP municipalities simply benefitted from the overall drop in crime that was happening due to other, unrelated, factors.
But I know you're more of an anecdote guy.
The article is still meaningful and applicable today, just as it was when it was first published. Some truths are timeless. We don't purge libraries every decade, you know.
The crime issues are not very different than then. Then it was crack, now it's meth and fentanyl. Same story.
BWP worked in NYC, according to many, and my experience living there at the time.
So, according to "many" and to "you" (aka, unnamed people and your own anecdote) something worked.
Whereas I just gave you something you can go lookup and verify, since, again, there's been actual data and work done since 1991. I've even told you how the comparisons are done. You're welcome to educate yourself, or not.
Or, you know, you can think that every morning, you open your eyes, and the sun has risen, therefore the sun doesn't rise if you don't open your eyes. Up to you.
Can you respond to the content rather than attacking or mocking me? You're starting to come off like Sarcastr0.
Seriously, what is left? In response to issues involving crime in DC in 2025, you are declaring that what is relevant in a paper from 1991 about NYC.
You are demanding that we respond to it. And I told you that the theory in the paper was shown to be "not supported by the evidence" (aka, bullshit) in the last 34 years because they've done a lot of studies since then. And you can look them up. And you keep saying that you don't care, because it feels right to you, so why aren't we talking about it?
And I've told you- we aren't talking about your paper, because it's from 1991. It's about NYC. And it's bullshit. You are welcome to do the work.
I'm not demanding anything. The paper isn't about BWP, it's about order on the subway, and uses as a strong example the clean trains program. The wisdom of the approach of preserving order is timeless.
...I'm being honest with you. I genuinely have no idea if you're being stupid here, or not. Not being pejorative, but I am 100% confused.
Do you know what BWP is? Do you know what the paper you are citing is about? Do you have any knowledge (not gained by quickly turning to Google's AI summary) on this issue, and this debate, and why I just went through this? Or, for that matter, what the actual basis and use of that paper is?
I can't even.
Epstein files still not released, either.
Though I'm not convinced that evidence of Trump diddling a minor would lose him any support from his core MAGAts.
Broken Windows policing sounds good on paper but it has numerous flaws and hasn't been shown to actually work outside of anecdotes.
It has a potential for abuse (I'd say that abuse is considered a feature) in that it largely targets the poor (and consequently minorities) for outsized police attention which leads to increased policed interactions that, statistically, result in more harms to the community without increases in public safety. See also: "Stop and frisk."
For all the hype, there's no conclusive evidence that it works since it was first proposed in the early 1980s, which means it is, at best, cost-inefficient and at worst creates additional tension in communities over police aggression. But, from a PR perspective, it sounds great and makes a great slogan. The question is what other policing strategies might use those same resources to lower crime more effectively. I'm no expert there but DC's been doing a decent job of lowering crime rates in recent years so maybe we should have let them continue rather than return to a failed, racist strategy from back in the day when rotary phones were still common.
An example of broken windows working to clean up NYC subway cars. https://www.city-journal.org/article/reclaiming-the-subway "The Clean Car Program started by pulling graffiti-covered trains out of service, cleaning the cars, and sending them back out on the road. Police were assigned to ride fulltime on the first clean trains, and clean trains went into special protection yards. But the program went further; it guaranteed that the first “broken window” would not lay untended and lead to the next. Once a train was entered into the program and cleaned, it would never again be used while graffiti was on it. If a train was tagged by a graffitist, either it would be cleaned within two hours, or it would be removed from service. As a result, graffitists would never see their tags on clean trains again. They might be able to paint their tags over other graffiti on cars that were not yet entered into the program, but not on clean cars."
I would generalize this even more to say that the key to restoring order is to have only a few, but clearly defined, standards, and then to enforce them without exception.
When I was raising my own boys, I volunteered in various scouting roles. We taught the boys that rules concerning safety were inviolable, and if you broke one, consequences were immediate. But otherwise, there was a very high degree of freedom. The boys ran the program, the older ones leading, the younger ones following.
If the Right has one flaw, it is a tendency to be indifferent to feelings. If the Left has one flaw, it is a tendency to be too sensitized to them. What I liked about scouting was its balanced approach.
President President Trump bases his authority to take over the DC police department on Section 740 of the 1973 DC Home Rule Act. That provision, however, simply does not give him the authority he claims.
The provision uses the language of a customer ordering from an independent contractor. It says that the President can request police services from the Mayor, and the Mayor will provide the services requested.
When a customer orders legal services from a law firm, roofing services from a roofer, etc., the customer is in no way empowered to simply take complete control of the company’s employees, designate its own people as their new bosses, and start telling them what to do. Rather, the company’s management determines which employees will provide the services and how they will be provided. Customers often aren’t even allowed to communicate with employees directly. Companies can require them to speak only to a designated representative who handles all communications.
So when police services are ordered from an independent political entity that Congress has determined, persuant to its plenary authority over the management of federal territiory, is entitled to home rule.
Congress, could have shut the President out of any say in what goes on in DC entirely. It decided instead to give the President only a very limited say, in a way that sunstantially preserve DC’s home rule independence. Congress designated the Mayor as the official representative of DC for purposes of requesting and discussing police services under Section 740. This means the President and his staff have no authority to so much as speak to anyone directly in the DC police department about the services, let alone take them over, appoint his own staff as their bosses, and start giving them orders.
If the President or his staff attempt to assert direct control over the DC police, he should be politely but firmly ditected to the Mayor as the only person he is authorized to speak to on the subject. And the Mayor has the right to ask the President to identity the specific services he wants them to perform, and then determine for himself, in consultation with the usual DC police managers, how best to provide them.
A second issue is that there is no emergency. An emergency is a sudden change in circumstances. Chronic, longstanding problems are simply not emergencies.
"A second issue is that there is no emergency. An emergency is a sudden change in circumstances. Chronic, longstanding problems are simply not emergencies."
That's not true.
You get to create your own definitions of "emergency." An emergency can exist and fester and increase in severity because a previous government or administration fails to deal with it. Now that there's a new leader, he has decided to address this chronic condition, this emergency where the MPD and previous POTUS have failed to do.
Google AI overview: "No, an emergency does not always have to be sudden. While many emergencies involve a sudden, unexpected event, some emergencies develop gradually. For example, a medical emergency like a heart attack can come on suddenly, requiring immediate attention. However, a slow leak in a dam, while presenting a gradual risk, can also escalate into an emergency that requires immediate action. Here's a breakdown: Sudden Emergencies: . These are unexpected events that require immediate action, like a car accident, a sudden injury, or a sudden illness. Gradual Emergencies: . These are situations where the risk or danger increases over time, like a slow-building flood, a slow-spreading fire, or a worsening medical condition. In both cases, an emergency is a situation that poses a serious threat to life, health, property, or the environment, requiring immediate action to mitigate the risk."
"Examples of long-term emergencies Long-term emergencies, also known as protracted or chronic emergencies, are situations where instability and hardship persist for extended periods, often years or even decades. These can be caused by various factors, often overlapping and exacerbating each other. Here are some examples of long-term emergencies: 1. Complex Humanitarian Emergencies (CHEs) Conflict and War: Prolonged armed conflict, including civil wars and insurgencies, lead to widespread displacement, destruction of infrastructure, and severe human rights abuses. Examples include the civil wars in Syria and Yemen, or the conflict in Ukraine. Political Instability and Weak Governance: The decay of state institutions and systems, such as healthcare, education, and sanitation, weakens a country's ability to cope with disasters and deliver essential services to its population. This can be seen in situations like the political crisis in Venezuela. Poverty and Economic Instability: High levels of poverty and increasing income inequality can leave populations vulnerable to the effects of conflict and natural disasters, leading to food insecurity and limited access to basic necessities. Afghanistan, for instance, has faced decades of war, poverty, and food insecurity. Environmental Degradation and Climate Change: Long-term environmental changes, such as droughts, floods, and other natural disasters linked to climate change, can devastate ecosystems, displace populations, and worsen existing vulnerabilities. The Center for Disaster Philanthropy notes that disasters can worsen existing CHEs, citing the example of Afghanistan's humanitarian crisis being exacerbated by droughts and floods. 2. Chronic/Protracted crises Food Insecurity and Famine: Persistent food shortages and famine are often a consequence of conflict, climate change, or economic instability, and can lead to widespread malnutrition and death. Ethiopia has been classified as a "hunger hot spot". Epidemics and Pandemics: Large-scale and long-lasting outbreaks of disease can overwhelm healthcare systems, disrupt social and economic life, and have devastating consequences on populations. The COVID-19 pandemic is an example of an incident that stretched traditional emergency management boundaries. Forced Displacement and Migration: Mass movements of people within or across borders due to conflict, disaster, or persecution can strain resources, disrupt social structures, and create new vulnerabilities. According to The Strauss Center, chronic emergencies often involve high rates of migration, refugees, and internally displaced persons (IDPs). 3. Post-Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction Long-Term Recovery from Natural Disasters: Even after the immediate impact of a natural disaster, communities can face prolonged challenges related to rebuilding infrastructure, restoring livelihoods, and addressing mental health impacts. Recovery efforts after Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, for example, are ongoing years later and represent one of the largest post-disaster reconstruction efforts in history. Infrastructure Failure: The destruction of critical infrastructure like roads, bridges, and hospitals can have long-lasting consequences on a community's ability to recover and rebuild, affecting access to healthcare, education, and other essential services. 4. Technological Emergencies Hazardous Materials Incidents: Accidents involving hazardous materials can have long-term environmental consequences, contaminating water and soil, and potentially causing lasting health problems. The Love Canal disaster, where health problems surfaced years after exposure to toxic waste, is a stark reminder of these risks. Industrial Pollution: Chronic industrial pollution can have long-term impacts on the environment and the health of communities living near industrial sites. Cyber Attacks: Attacks on critical infrastructure, such as power grids or water treatment plants, can have widespread and long-lasting consequences, disrupting essential services and potentially impacting public health and safety. It is important to remember that these are just a few examples, and the specific nature and duration of long-term emergencies can vary widely depending on the context."
"Google AI overview"
Ahem. Look, if you don't understand something, the best thing to do is to actually try to do the work to understand it.
The worst thing to do it is to say to yourself, "Self, I am going to argue with what I just read, and because I just want to argue, I am going to google it and not try to understand it, but just find something that I can use to argue."*
If you don't want it to be too obvious that this is what you are doing, you might not want to actually quote Google's AI Overview. Also, if you actually have knowledge of a subject matter, you know that Google's AI makes a lot of mistakes.
*And I am quoting the voices in your head, ThePublius, in order to avoid the inevitable, albeit funny, followup.
The short answer is that emergencies are not necessarily sudden.
Let's try this slowly. How is what you are saying responsive to what ReaderY is claiming?
Try and think this through. Is there a difference in statutory language granting emergency powers and what you are claiming?
Let's remove it from the specific example. If your municipality had a provision to pass something in an "emergency," is it your belief that a situation that you are claiming has existed for over 40 years (and has diminished during that time) qualifies? Why or why not?
Are delegations of power for "emergency purposes" to allow bypassing of legislative procedures to deal with chronic, longstanding issues?
(By the way, I am not expressing an opinion on this particular provision, but can you at least understand why you aren't being responsive? Google AI doesn't provide you the statutory context, any definitions, any caselaw. You are literally just arguing without any background, knowledge, or desire to understand.)
What's the legal definition of 'emergency?' I don't think there is, is arbitrary and open to interpretation and discretion. For example, Maura Healy, gov. of MA, had a gun law on her desk for months and when she realized there was a deadline as to which it must be enacted to avoid an initiative petition to repeal it, she affixed and emergency preamble to put it into effect. So, she arbitrarily declared it an emergency.
If there is a legal definition please let me know.
....did you read what I just wrote? Did you think about it?
If you didn't, read it again. And think about it. Then see if you can try and answer it yourself. Feel free to actually look up things. Do a little bit of work.
I recommend trying to understand something before reaching for your own anecdotes... because (for example) do you think that the issues are exactly the same for an emergency preamble in legislation for a specific state with a provision for same (this would be something that allows duly passed legislation to go into effect immediately) as opposed to provisions that allow for actions to be taken in contravention of normal legislative process when there is an "emergency" (for example, a municipality that is allowed to seize your property immediately when there is an emergency without legislation)?
Maybe ponder this for a while, instead of arguing. Look at examples. Think it through.
Well, I did read your reply, but I still don't know if there's a legal definition of emergency, if there's a necessary temporal context, and so on. 40 years? 10 years? 10 minutes? Who knows?
You haven't said yes or no.
..... sigh.
Law 101. There is no universal definition of "emergency." If you're dealing with a municipal code, that will be different than if you're dealing with a federal statute. Both of those are different than a state constitution. And so on.
Next- depending on the specific scheme, terms might be defined (there might be a definitions section). But more often, they are not. If they aren't, you'd have to look at caselaw construing the provision and the context of the provision.
As a general rule, an "emergency" will have a strict temporal component when it allows for extraordinary action (for example, an emergency that would allow for the bypass of normal procedures, or bypasses the normal checks and balances of lawmaking or due process). The reason is plain- emegencies that allow swift action that bypass normal process mean that there is an emergent situation (a hurricane, an invasion, a derelict structure about to fall, a riot, etc.) that has just occurred, could not have been dealt with during the normal process, and requires swift and immediate action.
As a general rule, "sudden and unforeseen crises" is a good synonym to use.
Of course, this can vary depending on context and caselaw. And it can also get squirrelly depending on whether or not there is an explicit definition.
For example, 42 USC sec 5122: “Emergency” means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.
That's a definition without a temporal component- and because the caselaw has not been consistent, the issue of FEDERAL (bringing it all back to the main issue) emergency powers has not been fully litigated.
If you're genuinely curious, there's a good background on the issue here- https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/98-505
Why should anyone respond to your request for a legal definition of emergency? You'll just ask Google AI to come up with an argument otherwise.
Baseline truth is not your goal here; you'll cite increasingly off-topic and lame evidence to push the shittiest theses (e.g. Haitians eating cats.)
You don't even claim expertese, you just Google and take the first thing that looks like it agrees with you. No comprehension; certainly no context.
It's a terrible way to interact with the world, which will be what it is even if Google AI says otherwise.
Yes, loki, that's what I struggle with. I think we need a good definition, in the U.S. law, so there is an objective way of evaluating if a claim of an emergency is legit. It could well be that Trump's claim isn't. But as it is, anyone seems to be able to claim an emergency exists to do what they want. I don't know, I guess the responsibility would be for congress to decide and pass a law or code or something. But then the sates would be able to do their own thing anyway.
So here's the thing- you need to decide for yourself three things. Seriously.
1. Do you want to understand the issue? I've given you the tools to start. It's not reducible to a quick, "Here's the answer." And I don't mean, "Get to what I already want to be true." I mean ... do you actually want to understand what the issue is?
2. Are you comfortable with uncertainty? See, I call this the "Dr. Ed" problem. Unlike things are not alike. So when you immediately reached to Google AI and an analogy involving a state law use of a preamble in legislation- that's not even in the same ballpark as the issues that are being discussed. It's unhelpful. Learning how to issue spot (what is the actual issue) and then understanding that there might not be a clear and exact answer will help you.
3. Finally, are you looking at the issue without a predetermined result in mind? In other words, think of it in terms of ... oh, rule utilitarianism. Here's a simple way to understand this- Attorney-client privilege (and confidence). Imagine there's a specific example where, if an attorney just tells other people what the client told him, the world would be better off. For example, the client told the attorney, "This is where I buried the body." This would be better for the loved ones of the deceased! But ... it's not an exception (not an ongoing or future crime, etc.). So the attorney can't. Even though it might be good, right there, the rule serves an important purpose- so that everyone knows that attorneys can't divulge client communications. If attorneys were allowed to pick-and-choose, then the entire point of the rule goes away.
The reason that the emergency declarations hasn't been examined much in the past is because ... it hasn't been pushed this far before. So the answer to a lot of questions is unclear. For example, there is a lot of push and pull just from two competing values- 1. The president's ability to declare an emergency without judicial interference. 2. The ability of the judiciary to say what the law is, and whether something is, in fact, an emergency.
You can think this through yourself- for example, if there is no meaningful judicial review, then theoretically anything can be declared an emergency, and this would allow the Executive to sidestep meaningful restraint on its actions. In effect, it would mean that Congress has delegated to the Executive the power to do what he wants, when he wants, without any ability to oversee it.
On the other hand, stringent judicial review is also ... not favored. In actual emergencies, you don't want the judiciary micromanaging every decision. You can imagine that (for example) if a hurricane hits, you don't want people running to the Court to second-guess every single thing being done.
Because we are experiencing a blizzard of executive orders, claiming so many powers so quickly in so many areas ... any one who tells you what the Courts will (and won't) do in all of the different areas (many of which invoke different statutory schemes, and abilities derived from different "emergency" powers) is lying to you.
As for me? The way I think about it is to think of the rule- I imagine what would happen if an executive took the "rule" that I want, and used it in the worst way possible. From that point of view, I do want judicial review- and I believe that (absent specific authorization otherwise) emergency powers should be cabined to emergent situations, although with deferential review.
We do have a definition of sorts for "emergency" under US law: Person in designated position of authority says there's an emergency.
It's not the greatest definition, but it does at least identify whose opinion matters.
As has been pointed out to you many times before, Brett, that renders the 'emergency' language a nullity.
We don't read statutes such that some of its language can be taken out and it doesn't change anything.
"As has been pointed out to you many times before, Brett, that renders the 'emergency' language a nullity."
No, it renders your disagreement with the designated person's opinion a nullity.
Look, I'm not saying I LIKE that "emergencies" are defined in this manner in US law. Or that declaring an "emergency" confers extra powers. (Really, it's the latter that's the problem, no? Who would CARE if Presidents could declare emergencies if it didn't confer any extra power on them?)
But that doesn't change that this is actually how the law is written: We have an "emergency" for legal purposes when the designated person says so.
These sorts of laws have the value of making clear whose opinion matters. What they don't do is provide any basis for second guessing the relevant person.
And, frankly, you're in a damn poor position to be complaining on this topic, after all the emergency election measures you defended during Covid, when legislatures had had plenty of time to meet and consider legislation.
RFK Jr shared recently that the CDC had held secret meetings on autism caused by the Hep B vaccine and found a 10,000% increase.
Leftists kept this secret and harmed countless children and created suffering for an untold amount of families. Further, they attacked anyone who suggested a link and ruined their lives too.
Democrats are vile, sick demonic monsters. Their ideology should be smothered with extreme prejudice. History demands it. Humanity depends upon it.
What is happening is by pushing these NEW vaccines, they are getting reluctance on the OLD and known safe vaccines. That is stupid.
And let us remember how Hep B is spread -- IV drug abuse and sexual promiscuity. Well, there are reasons why the first is illegal and the second is discouraged.
I don't know many newborns who are active drug abusers or active homosexuals.
Why do they have it in the CDC schedule?
Hepatitis B can be transmitted mother to child during childbirth.
So? Vaccinate the children of infected mothers.
Huh?
The CDC recommends the Hepatitis B vaccine for newborns. This is the only vaccine recommended for newborns. Vaccines do not work well in children less than six months old. Their immune system is not well developed. Evolution says they are supposed to get antibodies by breast feeding.
Hepatitis B can spread mother-to-child. What's more, a significant number of people are asymptomatic carriers. (One Japanese source says there are estimated 1.1M carriers in Japan[1].) They have the virus, they can transmit the virus, but there's no symptoms. Some sources also suggest the possibility of father-to-child transmission, and HBV can also enter your body through open wounds.
[1] https://www.sv.hosp.mie-u.ac.jp/gastro/hbv/
https://parentdata.org/no-vaccines-do-not-increase-autism-by-1135/
So just the same rehash of what Big Government and Big Pharma defenders have been doing for decades.
You mean using science to validate claims? True.
"So just the same rehash of what Big Government and Big Pharma defenders have been doing for decades."
Well, that seems more sound than going with what a rando nut made up this week.
Pretty wild that you can’t even get RFK Jr’s wild conspiracy theory right. He apparently told Tucker Carlson that the CDC hid a study from 1999 showing that the Hep B vaccine was associated with a 1135% increase in autism diagnoses. But he has not actually provided proof this existed.
Lex rarely supplies a link.
Anyone remember Henry Kissinger and his Shuttle Diplomacy?
Is that what Trump is doing?
And don't forget that Russia still has a lot of ICBMs pointed at us -- there is a real question if they would go "bang" or not. Most were made in the '80s and a lot of things have to happen for a fission/fusion reaction to happen -- and there is a real question of if it would.
Still, Vlad is threatening to loose nukes and that's a concern.
And if Trump can end the war -- even if it becomes another Korea -- you gotta give him credit if he can do it.
Trump wants to be doing shuttle diplomacy.
Hillary Clinton said she would nominate Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize if he got peace without Ukraine losing any territory. That's not happening under Putin. During the first year of war the tabloids were screaming about Putin's imminent death from cancer. Finally U.S. intelligence put out a statement along the lines of "he's too healthy, dammit."
I don't worry about Russian nukes as long as pre-2014 Russian territory remains intact. Medvedev is playing "bad cop."
Note that you said Kissinger not Nixon. As I have been pointing out the President doesn't do the leg work, the President comes in at the end. Trump really has no idea how international diplomacy works. President's have their SS or special envoys to do the leg work. If Trump wants to do diplomacy he should resign and ask President Vance to appoint him SS.
Say someone who has no idea how anything works.
I been around since Eisenhower. The only President I have know to do direct diplomacy is Jimmy Carter in the Middle East. Now Carter was pretty close to a genius if not one directly. President Trump is a functional illiterate and mentally failing. So I think I am more correct than you wish to admit.
Wow, you really love to deceive yourself. As for Cater being a genius, although he claim to be a "nuculer" engineer, he couldn't even say nucleus correctly. If you want to speak of geniuses or near geniuses, then you have to look to Mr. Clinton. As for diplomacy, there is a difference between the messenger and the person who can sign the deal.
"President Trump is a functional illiterate and mentally failing ...". I don't know what nuclear engineering knowledge President Carter had but I would bet the mortgage it would surpass President Trump's by orders of magnitude Don Nico.
Nico — To say, "nucular," is a code switch skill necessary for politicians from the South. They can't afford any more than others from elsewhere to one-up their constituents on language trivia.
What deal is Trump going to sign? The people signing here are Putin and Zelensky?
I don't know about "genius" but Carter was a smart guy. Per wiki
He graduated 60th out of 821 midshipmen in the [Naval Academy] class of 1947[a] with a Bachelor of Science degree and was commissioned as an ensign.
In 1952, Carter began an association with the Navy's fledgling nuclear submarine program, led by then-Captain Hyman G. Rickover.[33] Rickover had high standards, and Carter later said that, next to his parents, Rickover had the greatest influence on his life.[34] Carter was sent to the Naval Reactors Branch of the Atomic Energy Commission in Washington, D.C., for three-month temporary duty,
So maybe he knew something about nuclear power, even if he gave the word a (not uncommon) mispronunciation.
Sure, he knew plenty about nuclear power, even if he was a nuclear 'engineer' in the same sense the engineer of a train is an 'engineer'. That's still more than 999 out of a thousand people know about it.
I don't know how you're defining "direct diplomacy" here.
I think we’ve already established what kind of person Mr. Trump is.
All that’s happening now is haggling over price.
I just watched the meeting at the WH with Trump, Zelensky, and a host of world leaders. That's probably the most world leaders at one time in the WH in history. It was encouraging.
I think Trump should replicate that meeting with Putin this time in place of Zelensky.
Sure, why not invite an indicted war criminal to the white house? At least I guess that makes it less likely that Trump will accidentally give him Alaska back.
Just watched RFK, Jr. and Pete Hegseth go head to head in a challenge: 50 pull ups and 100 push ups in under 5 minutes. They didn't make it. Hegseth was at 5:26, RFK just behind him.
Holy cow! RFK is 71!
Wait until you see what Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho could do!
If I was you I'd be more worried about whether they can spell.
Testosterone plays a role in cognitive function, improving memory and concentration, as well as increased energy, muscle mass, bone density, improved mood and regulation, etc.
Not to be mean but it's no wonder liberals are, on average, more stupid, weak, depressed, and ugly.
I love it. But RFK's chin did not go above the bar on one of those.
Sad eminent domain case in Massachusetts. A midwest couple sunk their life savings into land and a new house in the shadow of the Sagamore bridge in Bourne, MA, on the cape. After two years of building, etc., they move in. One month after they moved in they received notice that their house was being take, along with 12 neighbors, for a staging area for building the new bridge.
They are complaining that no one told them this might happen - not the realtor, the builder, the town, etc.
I feel bad for them, but this seems like a legit and necessary taking. I just they get enough to make them whole.
https://www.bostonherald.com/2025/08/18/sagamore-bridge-project-eminent-domain-taking-pushes-to-uproot-cape-cod-couple-from-brand-new-home/
The mistake was in moving to MA.
5 U.S.C. 105 § 250.302 Survey requirements. (a) Each executive agency must conduct an annual survey of its employees to assess topics outlined in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Public Law 108-136, sec. 1128, codified at 5 U.S.C. 7101.
§ 250.303 Availability of results. (a) Each agency will make the results of its annual survey available to the public and post the results on its Web site unless the agency head determines that doing so would jeopardize or negatively impact national security. ------------ Another law this lawless administration is breaking.
So Trump is now claiming that the President has full control of elections and the states must follow his orders.
Remember, the States are merely an “agent” for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes. They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do. With their HORRIBLE Radical Left policies, like Open Borders, Men Playing in Women’s Sports, Transgender and “WOKE” for everyone, and so much more, Democrats are virtually Unelectable without using this completely disproven Mail-In SCAM.
He plans to eliminate mail-in voting by EO and ban at least certain voting machines.
He further claims that the US is the only country that allows mail-in voting. Guess he's never heard of Canada or Germany.
I eagerly await someone explaining why this deranged statement is not the work of a fool (with Brussels sprouts for brains) and would-be tyrant.
Three hours now and counting. C'mon, you guys are slacking off.
Where are you, Brett, Publius, Armchair, Bumble, etc.?
Four hours.
XY, where have you gone?
I very much doubt that an EO forbidding the use of mail-in ballots would be approved by the courts, but of course Trump has many ways open to him to convince states to do so.
The problems with mail-in balloting are legion. They are insecure. They do not provide a chain of custody. They cannot be corrected if errors are made. They are not private. They are too expensive. They take much longer to count -- California, for example, needs a full MONTH after an election to certify its votes.
And, worst of all, they are easily manipulated, which is Trump's primary complaint.
Mail-in balloting is the second-worst way to count votes ever invented.
If I lived in a state where mail-in balloting was the only form allowed, I would be seeking to take the state elections officers to court for not guaranteeing my right to vote. Fortunately, I do NOT live in such a state.
Trump on Truth Social, April 19, 2024 5:09pm:
"ABSENTEE VOTING, EARLY VOTING, AND ELECTION DAY VOTING ARE ALL GOOD OPTIONS. REPUBLICANS MUST MAKE A PLAN, REGISTER, AND VOTE!"
Let's leave aside your largely unsupported claims about mail-in voting, (yes, CA does take a long time to count) since that's not the point of my post.
Rather than hashing all that out let's look at this. Trump, in a dishonest, over-capitalized, and error-laden post claimed that he has the power to direct tell states what their election procedures must be.
In my earlier comment I challenged the ardent Trumpists to defend the post, and explain why "this deranged statement is not the work of a fool (with Brussels sprouts for brains) and would-be tyrant."
So far, after 18 hours, no one has come forth.
I'm starting to think they agree with me but are reluctant to admit it.
DC Police Union reports:
DC crime since the announcement of federal control versus the 7 days prior: Robbery ⬇️46% ADW ⬇️6% Carjacking ⬇️83% Car Theft ⬇️21% Violent Crime ⬇️22% Property Crime ⬇️6% All Crimes⬇️8% While federal assistance gives us a boost, we must repeal the misguided Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Act in order to make these changes permanent.
DC crime since the announcement of federal control versus the 7 days prior:
Robbery ⬇️46% ADW ⬇️6% Carjacking ⬇️83% Car Theft ⬇️21% Violent Crime ⬇️22% Property Crime ⬇️6% All Crimes⬇️8%
While federal assistance gives us a boost, we must repeal the misguided Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Act in order to make these changes permanent.
https://x.com/DCPoliceUnion/status/1957435067258577173
Wow! I've never seen crime statistics compiled, vetted and checked in intervals less than yearly. That's pretty impressive! And in like...what is it...three or four days?
Believe it or not, a compilation of stats can be done in a few minutes by anyone with high level clearance for DC police databases.
Many police departments in large cities do weekly briefings on what transpired the previous week on a precinct by precinct basis.
Using a database isn’t really that hard. I promise.
True, but a compilation of meaningful stats?
It's not exactly surprising that the inhabitants of Washington DC aren't exactly in a hurry to report crimes in the middle of a Federal occupation of their city.
It's not an occupation! You and many other libs keep repeating and reinforcing this false narrative, this lie.
A federal occupation of a city, in the context of the United States, refers to a situation where the federal government takes direct control of a city's administration and governance.
Augmenting the police department with NG and FBI is just that, and not an occupation.
"It's not exactly surprising that the inhabitants of Washington DC aren't exactly in a hurry to report crimes in the middle of a Federal occupation of their city."
First, it's not "the inhabitants," it's a small fraction. People are actually going out agin, going to restaurants. People who aren't in a hurry to report crimes might well be illegal immigrants or folks with warrants out for them, or don't want to attract attention because they are engaged in criminal activity. So be it.
People are actually going out agin, going to restaurants
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/reservations-plunge-across-dc-restaurants-after-president-donald-trumps-police-takeover-summer-restaurant-week-district-open-table/65-e83cc2e7-a921-401a-ba35-960c77f8da14
People who aren't in a hurry to report crimes might well be illegal immigrants Did you notice how you always end up in fact-free speculation? Took less time than usual in this case.
That’s been a dem talking point for years. “Illegals underreport crimes because they fear being deported,” Are you suggesting dems have been using fact-free talking points? Say it isn’t so, Joe.
Inconveniently, the OpenTable dataset used in your article shows +29% YoY for yesterday -- a trend that I expect will continue the rest of the week.
The absolute numbers would of course be useful so we could see the actual near-term trends rather than trying to de-skew YoY numbers in view of 2024 Restaurant Week being a week earlier than this year, but that doesn't seem to be an option.
People are actually going out agin, going to restaurants.
Is there a Trump lie you won't repeat? Exactly the opposite is true. Trump simply made that up.
Yes, they are down from the same period last year, but how about last week?
Good lord take the L.
You unsupported assertion has been contradicted by data. Yet again.
If you want to use a different way to compare, you should 1) justify it, and 2) do the fucking work.
I have no idea if what Trump said is true or not. Neither do you and obviously neither does WUSA9.
Fact: reservations in DC through OpenTable are down YoY
Pure speculation: it’s due to the NG presence
To establish your speculative conclusion, you would need to control for every other possible variable that could impact reservations: unemployment rate, inflation rate, food inflation, restaurant price inflation, customer sentiment, number of restaurants, number of restaurants that utilize OpenTable, weather, day of the week, and so forth.
You certainly didn’t do that, WUSA9 didn’t do that. Take your own advice and “1) justify it, and 2) do the f@cking work.”
You have shifted the burden.
Claim: restaurant use is up since the feds rolled heavy into DC Countervailing evidence: reservations are down a lot.
That's relevant evidence. Is it possible that the claim is still true? It is possible, but not very likely.
Meanwhile, to support his claim, TP brings nothing.
And you bring burden shifting. The last refuge when you have lost an argument. And it wasn't even your argument!
Nope, I just called you out on your completely erroneous assertion and underlying ignorance of data analysis when you attempted to debunk TP. Vibes don’t stand up in either direction.
That is seriously one of the funniest things I've ever read.
Meaningful stats?? Way to bring in the subjective when then objective disproves your point.
New York City has been compiling weekly crime stats for many years.
That data only matters to people concerned about how many murders, rapes, assaults and other crimes occurred last week. Police, for example, care about those statistics. So do some politicians.
Maybe next year you'll treat crimes, other than Trump's, like important matters. Millions of annual victims in the U.S. feel otherwise. Your who-gives-a-shit attitude says it all.
The German Federal Supreme Court has just ruled in the litigation about whether Ad Blockers involve copyright infringement. The courts below had held that they did not, and the BGH now decided that those judgments were too hasty. (Though not necessarily wrong.)
https://torrentfreak.com/ad-blocking-is-not-piracy-decision-overturned-by-top-german-court-250819/
https://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&client=12&pos=0&anz=1&Blank=1.pdf&nr=142511
“When examining whether an infringement of a copyrighted right to a protected object (here: a computer program within the meaning of Section 69a (1) of the Copyright Act) has occurred, it is not always necessary to determine whether this protected object meets the requirements of a copyrighted work, computer program, or related right. Rather, this circumstance can be assumed, provided that there is no unlawful infringement of copyright,” the decision reads. “It should be noted, however, that the question of an infringement of a property right may depend on a clear definition of the protected object and its features justifying protection. Denying an infringement of a copyright-protected right while simultaneously assuming that the protected object in question is eligible for copyright protection is therefore only possible in such a case if the object itself deemed to be protected by copyright and the features justifying its protection are clearly defined.”
“When examining whether an infringement of a copyrighted right to a protected object (here: a computer program within the meaning of Section 69a (1) of the Copyright Act) has occurred, it is not always necessary to determine whether this protected object meets the requirements of a copyrighted work, computer program, or related right. Rather, this circumstance can be assumed, provided that there is no unlawful infringement of copyright,” the decision reads.
“It should be noted, however, that the question of an infringement of a property right may depend on a clear definition of the protected object and its features justifying protection. Denying an infringement of a copyright-protected right while simultaneously assuming that the protected object in question is eligible for copyright protection is therefore only possible in such a case if the object itself deemed to be protected by copyright and the features justifying its protection are clearly defined.”
This gives the Tokimeki Memorial vibe - a case from decades ago, when the Supreme Court of Japan ruled that selling modified video game save data counts as a copyright infringement.
Organizing America: Stories of Americans Who Fought for Justice by Erik Loomis.
https://thenewpress.org/books/organizing-america/?v=eb65bcceaa5f
Erik Loomis is a professor who specializes in environmental and labor issues. He blogs at the Lawyers, Drugs and Money blog. He has a "visit to a grave" series that is approaching 2000 entries.
He is a bit of a character who has a certain shtick that is partially an act -- the book repeatedly has strategic comments/asides that don't sound very "Erik Loomis" like.
The book provides thumbnail bios (about ten pages each) of twenty activists, mostly historical figures who are no longer with us.
I think a prime place for activism and organization today is red and purple states. That is somewhere to keep an eye on, including state ballot measures and some new political voices.
This comment exists solely to take the comments section off the 666 number.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
The Tenth Circuit found unconstitutional a New Mexico law setting a seven day waiting period to buy a gun.
New Mexico’s argument that limitations on firearm sales or transfers do not implicate the Second Amendment’s plain text is wrong, and the district court’s engagement in limited means-end scrutiny is also wrong. The district court’s analysis, crediting what it saw as a minimal burden, circumvented Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi—landing right back at the “freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach” that those cases explicitly rejected.
The panel majority notes that until the 1990s waiting periods were only as long as needed to run a background check. Longer waiting periods are not part of American tradition. The majority was also unimpressed by New Mexico's argument that black men and Indians used to be unable to have guns.
The dissent says the court already decided this issue adversely to plaintiffs in Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis.
Ortega v. Grisham, https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111284574.pdf
Some sanity from the court. Thanks for sharing.
If you think Massachusetts voters are crazy or sane, there's something for everyone in the just-released list of voter initiative petitions. The list of 47 proposals will be reduced before they reach the ballot. Proponents must gather tens of thousands of signatures at a few dollars each.
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/ballot-initiatives-submitted-for-the-2026-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-laws-and-2028-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-constitutional-amendments
The list includes re-enfranchising felons, eliminating any constitutional requirement for public funding of abortion, reducing the lot size for single-family homes to 5,000 square feet, requiring voter ID, requiring mail-in ballots to be treated as absentee ballots, making voter registration records public, allowing election day voter registration, restricting marijuana ("an act to restore a sensible marijuana policy"), replacing primaries with an all party system where the top two candidates proceed, making the legislature and governor subject to the public records law, using taxes on outdoor stuff to promote nature, tax reduction, some world government fluff I don't understand, recall elections, rent control, something about labor relations for public defenders, tax credit for electric stuff, requiring human drivers in autonomous vehicles used for commercial purposes, increasing penalties for shoplifting by reducing dollar value thresholds, making more employers subject to the paid family and medical leave law, right to counsel in eviction and foreclosure proceedings, increasing local control over zoning, limiting bonuses handed out to lawmakers on top of their constitutionally prescribed pay, reducing exposure to wireless and electical radiation emitted by technology, and a few petitions about confusing utility bills and radiation-emitting electric meters.
Pretty long list. Some decent ideas, some truly lousy ones.
The Globe, as you probably know, has been all over the business about bonuses to legislators. And rightly so, IMO. I'd bet on a restriction, or outright elimination, passing by a large margin if it makes the ballot.
Please log in to post comments
Mute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?
Charles Oliver | 10.22.2025 4:00 AM
Jacob Sullum | 10.22.2025 12:01 AM
Robby Soave | 10.21.2025 6:00 PM
Jeff Luse | 10.21.2025 5:09 PM
Christian Britschgi | 10.21.2025 4:35 PM
