Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Martinned]

Let's see what further steps towards authoritarianism Trump has made in the last few days.

I guess the worst is that he is preparing to send the army into yet another major opposition-controlled city.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/08/23/trump-chicago-military-national-guard/

[EllaWilson]

God blessed America with President Donald Trump!

I am proud of our President that appointed strong, intelligent, beautiful women to his cabinet unlike the last brain-dead child petter that only had transvestities.

[ReaderY]

Let’s just say that when a Sultan is surrounded by a harem of women picked for their strength and beauty rather than by advisors picked for their knowledge of statecraft, the Sultan does well. The country, not so well.

[A Guy]

One of the fascinating things about this blog is watching all of the arguments that Eugenec the crew and commentors used when conservatism was on the back foot when I was a law student, now completed disavowed with trump in charge.

They used to talk about militias and the second amendment as a check on power of the federal government, now the militias have been taken over by the federal government, and the gun owners are in the wind.

They used to seek out free speech for conservatives on liberal campuses for unpopular opinions, now they want even more draconian punishments for anyone that speaks for palestine or espouses near-socialist ideas.

When I was a law student, and maybe I was deluding myself, it seemed like this was a non-partisan take on libertarianism in the law. George Bush's overreach was questionned as much as anything the democrats were doing.

I didn't always agree, but the thought process displayed was valuable to me as a law student. Now, I don't know what any law student would consistently get from this blog as it relates to the history or study of law. Now nothing matters here but to rubber stamp Trump, Israel, and various other groups in power.

Also, the commentors are all just boomer magas looking to get their backs patted. There used to be real discussions, now every thing is "the blacks", "the DEI", "the woke", "the democrats", which have nothing to do with the principles of law. This whole site needs to take a look in the mirror.

[ah....Clem]

There's a great feature here called the mute button. There's still a fair amount of interesting commentary here, but you have to weed out the crap.

[ReaderY]

Same principle at work as in Animal Farm or 1984.

[myself]

I think EV is still generally sane, and Somin very much so. But they tend not to bring the clicks.

Blackman, Bernstein, and the like are pretty much just Conservative pundits with law degrees. They post the outrageous content to troll moderates and give the MAGA base a safe space to attack liberals.

[Sarcastr0]

Republicans not that long ago went on and on about how two of the worst things imaginable were
(1) state intervention in the market and
(2) DC using federal troops against US states

They went on and on about how the people should be ready for armed rebellion in case it happens.

Welp.

[ThePublius]

"Republicans not that long ago went on and on about how two of the worst things imaginable were
(1) state intervention in the market and
(2) DC using federal troops against US states"

Except neither of those things are happening now. The U.S.'s stake in Intel is not "state intervention in the market," any more so than Biden's and Obama's stakes in green energy companies was. And, "DC" is not "using federal troops against US states." They are using the NG to support the MDC in crimefighting. And, D.C. is not a state, for what it's worth.

[Martinned]

The U.S.'s stake in Intel is not "state intervention in the market,"

It isn't? Wow, marvellous what you can get away with saying if you don't care what words mean!

any more so than Biden's and Obama's stakes in green energy companies was

Don't be silly, of course those were interventions in the market. At the time nobody (least of all you) was saying they weren't. The question was whether they were *sensible* interventions in the market.

"DC" is not "using federal troops against US states."

No, Trump is using federal troops against opposition-controlled cities.

They are using the NG to support the MDC in crimefighting.

Sure, Jan.

And, D.C. is not a state, for what it's worth.

True, but California and Illinois are.

[ThePublius]

"No, Trump is using federal troops against opposition-controlled cities."

No, he's not! The liberal assertion that Trump is using troops against cities is laughably wrong. He's using troops - NG, not "federal troops" - to augment law enforcement. It's not against the city, it's against the criminals. If it was against the cities, he'd be taking over the cities, right? And he's not doing that.

[bernard11]

He is using the NG as a simple assertion of power. He doesn't give a crap about crime.

He is now talking about sending it to NYC which, despite MAGA fantasies, does not have a serious crime problem at all.

It's all just performative BS to appeal to his ignorant base.

[ThePublius]

You libs are so good at knowing what's in the hearts and minds of other people, particularly people you don't like. He certainly does care about crime! That's why he's doing this.

[Sarcastr0]

When the facts about crime have been pointed out to you, you put your finger in your ears and went full denial.

It's not really about crime with you either.

[ThePublius]

"When the facts about crime have been pointed out to you, you put your finger in your ears and went full denial."

I did no such thing.

Oh, get lost. You don't know what's in my head. It IS about crime. Period.

Are you trying to say there was no crime problem in D.C.?

[David Nieporent]

He certainly does care about crime!

That's why he commits so much!

[Riva]

Democrats get their grove back with their own slogan, make crime great again. Not much of an acronym. At least they still have make illegals aliens great again.

[not guilty]

"Democrats get their grove back with their own slogan"

What kind of fruit grows in that grove, Riva?

[Riva]

Refreshingly short response to a typo. I’m grateful at least not to be subject to multiple paragraphs of irrelevant cases, dicta and life draining pseudo witticisms.

[Martinned]

No amount of past loyalty will protect you if the Great Leader fears that you are no longer loyal to him:

I just watched Sloppy Chris Christie be interviewed on a ratings challenged “News” Show, “This Week With George Slopadopoulos,” on ABC Fake News (By the way, what the “hell” happened to Jonathan Karl’s hair? He looks absolutely terrible! It’s amazing what bad ratings, on a failed television show that was forced to pay me $16,000,000, can do to one’s appearance!). Can anyone believe anything that Sloppy Chris says? Do you remember the way he lied about the dangerous and deadly closure of the George Washington Bridge in order to stay out of prison, at the same time sacrificing people who worked for him, including a young mother, who spent years trying to fight off the vicious charges against her. Chris refused to take responsibility for these criminal acts. For the sake of JUSTICE, perhaps we should start looking at that very serious situation again? NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DJT

[LexAquilia]

First John Bolton, now you dupes are defending Chris Christie?

lmao

[Swede425]

Hey, listen.
The right stole Donald Trump from the Dems and more recently acquired Tulsi Gabbard.
The libs got to spoon with Dick Cheney and found out that they really, really liked it. The moustache ride they're taking with Bolton right now can't last forever (they realize) and so they're doing some chubby chasing with Christie.
It all balances out in the end.

[hobie]

None of libs support Bolton or Cheney. They are two of the hardest core conservatives to ever live. But instead of being rightly feted as conservative heroes they each made one mistake. The same mistake.

[Krayt]

None of libs support Bolton or Cheney.

They do, at least in the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend way, shoving them up as talking heads and feeding them honey to rip on Trump.

[Magister]

That's not support; prosecutors don't support lower level mobsters when they use them as witnesses against their leaders.

[bernard11]

Not a question of "support" or policy agreement, but of not wanting people singled out for retribution.

[Martinned]

I'm not defending either of them. I'm warning Trumpists like you that nothing short of complete abnegation is good enough.

[LexAquilia]

That just shows how ignorant you are of American Politics.

[Magister]

So 95% abnegation is sufficient?

[not guilty]

So President Trump is calling for investigation of what he claims to be criminal conduct occurring in 2013? In light of 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a), what would be the point?

[Martinned]

You can't expect the president to care about little details like statute of limitations. (Though he definitely does know about it.)

[Martinned]

JD Vance justifies kissing Putin's ass with a very unusual interpretation of how World War II ended:

"This is how wars ultimately get settled. If you go back to World War 2, if you go back to every major conflict in human history, they all end with some kind of negotiation."

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lx5ofw74hw2o

[John F. Carr]

At the Yalta conference the West and the USSR negotiated about how to divide postwar Europe.

[hobie]

I think Martin is implying that it took the complete obliteration of Germany to end that war. Owing to his recent animus towards Ukraine, I think Vance is hoping for a similar 'negotiated' outcome for them

[Krayt]

They should impeach the VP for the purely political position of lying about WW2, ironically, to support modern Hitler with his WWII-initiating Sudetenland-like claims about needing to protect his ethic Germans Russians.

Here's Truman talking about how the complete destruction of Japan is imminent, as was done with Germany.

You can then watch the representative of Japan, in fine tails and hat, sign the Instrument of Surrender on the USS Missouri, though YouTube seems to be lousy with colorized versions for some reason.

Shortly later, he killed himself in shame. Odd. He wasn't proud of a negotiated surrender.

[JasonT20]

Exactly. Many peoples in countries that had been under Nazi occupation had their fates decided by much more powerful countries, at least one of the leaders of those countries was clearly looking to negotiate for some of those peoples to be under his thumb.

The post-WWII order wasn't the abject failure that the post-Versailles order was. In fact, there was a lot of success in it. But there was also a lot of oppression that lasted decades that was enabled by Yalta.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and you suppose the people of eastern Europe were happy with that?

[Sarcastr0]

Really strong negotiator, that Truman. Got Hitler to shoot himself.

[Kazinski]

Are you advocating Gor the Truman strategy for ending wars?

Atom bombs, Asian land wars?

And only the first one worked, the Asian land war thing never works.

[Moderation4ever]

I heard the VP say this yesterday and thinking what a stretch. He knows well on WWII, with complete surrender by Germany and Japan, and yet he tries to sell this BS of negotiations.

[hobie]

I see Tucker is now 'just asking questions' about whether the US should have allied with Hitler. It will be a surprise to no one except our Jewish MAGA frogs that the Christian Nationalist MAGA scorpion will end up giving them a sting.

"But I trusted you! You said you weren't exploiting me for political gain."

"You knew who I was all along. See? It's even written on my red cap."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Reality is that Stalin was, in many ways, worse than Hitler. It took 4 years to defeat Hitler -- 45 to defeat Stalin -- and between Putin and China, we really haven't.

Asking if an alliance with Hitler would have turned out better is a legitimate geopolitical question -- particularly when one remembers that Stalin lived until 1953 while Hitler would have been dead of something by 1947 at the latest.

And then one other thing -- the Soviet government survived Stalin's death -- I'm not so sure the Nazi government would have survived Hitler's. And Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler...

[hobie]

Dumbass Jew frogs. Nationalist movements and religions have targeted/exploited them for millenia. But...hey...MAGA will be different.

"We're not like the others, you know. All that replacement talk was just us joking. See? We've labelled everyone antisemites. Well, sure...they happen to all be political enemies of Donald...but that's just coincidence!"

[Don Nico]

"Dumbass Jew frogs."
No excuse for that slur. Shame on you.

[hobie]

Its a parable...idiot

[hobie]

Besides, you MAGA should be shaming yourselves for this latest historical round of exploiting Jews for political retribution. Everyone outside your bubble sees it for what it is. I'd say I care, but I don't. I just don't like seeing people exploited.

[Moderation4ever]

Stalin was no doubt among the most evil people to live and rule. but he survived 45 years by knowing how to live with the US and western Europe. Hitler did not learn how to live with his enemies. Hitler wanted it all while Stalin was content with controlling his piece of the world. Stalin and Mao were bad duds but Hitler was the GOAT.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's the point: Stalin had staying power, Hitler didn't. That's why Stalin by the time he was done had killed more people than Hitler, and left behind a totalitarian country that stayed unfree.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you going to join the gang saying we were on the wrong side in WW2?

I know Hitler has a mythic power on our current political morality system and so punches some above his weight. But 'we should have joined the Axis' is a sign you've lost the thread of history via some counterfactual fallacy or other.

[Ridgeway]

Arguing about who was the "worst" dictator is a fools errand. There is a certain point where the bad-o-meter maxes out, and all 3 of those guys were well past that threshold. Think about it this way, if Hitler had only killed 5 million Jews in the Holocaust, would he have been "better"?

This notion of "we were on the wrong side in WWII" is truly frightening, however, and people who argue it should be ashamed.

It is also monumentally stupid, as the Germans declared war on us shortly after Pearl Harbor, and there is no plausible counterfactual where we could have been allied with Germany.

Equally stupid is the notion that we had the wherewithal or the will to turn around and take on the Soviets immediately after defeating Germany (with or without the help of a devastated Wehrmacht).

[Bob from Ohio]

"had the wherewithal"

IDN, ask the Japanese about that. Atomic bombs are quite a lot of "wherewithal".

[Ridgeway]

The Brits looked at this and quickly shelved the idea.

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

Dropping an A-bomb or two on the Japanese was a complete no brainer. They were the aggressor, had committed unspeakable atrocities against their enemies (including the US) and had exactly zero defenders in the US govt and the population as a whole. Not using the Bomb, and allowing more US boys to die, would have been viewed as genuinely treasonous -- Harry Truman would be viewed as Benedict Arnold and Douglas Haig rolled into one.

Using A-bombs against the USSR in a war we instigated would have been a different kettle of fish altogether.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We killed way more Japanese with incendiary bombs than we did with nukes. Tokyo was way worse than Hiroshima!

[Brett Bellmore]

No, idiot: I'm saying Paton had a good point when he advocated that we finish off the USSR after taking out Germany. They were after all on Hitler's side of the war when it started; The enemy of my enemy was, in this case, just another enemy.

[bernard11]

"finish off the USSR?"

What exactly does that mean? March on Moscow? Yeah, that always works. Wouldn't be too many casualties either, right? And victory was assured.

Plus the Army, having just finished WWII, would have been eager to take on the task, no doubt, rather than have the soldiers go home.

It was a bad idea when Patton suggested it, and remains so.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Stalin killed a lot of people. Russians who died in Leningrad, or opposing German invaders are not properly counted among them.

I think that notion that Stalin killed more people than Hitler depends pretty heavily on counting as Stalin's victims a lot of Russians, Balts, Eastern Europeans, and miscellaneous slavs whom Hitler killed. It probably also depends on subtracting from Hitler's toll Germany's own losses due to its own Hitler-ordered military misadventures.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don't forget The Holodomor.....

[Brett Bellmore]

You seem to have forgotten that Stalin didn't just continue mass murder after the Nazis were stopped, he began mass murder before they started. His estimated butcher bill excluding war casualties easily exceeded Hitler's.

[Bob from Ohio]

"every major conflict in human history"

Yeah, he mangled that but "MOST major conflicts in human history" end with negotiations. Other than the Civil War and WWII, all US wars have ended with negotiations. Napoleonic Wars ended with Congress of Vienna, 30 years war with Peace of Westphalia, among many other examples.

[jay.tee]

Unless every single enemy is destroyed, the resolution of human conflicts do end with negotiations. Depending on the imbalance of power during the negotiations, it could be as simple as a cessation of killings in exchange for the other side throwing down weapons.

[Moderation4ever]

I think you have hit on the point. The VP is saying that the acceptance of complete surrender is also considered negotiations.

[Ridgeway]

WWI ended in unconditional surrender as much as the Civil War did. Foch gave the German delegation a list of terms and told them to sign on the dotted line. With a couple of immaterial quibbles, they did so.

[Bob from Ohio]

Treaty of Versailles ended the war with Germany. Other treaties with the other Central Powers.

[Ridgeway]

Naah -- the armistice ended it. The T of V just formalized the terms. The Germans had already withdrawn and (more importantly) disarmed. They had even less leverage at the treaty conference than they did at Compiegne.

And nobody gives two craps about Austria Hungary or the Turks (except the Serbs).

[Riva]

Unusual only if you’re a troll lacking any ability for intellectual nuance. And apparently a troll with the time and incentive (monetary?) to blast this section with a book load of garbage. In context, Vance was making a broader point about conflict resolution and there were actually quite a few important negotiations settling world order after that war. But it’s much more fun for adult children to troll over one poorly phrased comment out of context in an interview. So much for liberal intellectualism.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Something that I was surprised to see on multiple levels -- The AAUP -- American Association of University Professors -- has somehow merged with the AFT -- American Federation of Teachers, one of the two national K-12 unions, the other being the Never Educate Anyone (NEA).

Am I the only person who didn't know about this? At the risk of inviting an ad hominem fuselage, and with the honest concession that I am not the most diligent reader of the higher education press, it really did come as a surprise to me.

I don't know what it does to the AAUP legally, but ethically, doesn't it raise issues with them censuring institutions when they are also engaged in labor law relations with them?

And I like to remind people that both Franklin Roosevelt and George Meaney of the AFL-CIO were adamantly opposed to public sector unionization.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know what 'labor law relations' means, but this doesn't seem wild:

"As an affiliate, the AAUP maintains its independence and autonomy—as do our chapters. AAUP members will continue as full members of the AAUP with all the rights and privileges that go with membership. The AAUP will continue to have its own national governing Council, officers, constitution, and Biennial Association Meeting and AAUP chapters will continue to be governed by chapter constitutions. The AAUP maintains sole authority over its budget, programs, and staff. The AAUP also maintains sole authority over the Redbook, the promulgation of professional standards, investigation and censure/sanction and over its committees. All AAUP members will also become members of the AFT/AFL-CIO, with all the rights and privileges that go with membership in the AFT."
https://www.aaup.org/faqs-aaupaft-affiliation

[Dr. Ed 2]

"All AAUP members will also become members of the AFT/AFL-CIO, with all the rights and privileges that go with membership in the AFT."

Which is my point -- it is like the ACLU affiliating with the NRA.
No AAUP statement can now be viewed as independent of the AFL-CIO while in the past, the power of the AAUP was that it *was*...

[ThePublius]

"fuselage" - I think you meant fusillade.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Damn spellcheck....

[Martinned]

All those people who were hysterical about the UK Online Safety Act last week will presumably also have strong opinions about this Mississippi situation:

Unfortunately, Bluesky is unavailable in Mississippi right now, due to a new state law that requires age verification for all users.

While intended for child safety, we think this law poses broader challenges & creates significant barriers that limit free speech & harm smaller platforms like ours.

https://bsky.app/profile/bsky.app/post/3lwzadikbrc2u

The rest of us might be wondering whether Twitter is getting the same treatment. (I don't know the answer either way. I can't be bothered to check.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

I am not a fan of the Mississippi law.

[John F. Carr]

Basically, only tame platforms are allowed to have anonymous users.

[jay.tee]

Like many others, I am no fan of the Mississippi law. However, it’s disingenuous to compare it to the UK Online Safety Act. They’re not remotely alike in intent nor scope.

[Dr. Ed 2]

While I find the rather sophomoric tweets of two gentlemen who are old enough to know better to be regrettable, I presume that there was a legitimate law enforcement purpose for the raid on Bolton's house.

And the point I try to remind the Never Trumpers of is that if you are forever "crying 'wolf'!", no one will ever believe you should there actually be a wolf there someday.

That said, *IF* (and I emphasize "if") this actually is unfounded and merely an attempt by Trump to punish his enemies, does Bolton have any legal recourse?

The man's not getting sympathy from me -- he did agree to pre-publication review of his books and then ignored that (reportedly) -- I'm just wondering.

[Martinned]

There was much discussion on this blog last week about selective prosecution.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.9-2-22/ALDE_00013902/

The Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff claiming to have suffered retaliation in violation of the Free Speech Clause must first demonstrate that the plaintiff engaged in constitutionally protected speech and such speech was a motivating factor behind the official’s adverse action. If the plaintiff demonstrates this, the official must show that it would have taken the same action absent the protected speech. The Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff alleging retaliatory prosecution—that is, being charged with a crime in retaliation for speech—must also prove that their prosecution was not supported by probable cause, as required by the Fourth Amendment. In Nieves v. Bartlett, the Court recognized an exception to the probable cause rule, holding that a plaintiff alleging retaliatory arrest need not show a lack of probable cause if the plaintiff presents objective evidence that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been.

[Brett Bellmore]

Until you're ready to admit they shouldn't have come after Trump, it all rings hollow. Or is selective prosecution only wrong if Republicans do it?

[Martinned]

Who shouldn't have come after Trump?

[LexAquilia]

lol what? You're now pretending no one went after Trump or his orbit?

Is this what it takes to be a Lefty today?

[Martinned]

No, I'm asking Brett which Trump prosecution he thinks was selective. Because in some cases (like the New York case) the argument for selective prosecution was a lot stronger than in others (like the fucking around with classified documents case).

[Dr. Ed 2]

If I show some girl a bunch of open-source stuff I downloaded off the internet and tell her it is classified "top secret", exactly what am I guilty of?

And while the CONTENTS of a folder marked "top secret" are classified, is the folder itself? So if I put something ELSE in it???

Trump's a showman, everyone knows that, and telling someone that something is secret doesn't mean it actually IS secret...

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, basically all of them; You have any idea how many people in Washington fuck around with classified documents?

Biden himself had them scattered all over; Office at Penn Biden center, in the garage, you name it. He was sharing classified documents with his biographer, remember?

Comey was sharing classified documents with the media.

Bolton? He shared classified documents with his family, and more recently was using them to write a book.

So, yeah, I'm fine with saying that Trump may well have violated classified documents laws, but it was still selective prosecution in that case.

[Martinned]

My sense is that anyone who gets caught having boxes full of classified documents in their bathroom gets into some kind of legal trouble.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I'm fine with saying that there's a history of carefully not looking that you're ignoring here.

[Martinned]

Oooh! A conspiracy full of imaginary criminals!

Shouldn't you be demanding access to the Epstein files?

[LexAquilia]

Biden didn't.

[Martinned]

What did Biden do that wasn't investigated? LOL, even things he didn't do were investigated.

[jb]

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf

HTH

[Martinned]

Incidentally, as far as I can tell this issue was not (properly) raised by Trump in the New York litigation, or at least not preserved for appeal, which is why four out of five judges rejected this idea in the appellate judgment last week.

[jb]

Which "shouldn't have come after Trump?" are you talking about? I think some of the cases were weak, a distraction from Trump's much worse behavior, and shouldn't have been brought. Unfortunately, both the New York civil and criminal cases fall into this bucket, and they're the only cases we got to see prosecuted.

Of course, the closest analogy to the Bolton case is the documents case, which seemed pretty legitimate to me. And while it's the closest analogy, I don't think it comes anywhere near justifying the raid on Bolton's house and office unless it turns out that the administration has been asking Bolton for documents back for a year and he's been refusing and actively moving the documents around trying to hide them from the government.

[Brett Bellmore]

But that's the thing: Selective prosecution is distinct from bullshit prosecution. Selective prosecution doesn't mean the charges are bogus, it means that they wouldn't have been brought if you weren't out to get the guy.

The NY civil and criminal cases were bogus cases brought because they were out to get the guy, the documents case was not really bogus, but no ex-President would have normally been treated that way.

And I say that having said myself that Trump was a damned fool expecting to get normal ex-President treatment from the Biden DOJ. By then he was fully on notice that they were out to get him by any means possible, fair or foul, so he should have been more careful.

[jb]

No, the documents case was not an example of selective prosecution. Where is your example of some other former President that repeatedly ignored and eventually subverted requests to return classified documents? If Trump had just been charged for possessing the docs, you'd have a point, but of course that's not the situation at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're asking for evidence other Presidents were subjected to exactly what had been selectively done to Trump! The fact that Biden was storing the same thing in his garage and left alone doesn't seem to be penetrating.

[jb]

Sigh.

I'm asking for evidence that someone asked for Biden to give the documents back and he said no. And then when they asked again, he tried to hide them.

The documents case was not about having some classified documents. It was about a pattern of behavior designed to try to keep them even when they had been requested back repeatedly. You guys have to know this by now, but keep trying to draw false equivalence to situations that are merely about possession because it allows this sort of dumb false narrative about Trump being treated worse than everyone else. No, Trump acted worse than everyone else even though it might be kind of the same category of behavior. And that's true across the board, not just here.

[David Nieporent]

I'm asking for evidence that someone asked for Biden to give the documents back and he said no. And then when they asked again, he tried to hide them.

You neglected to mention the step where he was subpoenaed and had his lawyers submit a perjured affidavit in response.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sigh.

And I'm pointing out that the fact that nobody asked Biden IS the selective treatment!

[Martinned]

Sigh... And is anyone pointing out that nobody needed to ask twice in any case other than Trump's?

[jb]

Even if you're right (and we don't really know one way or the other), it's not like it was a hard request to comply with. When Biden found documents he alerted the government and gave them back, and invited the FBI in to search for more. When Pence found documents, he gave them back. When the National Archives repeatedly asked Trump for documents, he stonewalled, lied and then hid the documents.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's a silly point to make. Sure, it wouldn't have been hard to comply, if Trump had been properly on notice that the rules had changed. The informal rules, I mean, half of Washington is in violation of the formal rules.

Biden didn't have this problem, because he HAD that notice.

It's like being the first person entering a speed trap. The next guy sees you being stopped, and has time to slow down. Only in this case, the next guy in line had arranged for the speed trap.

[Sarcastr0]

if Trump had been properly on notice that the rules had changed

What even are you getting this from? Trump was notified; there was no rules change.
He moved and hid the docs and lied and ordered others to lie.

No one else did that. That's why Trump got in trouble.

You're fully onto your own facts here.

[jb]

This is only a silly point if you have some reason to believe that Biden or Pence or anyone else would have delayed, lied and hid documents rather than returning them if they had been the first ones. And there's just no reason to believe that whatsoever.

Also, folks from the National Archives testified before Congress that although it was quite common for classified material to be mishandled by most administrations, Trump was unique in holding into very conspicuous and obvious Presidential records, which is what kicked the whole thing off in the first place. So it was Trump's own exceptional behavior that triggered the whole chain of events, not some sneaky speed trap set up just for him.

[bernard11]

Brett,

Your arguments here are really terrible, even for you. You twist yourself into a pretzel to defend Trump, as always.

Just admit it. The cases are not comparable. Claiming they are is just being a hardheaded fool. Trump had every opportunity in the world to turn over the documents, rejected them all, and even defied a subpoena.

Biden and Pence did none of that.

[David Nieporent]

https://x.com/dril/status/473265809079693312?lang=en

[John F. Carr]

If the raid was based on lies, Bivens applies.

[SRG2]

Bivens is dead.

[Bob from Ohio]

I didn't even know he was sick.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

He's pining for the fjords.

[hobie]

The classified doc thing is just pretext. I believe they are looking for/planting mortgage fraud docs. It's not as thrilling as Night of the Long Knives, but it gets the job done.

[Kazinski]

I know I shouldn't be taking any notice of this but it is amusing to see one committed Democrat anking another why Democratic registration is down 2.1 million voters in the 30 states that report party registration, while GOP registration is up 2.4 million.

https://x.com/NRCC/status/1959619202303582620?t=vQNYecKnDFkdQKGZ6PPeAw&s=19
CNN was asking Hakeem Jeffries about a NYTimes story, so blame them for noticing, its not something I am tracking.

[Martinned]

One might speculate that voters are angry that the Democrats have decided not to be the opposition...

[Kazinski]

To be fair they have opposed:

scrapping a 4 trillion dollar tax cut.
Reducing DC's crime rate.
Making women's sports just for women.
Deporting illegal aliens whether or not they are criminals.
Ending NGO slush funds for out of office democrats.
Cutting the size and scope of federal government.
Ending the EV mandate.

That's not enough?

Unless of course the 2.1m voters leaving the Dems is all the illegal aliens self deporting.

It also doesn't explain the 2.4 million surge in GOP voters.

[Martinned]

That's not enough?

Presumably Democratic voters would prefer it if Democratic politicians spent more time doing things like that, i.e. voting against Trumpist attempts to make the world worse at every turn.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is that the Democratic party seems to be increasingly out of touch with the median voter.

I think this is due to the party's increasingly urban focus: Because urban centers have become such partisan monocultures, (Having many precincts that return 100% votes for Democrats in each election.) there's a faction of Democrats growing up there who really have no experience outside of one party states. And they now control the party.

And yet, the country as a whole remains 50-50, so this handicaps them everywhere but the urban centers: The party is run by people who have never needed to, and don't know how to, appeal to median voters, because they come from places that are so unrepresentative of the country as a whole.

The situation isn't symmetric, because almost none of the country is as heavily Republican as urban areas are heavily Democratic. A vanishingly small portion of the Republican leadership come from places where there aren't any Democrats.

Here you can see a graph of party affiliation vs population density. As you can see, at no population density does the average Republican vote get over about 68%, while at high densities, the Democratic share of the vote goes well over 80%.

The result is that the median Democrat is elected from a district that is much more left-wing relative to the political center of the country than the districts the media Republican is elected from.

[Sarcastr0]

Political science causality is hard to figure, and the simple stories are almost always wrong. One clue is you've concluded it's the Dems who are the radicals these days.

That's so dumb only Brett could be self-deluded enough to type it.

But because appeals to incredulity don't play with the deluded, I'd point out that Schumer being really unpopular *in New York* is support for Martinned's postulate, and against yours:
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5448327-chuck-schumer-new-york-city-voters-favorability-survey/

In fact your theory neglects the Senate entirely. I'd not noticed how you shifted the thesis.

You studied it out too hard on this one, Brett!

[Brett Bellmore]

I ignored the Senate as I ignored the Presidency, because both being at large elections at the state level, the phenomenon I was talking about was only indirectly applicable.

But, Schumer, elected-state wide, being unpopular in a very heavily Democratic city, is hardly contrary to my thesis: As a state-wide candidate, Schumer has to try to appeal to a more ideologically diverse voter base than you find in NYC. He, perforce, must be to the 'right' of the median NYC voter.

But in the House, almost all of the Democratic caucus are from urban districts. THEY do not have to appeal to a state-wide or ideologically diverse electorate.

I know the idea of Schumer as a moderating influence on the Democratic party sounds a bit crazy, but he actually is.

[Sarcastr0]

So your comment wasn’t really responsive to what you replied to at all.

Or to your own first paragraph.

I dunno, man.

[Don Nico]

You definitely do not know.

[Don Nico]

"it's the Dems who are the radicals these days"
"That's so dumb only Brett could be self-deluded enough to type it."
Just check out the AOC, Bernie, and Mamdami wing and tell me that it is not Sarc who is deluded

[bernard11]

Don,

The difference, IMO, is that while the Dems have a bloc that is further to the left than I would like, the GOP is systematically irrational.

I wouldn't even call them radicals, necessarily, maybe reactionaries, who want Trump to be king and love every stupid dishonest thing he says and does.

[Frank Drackman]

How did "47/47/48?" win?? Nobody I know voted for him!!!

[Martinned]

The problem is that the Democratic party seems to be increasingly out of touch with the median voter.

True. Democrats are increasingly to the right of the median voter.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/692879/independents-drive-trump-approval-second-term-low.aspx

[jb]

I think the problem is that the current Democratic coalition is fairly fragile and it allows fringe voices to drive the agenda too much as a result. There are a bunch of relatively fringe social issues that end up occupying a ridiculous amount of energy by Democrats, when they should be focusing instead on their (popular) core agenda instead. I'm going to skip the relatively complicated topic of trans rights and use the recent example of San Francisco school renaming instead. The SF City Council spent an absurd amount of its time and energy trying to purge names of "controversial" figures such as George Washington (he owned slaves, so I kind of get it, but seriously?) and Abraham Lincoln (WTF???) when the city was going through a profound housing and livability crisis. It would have been a silly exercise even if everything was going great in the city, but was a travesty under the circumstances. And voters have rightly become skeptical of leadership that would focus its energy on an enterprise that is not only unpopular but also profoundly distracting.

in reality, though, the Democrats have unpopular positions on relatively minor positions, whereas Republicans have unpopular positions on the main pillars of their policy agenda: look at polling on the OBBB or Republican abortion policies as examples. Democrats should really focus on a constructive message about their approach to the economy, health care, immigration, etc. that serves as a counterweight to the unpopular MAGA status quo, and stop getting trolled into unpopular takes on social issues.

[David Nieporent]

I think this is due to the party's increasingly urban focus: Because urban centers have become such partisan monocultures, (Having many precincts that return 100% votes for Democrats in each election.) there's a faction of Democrats growing up there who really have no experience outside of one party states. And they now control the party.

And yet, the country as a whole remains 50-50, so this handicaps them everywhere but the urban centers: The party is run by people who have never needed to, and don't know how to, appeal to median voters, because they come from places that are so unrepresentative of the country as a whole.

Brett — like the GOP in general — is so committed to the notion that dirt and trees, rather than people, vote that he doesn't understand the utter inconsistency — nay, nonsensicality — of the above statements.

[Brett Bellmore]

You really don't understand my point, do you? THIS is what I mean by it being a 50-50 country! In election after election, Democrats and Republicans are almost evenly matched against each other nation-wide.

If I was talking about dirt and trees, I'd have said we were a 95-5 nation... I was talking about people.

The median Republican area is about 55% Republican. The median Democratic area is more than 65% Democratic. The result is that Republican office holders come from areas with large numbers of Democrats, and Democratic office holders come from areas with hardly any Republicans. Republicans grow up having to deal with Democrats, Democrats are use to being able to run Republicans over with a political steamroller, just ignore them.

And it handicaps them in dealing with a country where half the voters are Republicans.

[jb]

"The median Republican area is about 55% Republican. The median Democratic area is more than 65% Democratic. The result is that Republican office holders come from areas with large numbers of Democrats, and Democratic office holders come from areas with hardly any Republicans. Republicans grow up having to deal with Democrats, Democrats are use to being able to run Republicans over with a political steamroller, just ignore them."

How is this possibly true if the country is 50/50 as a whole and both houses of the legislature are reasonably close to 50/50 as well?

[jay.tee]

From a pure statistical perspective, here’s a simplified example of how it would work out:

Democratic stronghold (65% D / 35% R)
- 1,000,000 total voters
- 650,000 D voters
- 350,000 R voters

Repub stronghold (45% D / 55% R)
- 3,000,000 total voters
- 1,350,000 D voters
- 1,650,000 R voters

Total (50% D / 50% R)
- 4,000,000 total voters
- 2,000,000 D voters
- 2,000,000 R voters

Is that representative? Probably not given the complexities of where you draw the lines, where independents fall, human behavior, etc. But it might serve as a simplified model to explain vote distribution.

[jb]

That would work if we were talking about Senate seats and Republicans controlled the more populous states. Instead, Democrats tend to control more populous states on average so if anything your math suggests the opposite of Brett's analysis.

But the real problem with your example (and Brett's math in general) is you have to be able to extend it to a 50/50 House where all the seats have basically the same population. I'm not enough of a math whiz to do a proof or anything, but I'm pretty sure Brett's understanding of the party split is impossible in a 50/50 country and a 50/50 House.

[jay.tee]

Agree - way too complex to quickly mock up in Excel and would require too many assumptions to lead to an authoritative conclusion.

[David Nieporent]

You really don't understand my point, do you? THIS is what I mean by it being a 50-50 country! In election after election, Democrats and Republicans are almost evenly matched against each other nation-wide.

Yes. Which directly contradicts all your blathering about "unrepresentative of the country" and inability to "appeal to median voters"! If it's a 50-50 country then they are just as good as Republicans at appealing to the median voter.

[Brett Bellmore]

Given all the structural advantages the Democrats have, like dominating most educational and media organizations, being lousy at appealing to the voters is the only thing keeping them from total dominance.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL.

[jb]

...he says, ignoring actual structural advantages like the electoral college and Senate.

[Sarcastr0]

jb - don't neglect that Brett's making up structural disadvantage.

The failure of the US to adopt Brett's version of history and law can only be layered liberal conspiracies biasing everything against conservativism.

[hobie]

Guess we'll see if the hoi polloi prefer Marxism of Nazism...to put our respective positions at their most hyperbolic

[David Nieporent]

"The hoi polloi" is redundant. It's just "hoi polloi."

[hobie]

Noted. Thanks.

[Swede425]

The Dems need to hire more lesbians to help them figure out why men find their party so repulsive.

[Krayt]

One might speculate that voters are angry that the Democrats have decided not to be the opposition...

Recalls the Tea Party movement, an insurrection against Republicans for meekly going along with the Democrats too much.

People are calling for the Dem to resist more.

[David Nieporent]

why Democratic registration is down 2.1 million voters in the 30 states that report party registration

The underlying claim — which you are repeating accurately — is incorrect, and based on people not understanding grammar. The data says that Democratic registration was down between 2020 and 2024. Not that it is down, now, in 2025.

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you think it has reversed course in 2025?

[David Nieporent]

I suspect so — after all, now Trump is president and driving voters away, whereas from 2020 through 2024 Biden was president and driving voters away — but I don't know that to be true. But regardless, the point is that the data is out of date.

[Mr. Bumble]

Here is an article from May of this year for NJ and NJ is about as blue as you get.
"According to data from the New Jersey Division of Elections, there are 2,449,526 registered Democrats in New Jersey and 1,621,669 Republicans as of May 1. The state also has 2,418,977 unaffiliated voters and 75,113 voters registered with a third-party.

Republicans have gained 7,529 voters between March and May. Meanwhile, Democrats gained 1,202 voters over the same time period."
https://patch.com/new-jersey/westorange/gop-gaining-dems-new-jersey-primary-election-creeps-closer

[Commenter_XY]

It is the People's Republic of NJ,,,

[Martinned]

The Great Leader still doesn't care about wasting taxpayer money, as long as it is on gaudy shit:

You see the way this is looking. I can't tell you how much that gold costs. A lot of money. This beautiful office needed it.

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lwyxdndlvj2n

[Don Nico]

The glod crap in the Oval Office makes ordinary kitsch look classy

[Martinned]

I'm not sure if people noticed that Jackson, J. went full Liversidge on the Supreme Court last week:

This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a103_kh7p.pdf#page=17

[Kazinski]

Yep, the new great solo dissenter.

[jay.tee]

Yes, we noticed her increasingly unhinged bent that accommodates the dubious claims (read: false) in her opinions. Fortunately her diatribes don’t seem to be overly contagious, like in Stanley v. City of Sanford.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Liversidge"

What does this mean?

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't be so lazy.
Liversidge v Anderson
UK legal case
Liversidge v Anderson AC 206 is a landmark United Kingdom administrative law case which concerned the relationship between the courts and the state, and in particular the assistance that the judiciary should give to the executive in times of national emergency. It concerns civil liberties and the separation of powers. Both the majority and dissenting judgments in the case have been cited as persuasive precedent by various countries of the Commonwealth of Nations. Wikipedia

[Bob from Ohio]

"Don't be so lazy."

My search led with some artist name Peter Liversidge.

[Martinned]

In his legendary dissent in Liversidge v. Anderson (1941) Lord Atkin quoted Alice in Wonderland:

I know of only one authority which might justify the suggested method of construction. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master, that's all." After all this long discussion the question is whether the words "If a man has" can mean "If a man thinks he has". I have an opinion that they cannot and the case should be decided accordingly.

The Lord Chancellor (presiding judge) thought that was too harsh and asked him to take it out, but he refused.

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

[Martinned]

As a result of the Great Leader's FAFO attitude to tarriffs, as of today you can no longer send packages in the mail from Europe to the US.

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/08/23/europe-to-halt-postal-services-to-us-after-tax-deal-scrapped

[Frank Drackman]

Lot of French Ticklers won't be tickling anything

[Kazinski]

About the time the Friday open thread was getting stale Loki chastised me for not understanding vertical stare decisis, which I have to admit is fair. In fact I am not sure how any layman who pays attention to 2nd amendment law in the district and appeals courts in half the circuits could have any understanding about how the concept of vertical stare decisis is supposed to work.

But never mind that, on Friday we were talking about Humphrey's Executor since Seila Law in 2020.

I haven't paid much attention before January of this year, but is their Officer of the United States Trump has fired who has removal protection that has been reinstated for more than a few hours, and is still in office.

Any of the 17 Inspector Generals?

Gwinnett Wilcox of NLRB?

Cathy Harris of MSPB?

Charlotte Borrows. Or Jocelyn Samues of EEOC?

Hampton Dillinger OSC?

Alexander Hoeehn -Saric or Richard Trumpka. Mary Boyle of CPSC?

Kelly Slaughter or Alvaro Before of the FTC? HE was about specifically the FTC. This one has been on an administrative stay of the injunction by the DC Court of appeals since July 21, they seem to be taking their time.

There are others at the FEC, and probably a few more. And several have reached the SC shadow docket.

How many of those have been reinstated? I can't find a single instance. What's a layman supposed to think about all this?

Humphrey's Executor was a mistake not to be repeated?

[Martinned]

See above.

This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.

[Mr. Bumble]

Quoting PBJ, who can't even get one of the other Witches of Eastwick on her side is some argument.

[tylertusta]

She accuses others of what she's guilty of doing herself.

[Joe_dallas]

Tylertusta - That is pretty much the entire game the left plays

[Martinned]

It was the correct answer to the question posed, though.

[loki13]

Since you put my name in your mouth (and since the point was that you were confidently lawsplainin' things to the rest of us), I will try and make what everyone else was trying to tell you more clear.

Vertical stare decisis is pretty easy to understand. If you've practiced law, you're already familiar with the SCOTUS cases that with familiar admonitions-
1. You (the lower courts) follow SCOTUS precedent until SCOTUS overrules it.
2. You (the lower courts) don't try to "read the tea leaves" on what you think SCOTUS will do.

So now we run into an issue. Here's the thing- this actually requires knowledge of, um, law-like substance. Procedure and stuff.

Cases take a long time. So early in a case, you might have a preliminary injunction. That's not the whole case! That's just the very beginning.

Imagine that a lower court issues a preliminary injunction in case A. The appellate court upholds the preliminary injunction.

So the administration appeals the PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. And they argue that it should SCOTUS should reverse the preliminary injunction. Why?

The administration argues:
1. No standing.
2. No jurisdiction.
3. No likelihood of success on the merits for reasons 3.a, 3.b, 3.c, and 3.d.
4. It's against the public interest.
5. Unitary executive penumbras and emanations.
6. Something something Alito's flag.

So there's six possible reasons. SCOTUS, on the emergency docket (aka, the Trump Express Docket), issues an order that reverses the injunction.

There's NO REASON. What does this mean? It means that there is no preliminary injunction. The case continues. But it could be any of the possible reasons (or because there is a new "don't grant preliminary injunctions when the executive rhymes with Lump" doctrine). The lower courts literally do not know.

In fact, because of how our court systems work, and because of what we have had drilled into us (for a GOOD REASON) we are not to presume anything about long-standing precedent and good case law PRECISELY because that's what SCOTUS has told us to do!

People have tried to explain this to you. You either want to hear it, or you don't. But yes, this is why I happen to think that Justice Jackson's use of the term Calvinball is appropriate. There are rules and ways to deal with this- and it's not the lower courts that are screwing this up.

If Humphrey's Executor is dead law, then you know what? SCOTUS needs to say that. A lot of us are assuming they will cabin it - but unless and until they do, it is good law (as re-stated in Sela, et al.). That's what the lower courts have. Not the "vibes."

It's how the law wor... is SUPPOSED to work.

[Kazinski]

I appreciate you making clear what you think should be happening but isn't. But the one factor that seems to be the overriding factor in all these cases which you don't even bring up is the Supreme Court doesn't think any of these fired officers can show irreparable harm and are this not entitled to a preliminary injunction. While an administration not being able to implement its policies is irreparable (not that the Administration has to show harm, its the petitioners burden).

I think when Slaughter's case gets to SCOTUS they will finally bury Humphrey's or perhaps just say today's FTC no longer resembles the 1930's FTC.

As the DC Court of Appeals put it:

"But both the Supreme Court and this circuit have declined to extend Humphrey's Executor to agencies that are not a "mirror image" of the FTC. The NLRB's structure and powers take it outside that narrow exception."

And that likely includes the 2025 FTC.

They seem to be able to figure out what's going on even if you can't.

[loki13]

This is just word salad, again.

Did you read any of what I wrote? Did you understand it?

This isn't a question of "Can I try to make sense of a bunch on unreasoned opinions." Sure. In the same way that I could get the gist, before Dobbs, that Roe v. Wade (as limited by Casey et al.) was in trouble. But a lower court isn't supposed to "get the gist." A lower court is supposed to apply the law.

Lower courts are not supposed "to figure out what's going on," and there's actually cases telling them exactly that. They are supposed to apply the law.

[Sarcastr0]

The job of lower courts is not to predict how they think the Court might change the law now, it is to follow the law as laid down by the Court.

[Commenter_XY]

Sadly, some Fed Dist court do not = ...it is to follow the law as laid down by the Court

[Michael P]

New York stole money from a Marine from New Hampshire who was stationed in Texas. The state has since admitted its error, but has not returned the money, and intends to charge a fee for doing so. This is another example of why the state does not deserve full faith and credit in the rest of the union.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/exclusive-marine-corps-wife-mom-blasts-blue-state-wrongful-levy-savings-left-with-pennies

[Commenter_XY]

RE: Fed Gov Ownership of 10% of INTC

This is a bad idea, and it should not be done.

I wasn't a fan of Prez Obama taking stakes in auto companies and banks back in 2009. And I am not a fan now of the fed gov't under POTUS Trump taking a 10% passive stake in INTC. The Fed gov't already causes enough mischief for the markets via regulation. No need to give them more opportunities for mischief.

[Michael P]

Has it been changed to an actually passive stake? Earlier coverage I saw said that the shares would be voted in accordance with the wishes of Intel's board of directors, which works make it an even worse idea.

[Kazinski]

Not a good idea, bit better than just giving them the money outright, which was the plan under the CHIPs act.

[Martinned]

Is it? If you think subsidies are worse than an ownership stake, you should at least show your work.

[Sarcastr0]

You don’t see to understand what a grant is.

It’s not a gift.

[Armchair]

It's an interesting question, but one of the primary reasons for supporting Intel is national security.

It revolves around the concept of "Fabs" (or semiconductor foundries). And the world's Fabs are increasingly located in 3 locations. China, Taiwan, and the US. Taiwan (TSMC) is a key player in this space. Many of the US's most valuable companies (Apple, NVIDIA, AMD)...don't operate their own Fabs. They outsource the chip production to TSMC in Taiwan).

But Intel does operate its own Fabs, and in the US. It's one of the only major players that does.

The national security issue is this. Taiwan is within striking distance of China. If the US let its own fabs go out of business, and then China took Taiwan (or even simply blockaded it)...it could crash the US economy. And its defense sector. And the world's. China would be the "sole" source for semiconductor manufacturing.

A modest investment now, to avoid the US economy potentially crashing later and having a domestic supply of semiconductors is nice.

[Sarcastr0]

Owning 10% of intel does not address that problem.

And while the CHIPs act has many silly bits in it, it's focus on building our semiconductor fabrication capacity is good.
So no need to catastrophize and kill your credibility.

China would be the "sole" source for semiconductor manufacturing
That seems extremely wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_industry#Market_share

See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabrication_plants

[Armchair]

"Owning 10% of intel does not address that problem."

Sure it does. Because it's an INVESTMENT. It's money for capital expenditures in exchange for a share of the company. It's a classic way for companies to raise capital for this investment. And by having a share of the company, it's not just "free money" and allows the US to recoup its investment.

"That seems extremely wrong:"

It's not really. Taiwan absolutely dominates in market share. China and the US play second bit, with South Korea adding a little. Everyone else is basically a bit player, at most.

[Sarcastr0]

The grant was the investment. That's how governments invest in infrastructure.

The 10% stake is just extortion on top of it.
-----
I linked you to the list of market shares. It's not my area; maybe I'm missing something. But you need to read before you can engage, otherwise you're repeating past ipse dixits.

[Armchair]

1) Loans and shares of companies have a way of incentivizing companies where pure grants don't.

2) Did you even read your own link? If you did, you would see the top players in fabs are 1) Taiwan, 2) US. 3) China ...4) South Korea.

AND if you look at it by market share, everyone beyond the first 3 is less than 15% of the market...combined.

[Sarcastr0]

Loans and shares of companies have a way of incentivizing companies where pure grants don't.
Do they? Smells like vibes.

What are you incentivizing? Remember this is about infrastructure and capacity building. The incentives are aligned. And again, a grant is not a gift, even if you pretend it is. There is plenty of monitoring.

And the grant was already made; this is the government going back in and using it as cover for extorting the stock out of the company.

And did you forget your original thesis: "China would be the "sole" source for semiconductor manufacturing"
Do you admit that's wrong now?

[bernard11]

A modest investment now, to avoid the US economy potentially crashing later and having a domestic supply of semiconductors is nice.

Yes it is, but there are better - much better - ways to accomplish this.

[jay.tee]

What other ways are better? I’m not trying to call you out, just genuinely curious what other ways you think we could/should attempt to secure domestic production of something considered critical for national security.

[bernard11]

Long-term purchase guarantees, loans on favorable terms with provisions as to what the money is to be used for, tax considerations for certain products, probably some other things.

I don't like the idea of the government taking an equity position. I think there is a difference between this and buying equity in a company on the verge of failure to help it recover. Even in the latter case I'm dubious, but can be sold under some conditions.

[hobie]

China has proven that the state propping up industries until they dominate worldwide has been very successful for China. Although it is antithetical to Reagan and market capitalism (what hasn't been lately?) I think it is worth exploring as a means to level the playing field.

[Brett Bellmore]

China for a considerable period benefited from a policy of helping them industrialize, on the (in retrospect mistaken) idea that a more prosperous China would be a more moderate, and hence less dangerous, China.

They also benefited to a considerable degree from the "greenwashing" of dirty industrial processes, where we'd let them handle the filthy parts, and pretend that pollution in China wasn't happening.

Finally, they've proven to be really good at espionage and subversion. That got the favorable treatment extended long after the premises behind it had proven to be nonsense.

But it was the deliberate Western policy of helping them industrialize that got the ball rolling.

Seriously, we'd have been totally screwed if they hadn't made two really big mistakes:

1. One Child, which turned out to be easier to start than stop, and kicked off their birth dearth early, so that they now have a short window before demographics cripple them.

2. Keeping the world in the dark about Covid so that it would get a good start outside China before the world reacted.

This latter not only finally got across that China could not be trusted, but also kicked off a global supply chain breakdown that threw our dependence on China into stark illumination. And the world decided that, expensive as it would be, we'd have to disentangle from them.

Our biggest obstacle in doing that is that we don't really have a free market anymore. The regulatory burden in the West is smothering.

[hobie]

"This latter not only finally got across that China could not be trusted, but also kicked off a global supply chain breakdown that threw our dependence on China into stark illumination."

Get your facts straight, Brett. Biden was solely responsible for the global supply chain/inflation thingy

[Sarcastr0]

China's command economy means it can offer steady, reliable funding to scientists and engineers that really helps them make long-term decisions.

But the price you pay for that is bad both in terms of what it means you must do to your people's freedom otherwise, and the hampering of markets as innovation engines for more applied R&D work.
Plus, all the other ancillary policies and culture that make China suck.

I'd also highlight their nondemocratic leadership stability comes with an ability to strategically plan for the long game, as seen in their really effective Belt and Road diplomacy-through-$$ initiative.

It is important as we compete with them to understand China's strengths. Do not mistake that for envy.

we don't really have a free market anymore.
It is also important we don't follow blind market worshipers and think that's the key to productivity.

[Kazinski]

I like bacon. But I prefer pork belly.

But I doubt I will get either in jail.

https://x.com/rhmaldonado1/status/1959374774452298056?t=cKypgOcv9sAbCnuP7U3GCw&s=19

[Kazinski]

The CBO has updated its projections again for the effects of Trump's tariffs on the deficit and there projections are that they will reduce the deficit by 4 Trillion over 10 years, and that includes reduced interest payments.

The biggest argument against tariffs is they will increase inflation, but I kind of wonder if that's true. It might increase prices, but it certainly doesn't increase the money supply.

But suppose Trump instead, With congressional approval_ put on a 400 m/y federal sales tax which would raise the same amount of revenue, but would not show up in CPI? What would the difference be?

Or closer to tariffs, how about it was a foreign content VAT that was taken at the register, which also would not show up in CPI, or PPI?

What's the difference between any of those and the 4 Trillion income tax increase the OBBB avoided. In terms of inflation and the economy?

Other than of course we aren't actively seeing a big effect in CPI or consumer spending yet on the tariffs, and there is no mechanism for importers or foreign manufacturers to absorb any of the costs in my alternative scenarios.

[Moderation4ever]

Tariffs reduce the deficit because they are a tax bringing additional money into the treasury. That tax falls on the consumers and typically in a regressive manner. The far left yells "tax the rich" and the far right yells "tax the poor". Neither is correct.

[Mhxekszj]

bullshit. the media presents tariffs as a bad thing for tom, dick and harry, but they're really only bad for schlomo and menachem.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Well, at least you got a chuckle out of me as I mute you.

[Mr. Bumble]

How much faith can anyone put in 10 year projections?

[tylertusta]

If it came from the CBO, you should put exactly zero stock in a 10-year projection.

Everyone has figured out how to game the CBO scoring: write a bill that frontloads increased spending now but it balances out with massive taxes later. Except those massive taxes almost always never arrive.

[Krayt]

How much faith can anyone put in 10 year projections?

Depends on the prediction, but in a generally free economy, resources become more plentiful, not less.

But this theory was built on observations and literally tested by making predictions (against 1970s gloom and doom talking heads), though Simon was uncomfortable even with a 10 year granularity, as an unlucky choice of swinging endpoints would not be indicative of the historical downward trend.

It literally allowed me to predict the Peak Oil scare was just another 1970s shortage scare retread.

[tylertusta]

The biggest argument against tariffs is they will increase inflation, but I kind of wonder if that's true. It might increase prices, but it certainly doesn't increase the money supply.

Taxes are actually one of the ways to reduce inflation since it reduces the amount of money in circulation.

We hardly hear about them in this context because it's such a political lightning rod- and because taxes have their own downsides- so the government would rather outsource inflation controls to the Fed via the reserve rate.

[hobie]

I guess it will depend on what data this administration is going to feed you, Kaz. I suspect if the CBO wears the wrong t-shirt to work one day, they'll find themselves mortgage-frauded.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz does not care to post economic naysayers.
He even excerpted the CBO to leave out the nonpositive part of their report.

Some have called him out for it; he doesn't seem to even realize he's doing it.

[hobie]

I'm gonna invoke another frog parable regarding Kaz: The MAGA Frog in the Pot of Hot Water

[Kazinski]

4.2% unemployment, 3% inflation, and 3% GDP growth is hot water? Its quite low on the misery index. Its only been lower two times for brief periods going back to the 50's.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=IenV

[Sarcastr0]

Pointing out a current snapshot is fine is kind of leaning into being a frog...

Are you not familiar with the parable?

[Kazinski]

Oh yeah, but what is actually getting worse?

Inflation rate last 6 months is lower than previous 6 months, GDP growth is 3%.

The only thing deteriorating, and only slightly, is job growth, and that is due to interest rates being high so long, which is why Powell has signalled the rate cut.

Shouldn't the water actually be getting hotter before the frog starts worrying?

Why don't you go ahead and cite the most concerning economic factor you think I am missing.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not an economist, so I will not take your offer to meet your layperson vibes with those of my own. I will only point out that your 'OK so far though!' really makes it look like you don't understand the story's point.

But if you want an expert opinion on the risks here, I've linked them to you in the past. The Fed has plenty of trouble signs they've pointed out.

[Kazinski]

What the fed has been pointing out since january is with unemployment at 4.2% and inflation less than 3% there is no need for them to take any action to either stimulate the economy or slow it down.

The fed rate went from 0.5% in 2022 to 5.5% in order to slow the economy, its still at 4.5%. The reason its still so high is because the economy is doing well, but inflation is still above 2%.

[Sarcastr0]

Back you are to 'we're OK so far so we're OK forever.'

You're the froggiest.

[hobie]

Kaz, you sound like 'Little Marco' in the 2016 debate with Christie.

You sound your numbers, and we all school you. You make a couple of hard blinks then repeat yourself...oblivious.

This is how we entertain ourselves these days.

[Kazinski]

Don't embarrass yourself Hobie, you don't school me because your comments are just snark and completely content free.

I can't recall a single substantive point you or Sarcastro has made about anything, at least Sarcastro was occasionally interesting 10 years ago.

[Kazinski]

What did I miss?

Any tax is going to have negative follow on effects.

And any tax is going to have a deflationary effect because it takes money out of the economy.

[Sarcastr0]

"We estimate that the changes in tariffs, both by the United States and its trading partners, will reduce the size of the U.S. economy. That reduction in output reflects both negative and positive effects: the negative effects of higher tariffs through channels such as reduced investment and productivity, and the positive effects of additional revenues from tariffs on U.S. imports, which would reduce federal borrowing and increase the funds available for private investment.

The increases in tariffs will make consumer goods and capital goods (the physical assets that businesses use to produce goods and services) more expensive, which will reduce the purchasing power of U.S. consumers and businesses. Those increases in costs will put temporary upward pressure on inflation."

[Kazinski]

But that's true of any tax increase, including the one the OBBB avoided, its also true of no tax increase and higher deficits.

You aren't saying we don't need the revenue are you?

[Sarcastr0]

You left it out of your CBO excerpt for some reason. And as I predicted it's that you only saw the positive stuff as the relevant analysis.

It doesn't matter if it's 'true of any tax increase' (debatable). It's true here. And you elided it.

[jb]

"The biggest argument against tariffs is they will increase inflation, but I kind of wonder if that's true. It might increase prices, but it certainly doesn't increase the money supply."

I guess if you worship at the altar of the Austrian School and don't actually pay attention to the real world, you might think the money supply thing was more important than the actual increase in prices.

To take on your broader set of questions, though: you're confused. VATs generally *are* included in CPI numbers, just as sales taxes are included in the US computations:

Taxes that are directly associated with the purchase of specific goods and services (such as sales and excise taxes), as well as government user fees, are included in the CPI. For example, toll charges and parking fees are included in the transportation category, and entry fees to national parks are included as part of the admissions index. In addition, property taxes are indirectly reflected in the BLS method of measuring the cost of the flow of services provided by shelter, called owners' equivalent rent, to the extent that these taxes influence rental values. Taxes not directly associated with specific purchases, such as income and Social Security taxes, are excluded, as are the government services paid for through those taxes.

Trump's tariffs are additionally problematic in two ways, though:

1) Tariffs distort incentives in the economy, and the Trump tariffs do this in particularly dumb ways. We've already talked in previous weeks about the fact that Trump's tariffs often tax parts more than they do finished goods, so they actually hurt domestic producers more than foreign manufacturers. But also, since he's trying to use them as a tool of foreign relations versus economic policy much of the time, we end up with bizarre results like the fact we currently have a higher tariff on Brazil (a country that we have a trade surplus with!) than on China, despite the fact that one of Trump's original rationales for the tariffs was to reduce our dependence on China and bring our overall balance of trade in line.

2) VATs are constructed such that they don't "double dip" and charge people consumption taxes multiple times. Trump's tariffs layer on additional taxes on goods on top of existing consumption taxes, making them even more regressive (and inflationary as a result, since poorer people don't have the option to invest versus spend when prices go higher).

[David Nieporent]

The CBO has updated its projections again for the effects of Trump's tariffs on the deficit and there projections are that they will reduce the deficit by 4 Trillion over 10 years, and that includes reduced interest payments.

No. Their projection is if the tariffs had no other effects on the economy it would reduce the deficit by $4T. (CBO is often tasked by members of Congress to come up with projections based on various hypotheticals that nobody believes are realistic.)

What's the difference between any of those and the 4 Trillion income tax increase the OBBB avoided. In terms of inflation and the economy?

Tariffs are economy-distorting, with (as Trump illustrates better than any textbook could) the government picking winners and losers.
​
​
(Oh, and for the record, "a 400 m/y federal sales tax" would not in fact "raise the same amount of revenue." You kind of misplaced 3 decimal places.)

[Kazinski]

Yeah the millions and billions and trillions just run together after a while.

[jb]

Kaz is willing to correct minor typographic errors apparently, but not any of the substantive ones.

[Kazinski]

I am a firm believer in the Austrian school, and Milton Friedman and his most prominent student Thomas Sowell.

Its just a fact all taxes distort incentives in the economy.

Tariffs are a consumption tax, so they will discourage consumption, in this case consumption of imports.

You don't like tariffs and you want to focus on their negative effects, which they have, my point is the other possible options to raise the same amount of revenue are likely to have even worse effects, if the 2017 tax cuts were allowed to expire its very likely we would be pushed into a recession.

You don't even address my that point you just rehash what we've heard since April.

What's your alternative to raise 4 trillion in new revenue that will have fewer negative effects than tariffs?

But consumption taxes tend to encourage saving, and saving tends to encourage investment in the long run.

[Sarcastr0]

Hayek weeps at the lack of humility in your economic analysis.

Friedman didn't want to burn it all down. You do. So you play economist, but not with any school or philosophy; you're just a cheerleader.

"“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

[jb]

First, the significant error I was actually calling you out on was your misunderstanding of consumption taxes actually being included in the CPI and other measures of inflation. Tariffs are not being picked on by the mean economists.

Second, I do think it's interesting that Trump has demonstrated the possibility of raising significant revenue through tariffs and I've said before that married to a sensible/strategic tariff policy they should possibly be more in the mix in terms of how we think about the federal budget. But Trump's actual implementation is terrible and counterproductive, especially since it changes erratically from month to month so it's impossible for businesses to plan around.

Finally, an obvious way to raise a comparable amount of revenue would have been to just phase out the Trump tax cuts and not add a bunch of stupid new ones. This would have made the tax system more progressive instead of more regressive, and raised revenue without distorting the economy in the same way as Trump's tariffs and new tax cuts are doing. Since we'd still have a significant deficit, we don't even have to choose between these options but as it is all Trump's tariffs end up being are a regressive tax in order to pay for a regressive tax cut.

[Michael P]

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/pr/austin-woman-sentenced-25-year-social-security-scam

This undercuts the argument people make that the government's robust checks, including in-person visits, mean that Social Security records of old people's still-living status should be trusted.

[Randal]

How so? It seems that the scam was discovered by the government's robust checks.

[Michael P]

It took the government 25 years to detect the scam, presumably until that June 2024 visit to an SSA office. That's not a sign of robust checks.

[apedad]

So . . . do you want more robust checks or less?

[Michael P]

I want checks that work, not arguments that merely pretend they do. You clearly prefer the latter.

[Randal]

Wow, hot take!

That was sarcasm, baby. We all want checks that work.

[SRG2]

More evidence for the hypothesis that conservatives prefer anecdote, liberals prefer statistics.

[ThePublius]

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[jb]

Ah, Michael P. The king of policy-by-anecdote.

[bernard11]

It doesn't undercut anything.

You guys just love your anecdotes.

Here's a clue, Michael: No system is perfect. Something can always slip through. Finding such a case is no proof at all that the system is useless. In fact, your argument is idiotic.

[jay.tee]

Agree that no system is perfect and checks need to balance their burden with efficacy.

However when we become aware of an incident, or anecdote if you prefer, that illustrates how those checks have consistently failed in this case for 25 years, we need to systematically re-examine those checks and investigate if others have likewise thwarted the checks. While It’s not a systemwide indictment of Social Security, it is a worrying occurrence that shouldn’t be ignored.

[SRG2]

For all you know, there are plenty of checks in place and only a very few such instances are missed -sufficiently few that it's not worth putting any more effort in than is already being done.

That's why anecdote doesn't cut it.

[jay.tee]

For all you know, there are plenty of checks in place - and some people have figured out how to bypass them for years.

Anecdotes can very useful in exposing a loophole or systematic weakness. I’m not saying the sky is falling nor that we should scrap the current verification systems. I am saying it would be irresponsible not to understand how this particular fraud got through, how many others are getting through the same way, and adjusting or adding checks to stop it going forward.

[jb]

Hard to say. For every one of these anecdotes, there's one of someone being unfairly denied benefits because the security checks are too rigorous. Those stories and those systemic weaknesses matter too.

In a reasonable system, you're right--when we see a glaring problem we'd look to see if there's underlying problems that need to be fixed. In the US political climate, mostly this results in whac-a-mole fixes that solve the exact facts of the problem in question but usually make the overall system more complicated and worse.

[David Nieporent]

Indeed, as I've said before, the optimal amount of fraud in a system is not zero. Not only does one increase Type I error if one strives to eliminate Type II error, but — even if one could avoid that problem, which one can't — one is creating enormous friction in the system, increasing administrative costs and user costs.

[Mr. Bumble]

Good thing you weren't working in the space programs.
Zero defects is a thing; too bad for the Challenger crew.

[David Nieporent]

No, the same principle applies, even if tolerances for error are lower: the only way to be 100% sure that the shuttle never crashes is never to launch.

[jay.tee]

Here’s a discussion on the “worth” of the life of an astronaut for safety cost calculations:

https://reason.com/2012/01/26/how-much-is-an-astronauts-life-worth/

I think someone made a movie about it, too.

[SRG2]

IIRC Neil Armstrong said that for the first moon mission, a 1 in 10 chance of catastrophe was acceptable.

[SRG2]

That is the same point made wrt individual voter fraud - that as you make it more and more difficult, you increase the number of citizens denied a vote. To this day, not a single person on any discussion of which I've been a part who has argued for stricter controls has come up with a ratio of acceptable deprivation to fraud prevented, yet it's a key part of the policy.

[ThePublius]

It doesn't matter what it is. If you want to drive you must have a drivers license. If you want to get on a plane you must have the proper I.D. If you want to buy alcohol you must have proof of age. No one is concerned about the ratio of acceptable deprivation in these cases. Similarly, I'm not concerned about those deprived of voting because they can't meet the standard for identification for voting.

[SRG2]

Similarly, I'm not concerned about those deprived of voting because they can't meet the standard for identification for voting.

First, voting is a constitutional right, so you need to make a much stronger case to justify initial deprivation than for flying or driving.

Second, there are no physical risks associated with voting.

Finally, some states made a point of setting a standard that intentionally makes it difficult for some groups to get the right ID compared to others. You appear to have no problem with that,

It's amazing how blind people can get when they don't want to see.

[ThePublius]

"Finally, some states made a point of setting a standard that intentionally makes it difficult for some groups to get the right ID compared to others. You appear to have no problem with that,"

Can you give me an example of that?

[ThePublius]

"First, voting is a constitutional right, so you need to make a much stronger case to justify initial deprivation than for flying or driving."

Likewise, carrying a gun is a constitutional right, yet we have to jump through hoops to do so legally, and can't even do so in many other states.

[jb]

You can get on a plane without the proper ID, though. They just do more security checks.

As for the driver's license example, there are stricter and easier versions of the driver's test. You could imagine a test procedure designed to make sure people were very good drivers rather than adequate ones, but this would have the effect of excluding many people. Similarly, the test could just be "can you turn on the car?" but that would risk public safety. Instead we shoot for something in the middle to get the right balance. All of these things are tradeoffs and treating them like binaries just makes the conversation dumb.

[ThePublius]

"You can get on a plane without the proper ID, though. They just do more security checks."

I think that's baloney, but I'm open to hearing a case or an example. What security checks could possibly obviate the need for proper I.D.?

[David Nieporent]

I think that's baloney, but I'm open to hearing a case or an example. What security checks could possibly obviate the need for proper I.D.?

What are you talking about? If you don't have a required form of ID (which now includes Real ID drivers licenses and excludes legacy drivers licenses), then you can still fly but you are subject to additional searches:

https://www.tsa.gov/real-id/real-id-faqs

Q: What happens to travelers who show up without a compliant license? Will TSA turn them away?

Passengers who present a state-issued identification that is not REAL ID compliant at TSA checkpoints and who do not have another acceptable alternative form of ID will be notified of their non-compliance, may be directed to a separate area and may receive additional screening. This includes TSA PreCheck passengers.

[jb]

I think that's baloney, but I'm open to hearing a case or an example. What security checks could possibly obviate the need for proper I.D.?

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/frequently-asked-questions/i-forgot-my-identification-can-i-still-proceed-through-security

And actual people's experience:

https://www.reddit.com/r/tsa/comments/1akv9us/lost_id_tsa_pre_check/

[ThePublius]

jb, well, good. We should do that for voters. Why don't we?

[Kazinski]

She only got a year in jail?

[Randal]

https://www.who.int/news/item/22-08-2025-famine-confirmed-for-first-time-in-gaza

I didn't think it was possible, but Israel did it! It unseated Iran as the penultimate evil in the world by intentionally allowing millions of people to starve! Not even Iran is so callous and indifferent to fellow humans.

Only North Korea remains. Can Israel get evil enough to become the world's most notorious pariah state? I didn't think it would get this far, so I guess anything's possible!

[Kazinski]

I was wondering what this was all about, Israel must be sending all of Gaza's food to Ukraine

"I sincerely thank President of Israel @Isaac_Herzog for his thoughtful congratulations on Ukraine’s Independence Day, as well as for the words of solidarity from you and the people of Israel....

First Lady Olena and I are particularly grateful to your wife, Michal, for her support of Ukrainian children and families."

Volkdymyr Zelenskyy
https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1959886531843313969?t=97MlS6QjnqRsec_I-hD7Qg&s=19

[Martinned]

Saying nice things about Israel has the dual benefit of making it more likely that Israel will sell weapons to Ukraine and making it more likely that the US will stop short of trying to hand over chunks of Ukrainian territory to the Russians. So why do you think this message is surprising? Zelenskyy posted a long list of thank you notes for the congratulations he received on Ukraine's independence day.

[Randal]

Herzog, the leader of the opposition against Likud? What a mystery!

Anyhoo, this is not a good list to be on.

https://www.worlddata.info/pariahstates.php

[Michael P]

Why are you blaming Israel for food shortages caused by Hamas looting aid trucks?

(That's a rhetorical question. We know why you're doing it.)

[Randal]

Israel is responsible for the wellbeing of the Palestinians and has been since 1967. They could prioritize keeping them from starving if they wanted to.

[Michael P]

At this point, some asshole around here would normally rant about you denying people their agency, but he's too much of an antisemitic partisan hack to apply his standards to his own side.

[Randal]

What are you talking about? Israel is denying Palestinians their agency by occupying them for over half a century. But as occupiers, they have a responsibility to, at a bare minimum, keep them from dying.

[Michael P]

They're not inmates in a prison, no matter how much you want to pretend they are.

[Randal]

Um, what?

An occupying force has the absolute responsibility of providing for the basic needs of the people under its control, including food, clothing, shelter, medical attention, and the maintenance of law and order. An occupying force cannot just sit by as occupied territories are looted...

https://people.howstuffworks.com/rules-of-war4.htm

[Frank Drackman]

So why isn't Ham-Ass doing any of that stuff?

[Michael P]

The antisemites don't want to admit which group actually has Palestine's "people under its control".

[Martinned]

You might as well do it properly for a legal blog and cite the actual law. It's art. 55 of the 4th Geneva Convention: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-55?activeTab=1949GCs-APs-and-commentaries

[Joe_dallas]

Randal - you quoted international law correctly - yet you are applying the law to imaginary facts.

[Randal]

Denying that the West Bank and Gaza are occupied by Israel is just dumb.

[Joe_dallas]

Randal - Again you are applying the law to a delusional / imaginary facts. you are too delusional to understand the actual facts

[jb]

The joe_dallas trope of declaring that you don't know what you're talking about but not making the vaguest attempt to explain why is always fun.

[Joe_dallas]

jb 8 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"The joe_dallas trope of declaring that you don't know what you're talking about but not making the vaguest attempt to explain why is always fun."

JP - Randal is the one making the following claim "

"An occupying force has the absolute responsibility of providing for the basic needs of the people under its control, including food, clothing, shelter, medical attention, and the maintenance of law and order. An occupying force cannot just sit by as occupied territories are looted..."

What Randal is alleging is not happening in the manner in which he claims.

[Magister]

Quoting Randal's quote to which joe_dallas previously responded "Randal - you quoted international law correctly - yet you are applying the law to imaginary facts." and then just repeating the same unexplained contradiction and not explaining why may be the most stupid fun that joe_dallas has provided since his sockpuppet.

[Joe_dallas]

Randal
Magister
JP

The imaginary facts that randal is stating should be obvious. Why should I point out what he is imagining. Not my fault when you dont bother being up to speed on the bogus talking points spewed by the anti-semites

[Randal]

My only relevant factual claim is that the West Bank and Gaza are occupied by Israel. And as I said above, denying that fact is dumb.

[Joe_dallas]

Randal 11 hours ago
"My only relevant factual claim is that the West Bank and Gaza are occupied by Israel. And as I said above, denying that fact is dumb."

Randal - you are now lying about what you stated. Read your entire statement of the facts you claimed. Any honest objective person will recognize that one significant fact (relevant fact) you claimed is not true.

And yes, using imaginary facts is dumb.

[Randal]

Let's see what I said that's relevant to the question...

"[A]s occupiers, [Israel] have a responsibility to, at a bare minimum, keep [the Palestinians] from dying."

Hm... not seeing anything false.

[Joe_dallas]

Randal -
Doubling down - Tripliing down on your imaginary facts

A - you omitted the last sentence in your statement
B - The clear impression of your full statement was that Israel was not complying with international law.

Typical lying from an anti-semite
accusations using imaginary facts.

[Randal]

What are you talking about, this claim?

"[Israel] could prioritize keeping [the Palestinians] from starving if they wanted to."

Despite seeming self-evident to me, this is what's known as a counterfactual, since Israel is not, in fact, prioritizing keeping the Palestinians from starving. So in that sense, yes, Israel feeding the Palestinians is an imaginary fact.

You're just all over the place. I don't think you actually have a real point to make.

[Joe_dallas]

Randal 36 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
What are you talking about, this claim?

"[Israel] could prioritize keeping [the Palestinians] from starving if they wanted to."

Randal - The alleged famine in Gaza is not happening anywhere close to the extent you are alleging. Again you are doubling down on the same imaginary facts.

Face it - The claims you are making are false.

[Randal]

Really, that's your beef? You agree that Israel is occupying the West Bank and Gaza, and that as such they have a responsibility to the people living there, but you think everything's just hunky dory?

There may have never been a more appropriate context for the "this is fine" meme.

[David Nieporent]

What impresses me is bookkeeper_joe's absolute certainty that he knows what is happening in Gaza. Other people cite things one way or the other — news articles repeating Israeli claims, Hamas claims, etc. — but he, without citing anything at all, just speaks with supreme confidence that everyone is wrong.

[Joe_dallas]

RAndal -
A - you keep changing your original accusation
B - you originally basically accused Israel of not providing for the residents of the occupied area.
C - you know that is false
D - you persisted in the false accusation, while distorting your original comment

dishonest DN - you chimed in knowing that Randal's original statement was false for no other reason than being a typical prick

[Sarcastr0]

Didn’t you post that same story a week ago and get roundly criticized for it not establishing what you said?

Now the headline doesn’t even agree with what you claim.

Are you like unable to learn?

[Armchair]

From Michael's link.

"Aid Trucks Looted: Data from the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) showed that between May 19 and August 5, more than 2,600 trucks carrying humanitarian aid crossed from Israel into Gaza. However, only 300 of these trucks reached their intended destinations in Gaza during that period, with some 2,309 trucks being “intercepted” and looted along their delivery routes"

Hey, but Sarcastr0 lying to attack Israel? What else is new. There's a work for it...anti something.

[Sarcastr0]

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/08/20/wednesday-open-thread-30/?comments=true#comment-11169956

hobie 5 days ago
"Heh...according to the data, all the pallets were successfully offloaded to their respective relief organizations. It takes a special kind of belief system to make that read 90% were taken by terrorists. Young, master Publius has such a belief system"

From there it's Jazzizhep backing down on claim after claim until he's accusing: 'terrorists and hungry groups.' Not Hamas. (because 'Palestinian terrorists' are now a new group he's pushing.)

ThePublius did not return after he dropped that post last Wed.
But here he is again!

I'd say that's bad form.

[Brett Bellmore]

And then it was pointed out to Hobie (In the very next comment!) that they were subsequently hijacked on their way to the end consumers.

I mean, you were there, did you only read Hobie's comment, and not the corrections to it?

[Randal]

Hijacked by "hungry groups?"

Nowhere does it say Hamas, I think is the point. Maybe it's Hamas. Maybe it's regular dads with starving kids. Either way, Pichael linked an article that goes out of its way to disavow his claim.

[Michael P]

It doesn't disavow my claim at all.

The United Nations’ own statistics confirm that all of its aid mechanisms in Gaza are plagued by the same Darwinian obstacle — that strong and well-armed Palestinians loot and hoard aid that could feed the populace, reducing the effectiveness of centrally planned distribution.

How many groups of "well-armed Palestinians" are there running the Gaza Strip?

[Randal]

That's all editorializing. The actual cited statistics say

Intercepted either peacefully by hungry people or forcefully armed actors, during transit in Gaza

Or perhaps by pissed-off hungry people, is my bet.

[Jazzizhep]

No, they specifically say high jackers and hungry people. They didn’t say high jacking hungry people.

High jackers take by force (terrorism). Looters just take.

[Michael P]

When people jump together two very different things, it's usually because they don't want to admit their relative proportions.

[Sarcastr0]

TP's thesis: "food shortages caused by Hamas looting aid trucks"

You lot have gone far afield in the attempt to find defensible ground.

[Jazzizhep]

It’s not a thesis. It’s what the UN report says. You would see that if you bothered to actually check my links.

[Sarcastr0]

You had conceded it was 'hungry people and forcefully armed actors.'

That is not the same as Hamas. I don't recall the UN report citing Hamas either.

Seems you need to have a discussion with yourself from 2 hours ago about self-consistency.

[Jazzizhep]

I have never used the term “forcibly armed actors.” I most certainly didn’t concede it. If I’m wrong show me the quote—not your feelz of what I said. Again, your use of quotes is astonishingly appalling.

Again, your only argument is semantical—not substance. Did I use terrorist, or high jackers, or armed actors (I have never used that term)? As if it makes any difference to the UN report that almost 90% of aid doesn’t reach its destination.

You want to claim that there are other terrorist groups and I need to prove it was Hamas? You are proffering the opposite. Show me any other terrorist group in Gaza to prove terrorists in Gaza are not just Hamas.

[Sarcastr0]

You say Hamas, and then say not Hamas.

That's not semantics, that's you having a problem with what I think is a motte and bailey attempt but it's so badly executed I cannot be sure.

[Jazzizhep]

Use my words. Not what words you think I meant.

[Jazzizhep]

Yes what me and Publius got wrong is saying terrorist are doing the high jacking (which the UN distinguishes from hungry people and looting), and that Hamas, as opposed to Boko Haram, are doing the high jacking.

Go ahead and ignore the FACT, as my many links confirm, almost 90% of cargo is not reaching its destination in order to argue semantics.

[Randal]

The reason it matters, Jazzi, is that if the trucks are being stopped by "peaceful hungry people" before they get to their formal destination then... so? Maybe not ideal from an efficiency perspective but the food is getting to people who need it.

The important thing is people getting fed, not trucks maintaining schedules.

[Jazzizhep]

Randal, this whole conversation is based on the UN reporting almost 90% of aid is not reaching its destination. I made no speculation as to good or bad. The UN doesn’t either. They give the numbers and I repeated them

I know Sarc wants to ignore such facts and argue that I said “terrorists” instead of “high jackers.”

I doubt high jackers and looters can more effectively and efficiently distribute aid than the UN can through carefully planned logistics.

But hey, keep thinking high jackers/terrorists/Hamas have the best interest of other Palestinians in mind. They only put rocket launchers and artillery next to schools and hospitals to protect them, right?

[Randal]

I don't know or care what happened last week. I'm pushing back against Pichael's claim from today:

Why are you blaming Israel for food shortages caused by Hamas looting aid trucks?

If you believe what you say, why don't you simply join me in repudiating Pichael and we can all be happy (except poor, deluded Pichael)?

[Jazzizhep]

OK Randal, I concede the language you posted is imprecise. It is not my language. Why you directed somebody else’s post for me to weigh-in on only you can know. Keep to what I say if you want to respond to my comments. I don’t ask you to defend or justify the idiots loki and hobie. Don’t ask me to defend or justify other people.

Now concede that food that was intended for some people is being hijacked or “taken by other hungry people” means that a portion of the population is not being fed that was intended. And that is not Israel’s fault. And by “portion” I mean almost 90% of UN aid.

I say all of this on the topic just accepting the UN’s language and stats. I don’t trust, for one millisecond, that the UN uses clear and concise language when reporting on anything that involves the Israeli/terrorist conflict.

This thread, going back a few days, is specifically about the aid that gets to where the UN intends. If it doesn’t get there, it’s not Israel’s fault. And when the aid doesn’t get to where it is intended, people blame Israel for starving Palestinians.

[Randal]

This thread isn't days old. This is my thread from today. I started it and you replied to me. Thank you for conceding that I was right and Pichael was wrong all along.

[hobie]

And then Hobie further said, well, if they never arrived, where did they go? Nothing in the article could point to who took them and when.

[Jazzizhep]

Even if you ignore what the article said, you could have used the links, as I did, to find out. You thought you had a gotcha and went with it.

The article numbers were all correct. There should have been better links, but I found it. You could have as well with a more inquisitive intellect,

Your initial argument was the numbers were false. Now it’s “the article didn’t say what happened to the supplies.” The article did. It said Hamas. The UN didn’t say Hamas. The UN said high jackers and hungry people.

Now I bet you pick up sarc’s argument the terrorists in Gaza aren’t Hamas.

[Jazzizhep]

I didn’t back down from shit and used links and told you how to use them. “Highjackings and hungry groups” is UN’s language. I guess I inferred terrorists did the highjackings. The shame. Publius inferred the terrorists were Hamas. I guess we can’t prove it was Hamas because they didn’t break down whether it was Hamas or the KKK.

Nope. You have to work for the numbers. Offloaded is supplies that were left in Gaza. The numbers include any hijackings and food taken by hungry people. It is “what we started with and what we returned with.”

You have to go to the second from bottom tab on the left hand side (a package with a check mark) to see how much supplies reached the destination.

74k pallets were offloaded in Gaza (second tab form top under home). Only 9,000 pallets reached the destination.

The latest numbers are a little better—not by much.

Total pallets offloaded in Gaza which includes high jackings, looters and pallets that reach their destination 78k

Now pallets that actually reached their destinations.

You want to die on the hill claiming terrorists are not doing the high jacking and Hamas are not the terrorists go right ahead. Doesn’t change the fact that almost 90% of cargo isn’t reaching its destination. Typical pound the table bullshit.

If semantics is your only retort, you lost. Fact; almost 90% of cargo is not reaching its destination because of high jackings and looting.

It’s you who didn’t respond to facts linked to the UN page. Who backed down?

[David Nieporent]

Is there a reason you keep writing "high jacking" rather than "hijacking"?

[Jazzizhep]

David Nieporent, I think the only reason is ignorance. Do with that what you will; mock me, chastise me, scold me. I should know the correct term and I didn’t use it.

I will not make the same mistake again. So, I ain’t mad at being called out for my ignorance. I’m thankful. I wish more people, including myself, could be as tactful as you at correcting mistakes.

Thanks, David

[Bob from Ohio]

Citing hobie? That is certainly a choice.

Lathrop not available?

[Commenter_XY]

I'd say Armchair called you out for what matters.

[Jazzizhep]

And I proved the deniers wrong with links. He linked to wrong tab in the report. I linked to the correct one. If you didn’t read it the first time, I have no desire to do the math, again. Or go through the trouble of creating links., again

[Sarcastr0]

What you did was backpedal over and over again while never admitting you were wrong.

And here you are as though last week didn’t happen.

I’d encourage you to review how many revisions you had to do last week.

[Jazzizhep]

No I didn’t. Funny how you only respond to this comment. I admitted I used the term terrorists instead of high jackers, The article and Plubius used Hamas. That’s the only thing I backed down from.

I stood by my numbers. I take that back. I stood by UN’s numbers with links.

Again, if you think using “terrorists” instead of “high jackers” is a worthy hill to die on, be my guest.

It’s amazing how you want to continue to argue over semantics while completely ignoring almost 90% of aid is not reaching its destination. Which, I believe, is the real problem here. I could be wrong though—just like using terrorists instead of high jackers.

[Sarcastr0]

No, you revised still further to allow the set included hungry people.

Which seems a pretty telling concession.

[Jazzizhep]

No I didn’t. Not once did I mention high jackers (terrorists) without mentioning hungry people or looters. Maybe you have me confused with Publius. Check for yourself and then profusely apologize for being such a dick with all the “Jazz backed down” personal attack shit.

Use your own link to go back since you didn’t use it to start with. I am waiting with bated breath.

And as with every post on the topic; I repeat, almost 90% of aid is not reaching its destination. Links and numbers can be found in my posts.

[Sarcastr0]

Here are the arguments I've seen you mak:

-Hungry people who stop a truck must be armed
-Armed people who stop trucks are all terrorists
-Terrorists are the same as Hamas in the UN report.

None of these seem like legitimate assumptions without doing a lot more work.

[Jazzizhep]

If that’s what I said use my effing words in a quote, not your feelz of what I said.

1) I always mentioned hungry people along with high jackers. If you inferred that meant hungry people were armed, that’s on you cupcake. Show me a quote otherwise.

2) Again arguing the semantical difference between people terrorizing UN aid workers with guns to steal food isn’t exactly terrorism. Or maybe you think it’s a step too far to assume that people being held at gun point aren’t afraid? It’s the UN that differentiates between high jackers and hungry people. I never said otherwise. Show me a quote.

3) Arguing something I never said. Show me the quote.

Now, I have said different things today mocking the idea that there are other terrorists groups operating in Gaza like the KKK and Boko Haram. That has nothing to do with what I said a few days ago and “backing down.”

As I figured. You are wrong in every instance and can’t prove it, but blame me for your incompetence. If I said those things give me the quote. If you need help copy and pasting or using quotation marks, let me know. I will help you.

[Randal]

If that’s what I said use my effing words in a quote...

How bout this one, where you slide pretty seamlessly from hungry people aka looters to armed people aka "high jackers" (is this some sort of freudian splurt?) to terrorists to Hamas, such that they're all equally associated with having rocket launchers and artillery... just as Sarcastr0 described.

I doubt high jackers and looters can more effectively and efficiently distribute aid.... But hey, keep thinking high jackers/terrorists/Hamas have the best interest of other Palestinians in mind. They only put rocket launchers and artillery next to schools and hospitals to protect them, right?

[Jazzizhep]

Randal, your quote is after my demand for Sarc to quote me and it doesn’t apply.

My previous statements were a factual accounting of the UN’s report. Your quote is my opinion comment that Hamas/terrorists/hijackers are one in the same and they put military weapons next to civilian populations.

If you can’t tell the difference between fact and opinion by now. I can’t help you.

[Randal]

Nice one, I'm going to have to remember this defense!

You should've known that the false things I say are just opinions that don't count! I stand behind whatever statements of mine might have been true. Those are the factual ones, and they're the only ones I can be held accountable for.

[Jazzizhep]

Randal, after rereading I get your gist. I think. But you’re still wrong.

The hijackers/terrorust/Hamas remark was in response to Sarc’s semantical argument. I used the remark to show the stupidity of trying to argue there is some great difference between the three.

The EXACT terminology of hijackers and hungry people is from the UN.

I also want to I reiterate I never said “terrorists” on Monday. So all this arguing, and me “backing down” from using “terrorists” stems from a figment of Sarc’s imagination. I, unfortunately, took Sarc’s word.

And no I have no proof hijsckers and hungry people can’t distribute food better the UN. Is a reasonable deduction. But considering how you and Sarc want to parse every word because you don’t like what is written, I could have facts and you guys would still have a problem.

Would it more clear if I wrote hijackers or hungry people? You guys would gripe that’s not what the UN report said,

[Jazzizhep]

I want to honestly and seriously thank you, Sarcastr0. After I reread all my post from the other day I realized I didn’t even say terrorists instead of high jackers.

I acknowledged a mistake I never made. I took your, or hobie’s, word I made a mistake when I didn’t. That concession led to your days long crusade that I caved.

I foolishly accepted a comment as being factual when it was just you guys imagination. At the time I thought it was such a meaningless mistake (terrorist vs high jacker), and something I might do, I accepted it.

My God, you have literally gotten nothing correct regarding my comments. NOTHING!!!! You read what you wanted to read. You believe what you wanted to believe. Your evidence is what you want your evidence to be. You can’t even quote my words.

You are, In practice and in fact, an unserious person.

[Sarcastr0]

You're doing a lot of work to conflate terrorists with hungry people.

It's driving inconsistent langauge and wandering goalposts.

It's also a pretty terrible cause to pick up - defending starving people because you're going to call every stopped food truck a Hamas success story.

You're doing a ton of work to rationalize killing people through starvation. Stalin would be pleased.

[Jazzizhep]

What part of “use MY words” are you not understanding.

You absolutely cannot be trusted to accurately represent what I said. You have already made up too much shit for me to care.

You want to tell me I was wrong about something. Quote me. Don’t debate what you think I said,

[Sarcastr0]

You were wrong last week.

You picked up TP's argument, but now you want to insist actually your thesis is a different one that relies on very specific wording.

Your arguing for a terrible cause. But more importantly here, you're tedious and lame.

If you adopt a thesis, be explicit if you're switching from it and explain why. If you're arguing semantics, don't; argue the ideas behind them.

[Jazzizhep]

Still not quoting me. Just your feelz.

If I was wrong quote me.

[Jazzizhep]

Sarcastr , I am not conflating one dang thing. That’s what the report says. Still haven’t looked it up, huh?

If I said hijackers or hungry people you would gripe about how that’s what the UN report says. Assuming you would actually read it,

[hobie]

Food and hunger seem to be a special fetish of MAGA. I doubt you'll get any sympathy from them on this front.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...by intentionally allowing millions of people to starve! "
So now I guess the 1.8 million residents of Gaza have all been starved to death.

[Randal]

Did you not notice yourself typing "to death" just now?

You guys are such weirdos! I suppose that's why I keep coming back. What forms of sillybrain will I witness on this week's episode of MAGA INVADES VOLOKH?

[Mr. Bumble]

Point taken, however there are not millions of Gazanians starving (to death or otherwise).

[Bob from Ohio]

only people in Gaza starving are Jews

[Don Nico]

"intentionally allowing millions of people to starve"
You brought the islamofascist propaganda and the lies of the NYT

[Randal]

Oh, did the Times buy the World Health Organization? I didn't know.

[Mr. Bumble]

No need to, "All the news that fits the script, we print".

[Joe_dallas]

Randal 7 hours ago
https://www.who.int/news/item/22-08-2025-famine-confirmed-for-first-time-in-gaza

I didn't think it was possible, but Israel did it! It unseated Iran as the penultimate evil in the world by intentionally allowing millions of people to starve!"

Martin - not only are you easily fooled - you are actively promoting BS that you should know is false.

[Malika the Maiz]

Three field goals from over 60 yards in NFL preseason action this weekend. Last year there was a record 195 field goals made from over 50 yards out. It’s going to be a kicker’s season.

[Martinned]

Long field goals are a much less interesting possibility than a drop kick.

https://www.neworleanssaints.com/video/brees-attempts-dropkick-6884018

For reference, this is how England won the rugby world cup in 2003: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/omQU414NRXc

[Jazzizhep]

As usual Martin can’t get anything correct. Even when he is talking about football (American).

A drop kick in the NFL is a punt. In no universe is a punt more interesting than a 60 yd field goal.

It’s a seldom used tactic, but that doesn’t make it interesting.

[Martinned]

A drop kick is a score if you aim it between the posts. Which is indeed rare in American football (one successful attempt since 1941), but would be pretty interesting if teams used it more, exactly because you do it during play rather than after a 2-minute commercial break.

[Jazzizhep]

Ok, I didn’t know a drop kick could be used to score an extra point.

As usual Martin Jazz can’t get anything correct. Even when he is talking about football (American).

I am genuinely embarrassed a European knew something about American football I didn’t. Like looking up how to tie a hangman’s noose embarrassed.

Yes, it would be more interesting than a typical extra point.

Unfortunately, you are still going to get the commercial break. They review all touchdowns.

[jb]

You can do a drop kick for a 3 point field goal during regular play.

[Ridgeway]

Also, a dropkick a punt. On a dropkick, the ball has to hit the ground before it is kicked -- a punt is kicked right out of the air.

[bernard11]

I suppose the dropkick went out of use because it didn't work very well. Much easier to kick with a holder, or to punt the way it's done now.

One advantage of the dropkick was the element of surprise, more valuable on a punt than a scoring attempt. But no one quick kicks any more, probably because the "triple-threat" player - run, pass or kick - doesn't exist.

[not guilty]

I have read that the change in the shape of the football to a more oblong and less rounded configuration made a drop kick much more difficult to execute successfully.

[hobie]

I fail to see what this has to do with the Epstein Files.

[Frank Drackman]

They've already ruined Pro Foo-bawl turning the Kick off into a Fag-Foo-bawl Line Dance, now they're going to stop measuring first downs with the chains, using that ridiculous "Hawkeye" device they use for Pro Tennis line calls (and don't even get me started on how they ruined Pro Tennis when they let players use anything for a Raquet) At least we still have College Foo-bawl, and next year SEC adds a 9th conference game, making the other Conferences even less Relevant (Yes, I know, Ohio State, Clemson, they're just SEC teams in disguise)

Frank

[Randal]

The ball-measuring chain was the dumbest part of football and that's saying something. On TV they're always careful to only show the downfield end of the chain to make it seem super-precise... obscuring the fact that the other end... is in some random place! They're just eyeballing it. It's completely performative theatrics.

[David Nieporent]

My son played football when he was in middle school (not for his middle school — just at those ages. Some local rec league.) They had parent volunteers do the chains and down marker, which I did sometimes. I guess it was for the fans (parents) in the stands, because the refs never even pretended to look at them or use them for measuring first downs.

[Moderation4ever]

I have no statistics but I believe the greater use of the 50+ field goal kick is related to closer games. You don't go the long kick till you need to do so and that is at the end of close games.

[Jazzizhep]

I respectfully disagree. More kickers are more reliably hitting 50+ yard kicks. Why punt when you can put 3 points on the board. Kicks are far more successful than fourth downs and there is no guarantee a team scores a touchdown if they go for it. Even if they convert a fourth down, more often than not they kick a field goal anyway. Why risk three points when a higher risk fourth down conversion results in three points?

I may not like it, but that’s analytics.

I get you are not entirely wrong as there are numerous instances in the past where a coach might go for a fourth and three at the 35 instead of a 52 yard field goal. Now they take a 52 yarder with minimal hesitation. Three points keeps the game closer than seven points.

It is extremely hard in today’s NFL to pass up points in hopes you get more points.

[A Japanese Student]

While I was away, the Supreme Court of Japan issued an opinion: can the prosecutor prevent the defendant's mom from interviewing the defendant (charged with attempted voyeurism) because he is pleading not guilty? Answer: probably not, vacated and remanded.

So many pretrial decisions are dependent on whether the defendant pled guilty or not - not the seriousness of alleged offense. Maybe because the defendant cannot be punished for destroying inculpatory evidence.

[Michael P]

Is there a good source to read about the rationale behind "the defendant cannot be punished for destroying inculpatory evidence"? My impression is that the Japanese legal system is usually quite strict with suspects, so I'm curious why that rule is there.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, according to Google's AI overview, it's because in Japan the right against self-incrimination is considered to imply that you have no duty to preserve self-incriminating evidence.

[Michael P]

Sure, but the legal systems I know better draw a line between not having a duty to preserve evidence and having a duty to not intentionally destroy it.

[Brett Bellmore]

And apparently Japan's does not.

[Michael P]

AJS's original comment implied as much, and I trust that to be accurate more than some Google AI summary. I was asking why Japan's legal system differs from western ones in that respect. Maybe it's just a difference in legal tradition, maybe there's some considered reason, or maybe it's something else: I'm curious why it differs, not whether it really does.

[A Japanese Student]

It's what the statute has said for a century - "Article 104. A person who spoils, damages, counterfeits or alters evidence relating to a criminal case of another person, or who uses counterfeit or altered evidence, is punished by imprisonment for not more than 3 years or a fine of not more than 300,000 yen."

If I remember correctly the "another person" clause exists because it's natural for people accused of crimes to destroy evidence. So they can't be blamed for that. (In fact, the Penal Code allows the judge to waive conviction for families of defendants, for similar reasons.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wow -- that kinda eliminates most "Obstruction of Justice" doesn't it?

Under Japanese law, Nixon could have burned the tapes with impunity.

[A Japanese Student]

Yes, Japanese law is mostly silent on obstruction.

Perjury is a crime, but only before a court. Lying to the police is not a crime. Bribing the witness was only criminalized in 2017. Escaping from custody, before 2023, required the defendant to be physically in jail - now being handcuffed is enough.

[Jazzizhep]

When will they learn? School officials caught once again believing 1A is currently interpreted as “…shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech unless the speech is religious in nature

At least they caved before a lawsuit

[Sarcastr0]

Did you just read the Establishment Clause out of the Constitution, making the 1A only about speech?

[jb]

That seems to be the current Republican understanding of the 1st Amendment, yes. There's a part about free speech and a part about free exercise of religion, but nothing about the establishment of a religion, apparently.

[Jazzizhep]

A students speech isn’t establishment if they are allowing other students speech.

As I told Sarc, there is a thing called viewpoint discrimination. It’s real.

You can’t allow expressive speech and say “except for religious speech.” It’s not that hard to grasp if you try a little bit,

[bernard11]

I favor a very broad interpretation of the Establishment clause, but I would let this go, since presumably the parking spot (when did students start getting reserved spots?) was outside the building and it was clear that this was the student's idea and personal expression.

There's a lot more to be concerned about.

[Sarcastr0]

I am not spin up about how the case would come out. But ignoring EC analysis completely is wrong, and a bad trend.

[Jazzizhep]

Not when it comes to speech. This is not an EC case. This is a free speech case. Just because a school wants to invoke EC as a reasoning to deny speech, doesn’t mean the school is right.

Remember the outcome here, Einstein. The school caved after talking to lawyers.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes when it comes to speech! There isn't a secret door where the EC test doesn't apply.

[Jazzizhep]

Again, 1A doesn’t say “.,,abridging freedom of speech unless it is religious in nature.”

Don’t like it? Take it up with SCOTUS,

Time and time again they have ruled schools (govt) can limit some speech, but not if it is based on viewpoint.

Do you think religion is not a viewpoint?

[Jazzizhep]

A students speech isn’t establishment.

Sorry you didn’t know, but you can’t put up a student bulletin board for announcements and messages by students and then say “except for religious announcements or messages.”

I think that called is viewpoint discrimination. Maybe you have heard of it? It’s been around a while now.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one that came in with an analysis of displaying bible verses that doesn't include any Establishment Clause analysis.

Establishment jurisprudence is full of exceptions and exceptions to exceptions. While disallowing all religious speech is not allowed, pretending there's no additional analysis needed is doing the law a disservice, even if you want to argue for school prayer to be legal.

[Jazzizhep]

The Bible verses are a form expressive speech from the student. When the school is allowing expressive speech in some format, the school can’t discriminate on viewpoint. What don’t you get?

Muslims can express their speech, Jews can express their speech, atheistic anti-semites ( preferred group) can express their speech. The school district can’t decide one, or some, or all of the speech is not allowed because they don’t express what the school desires.

My God, you anti-religious zealots are thick and have zero understanding of constitutional law. If you did have a modicum of understanding, you would acknowledge the decades of precedents.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, the Establishment Clause analysis isn't just skipped because there's a viewpoint involved.

I'm not saying the endorsement (or whatever test they use these days) analysis would come out against this, I'm saying you need to at least do the analysis.

I'm not an anti-religious zealot. I'm a Unitarian, and believe in God. You assume a motive for disagreeing with you I do not have.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I'm a Unitarian, and believe in God."

We found a Unitarian who actually believes in God.

Surely a new age of miracles and wonders!

[Sarcastr0]

I strongly feel there is something sacred about sapience, what can I say.

It's also why I'm against the death penalty.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As opposed to be against it because you know the government can't do anything else competently...

[Jazzizhep]

If you think a students speech is the establishing language, instead of the govt, I guess you can skip the free speech aspect all you want. SCOTUS says otherwise. I defer to them.

Jesus, Mary, and fluking Joseph people. SCOTUS just recently ruled a coach praying at the 50 yard line is not establishment.

If schools have such a problem with students’ expressive speech in painting parking spots, don’t let them. What they can’t do is allow expressive speech and then say “except religious speech.”

[Sarcastr0]

I think student speech sure as hell can be. Depends on the totality of the circumstances.
Speech can be establishment - endorsement is about expression.

I'm not arguing it'd come out a different way; I'm just saying don't cut out EC analysis just because it's speech.

Cutting EC analysis is in style, particularly the 'mere speech' nonsense. Because the right is pushing to bring back school prayer.

SCOTUS just recently ruled a coach praying at the 50 yard line is not establishment.
The Court has done a lot of pulling back on EC jurisprudence, but it has not yet said speech is immune from EC analysis.

This is personal, but to me a robust devotion doesn't shouldn't require flexing their faith just 'cause. That just screams lack of confidence.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The EC can be ignored because there's no colorable argument that the EC applies in any way, shape or form to this case.

Boy are you showing your ass!

[Jazzizhep]

Again, tell it to SCOTUS.

You can start with Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001) and Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1990)

You can end with the most recent ruling where a coach’s voluntary prayer meeting after football games is fine; Kennedy v something or other.

All free speech issues where school was claiming the speech violated EC.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

1A is currently interpreted as “…shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech unless the speech is religious in nature

Schools are allowed to regulate the speech of students in a variety of ways. For instance, one SCOTUS case upheld a prohibition of holding up a banner promoting illegal drug use.

The school is allowed to limit what students use to decorate their public school parking spots. I can't tell exactly the reason for the original policy from a news article. It is far from clear from the article that all the school regulated was religious speech.

For instance, a profane design might be barred as unsuitable for a high school setting.

The general concern in cases like this tends to be twofold. (1) Assumed governmental endorsement (2) if we let you, Satanists or something will come next. That second one apparently was present here according to one article I found.

Schools also might generally not want anything divisive to be included in school parking spots. We are not exactly talking traditional public forums here.

Anyway, a general libertarian rule (up to a point -- it's still a school) is fine & schools are not just concerned about religious speech. And, religious speech has its own First Amendment concerns, including Establishment Clause issues. (Not that the Supreme Court is too concerned about that part these days.)

[Jazzizhep]

Huh?

Yes schools are allowed to regulate speech—mostly on disruptive, vulgar, obstructive and obscene grounds. To say they are allowed to discriminate against religious speech shows a severe lack of understanding of precedent.

Schools can absolutely bar putting messages on parking spaces. That is not the issue. The issue is they allowed messaging on parking spaces and determined some messages, of a religious nature, were not allowed. Only an absolute partisan would say free speech only applies to my tribe. Is that you?

What don’t you understand?
.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

You said this, and I quoted you saying it.

School officials caught once again believing 1A is currently interpreted as “…shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech unless the speech is religious in nature

The "unless" is wrong. The school also regulated religious speech in this case. It was among the various ways the school regulated speech. You grant in your reply that schools regulate speech in various ways.

I offered possibilities why they were concerned with the speech here. I agreed it was correct to allow the speech.

In some cases, schools are correct to not endorse religious speech including making "Jesus is Our Lord" their school motto. So, was noted in another comment, it can get complicated.

[Jazzizhep]

Yes, schools can regulate speech, but it CANNOT BE VIEWPOINT BASED. This is clearly viewpoint based. Which is why they backed down.

I know “unless” is not in the Constitution. I was implying that’s what the school thinks. I believe schools wholeheartedly think they can suppress religious speech using the establishment clause as cover. They have been repeatedly struck down using that rationale.

A. Student’s. Speech. Is. Not. The. Government. Establishing. A. Religion.

They probably thought the same thing in this scenario and the lawyers wisely told them “NO” before there was a lawsuit.

[A Japanese Student]

Another interesting decision, this time from the Tokyo District Court - involving international jurisdiction and DMCA takedowns. Google loses on jurisdictional issue, because their DMCA counternotice form only established non-exclusive jurisdiction (otherwise the plaintiff would have had to sue in NDCA). They win on the interpretation of 512(g)(2) (that Google is not obligated to restore content subject to wrong takedown request).

[Frank Drackman]

does "interesting" have a different meaning in Japanese?

[John 4]

He forgot to throw in a bunch of randomly capitalized words and punctuation, and nearly incomprehensible schoolyard “jokes”. Frank is operating on the level of Dax Sheppard in Idiocracy.

[Frank Drackman]

I’m like Godard, but with Words instead of a Camera, you probably didn’t understand him either

[John F. Carr]

An amusing new job title: fare engagement representative. Transit cops who only go after fare evaders. A program built around equity: the reps have access to Google Translate.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2025/08/22/mbta-fare-program-looks-to-capture-bandits-who-evade-payment-much-more-to-do/

I haven't seen the latest numbers for the MBTA. Typically fare cover half or less of a transit agency's operating expenses. In Massachusetts statewide taxes pay the rest (sales tax, fuel tax, and federal aid).

[John F. Carr]

I missed a revenue source: there is also an assessment paid by the towns served by the MBTA.

I'd like to run an experiment: Boston pays the operating cost of the MBTA within city limits in return for free fares. I think what Boston really wants is for non-residents to pay for residents to ride for free.

[Mr. Bumble]

Taxation without representation?

[jb]

Seems like it could be part of the experiment where all of the tax revenue Boston generates only gets spent in Boston?

[Jazzizhep]

In the newest Never Educate Anyone 2025 handbook (HT Dr. Ed) in the section “International Holocaust Remembrance Day” they have completely scrubbed “Jews” and replaced with “different faiths.”

It took a little research, but I have to agree with this change. Hitler not only tried to exterminate the Jews, he tried to eliminate Jews. He also went after the Jews, and, of course, Jews. Lastly, he went after the Jews, Jews, Jews, and Jews.

And since we need to include trans into everything, Hitler tried to commit genocide against “gender identification.” Maybe he did, but just how many trans were sent to gas chambers? Millions? Hundreds of thousands? Tens of thousands? Thousands? Hundreds? A few dozen? I get there were probably thousands of gays, but trans?

Think on that. Let’s mention gender identification, but not Jews. Disgusting!!

[Michael P]

Hey, didn't forget the 1700 or so Jehovah's Witnesses who were murdered by the Nazis. (Along with a bunch of Slavs, Russian POWs, and various other groups not targeted based on religion.)

[Sarcastr0]

You're going to argue the Holocaust was only against Jews?!

I'm not saying the watering down in the handbook is how I'd put it, but you're straight rewriting history.

Check out the Roma, for instance.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, obviously it wasn't only against Jews, but it seems silly to pretend that they didn't get higher priority.

[Michael P]

Jews were the largest single group, and by several orders of magnitude the largest religiously targeted group. According to Wikipedia, "people with disabilities" (~270k) and Freemasons (~80k) were the most numerous non-religious, non-ethnic murder victims.

[Sarcastr0]

Read my second paragraph.

And read Jazzizhep‘s second paragraph.

I’m not the one that needs correction here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The fact is that it STARTED with the disabled, and that is when it could have been stopped.

Later, it was too late...

[SRG2]

The term "Holocaust" to describe genocide was originally specifically applied to the Nazi genocide against Jews - by IIRC Elie Wiesel. Other genocides - Roma, Kurds, etc. - are simply called genocides, unless the person so broadening the term would rather people not consider Jews as specifically identifiable victims of the Nazis.

[Sarcastr0]

That would not be a bad way to feature the whole evil eugenics program, talking about the y sets the Holocaust is defined to include. Go into the historiographical issues and need for critical thinking.

I don’t think there is danger of eliding how specifically focused on Jews were from the very beginning of the Nazi Party if we teach the various definitions used today.

[Michael P]

I won't argue with people who use "Holocaust" in the narrow sense. I myself used "murder" to cover the general case. (Killing 1700 JWs is a terrible crime against humanity, but I would want some more details before I call it a genocide even under the "or in part" phrase.) I think your real beef should be with the NEA.

[Jazzizhep]

There were people of all faiths that Hitler killed. What faith besides Judaism did he try to exterminate? There is a difference.

I didn’t comment on eugenics because eugenics wasn’t based on one’s faith.

[Sarcastr0]

Judaism isn't solely a faith either. Secular Jews are still Jews.
The Romani were as targeted, and as much of an ethnic group as the Jews.

It doesn't minimize the evil being done to the Jews in the Holocaust to insist they were the only ones targeted.

[bernard11]

One of the great advances in bigotry came in, I believe, 19th century Germany, when Jew haters switched from anti-Judaism to antisemitism.

Before that the hatred was directed at the religion, and conversion was some sort of escape (not entirely - see Spanish Inquisition). Now that option was foreclosed, as it is directed at both religion and ethnicity.

[Jazzizhep]

Great. You’re now arguing practicing Jews vs ethnic Jews. Let’s not debate the actual reason of my post. Let’s do semantics instead. Sarc’s favorite line of inquiry. What is the definition of “is”, after all.

“When you said Jews, did you mean ethnic or religious Jews?” That’s is, after all, the important part of the NEA scrubbing Jews in favor of “different faiths.”

Again Sarc, since you didn’t get it the first time, the NEA changed the language to “different faiths.” I limited my argument to what the NEA actually said (faiths), and did not include my feelz.

You might could learn something from that. Just sayin’.

Still waiting on the quotes of my words to prove you quoted me instead of just making shit up.

[Sarcastr0]

You said *faith*. Cut. Print. Take the L.

I already said, "I'm not saying the watering down in the handbook is how I'd put it." So your 'again Sarc' is arguing a strawman.

This isn't the first time in this thread you didn't come in so loaded for bear you changed your thesis as required to be on firm ground to argue against whomever takes issue with your original maximalist position.

[jb]

It's pretty problematic to not even mention the Jews in the context of the Holocaust. As SRG2 notes below, the origin of the term is specifically about the genocide of the Jews by the Nazis. It's fine and good to acknowledge that the atrocities that the Nazis committed against other people as well, but not even mentioning the Jews in a statement about Holocaust remembrance feels rather "all lives matter"-y.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

This was referenced before.

The United Nations General Assembly designated January 27—the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau—as International Holocaust Remembrance Day, a time to remember the six million Jewish victims of the Holocaust and the millions of other victims of Nazi persecution.

The concern seems to be that "Jews" was not specifically cited in the description. That seems to be a mistake, though the ultimate point here should be the materials taught overall.

The NEA responded to criticism here:

https://www.nea.org/about-nea/media-center/press-releases/statement-nea-handbook

But whatever "originally" was used, International Holocaust Remembrance Day has a wider concern & honoring that day would cover that ground.

https://www.ushmm.org/remember/international-holocaust-remembrance-day

[Jazzizhep]

Did Hitler try to eliminate;

Christians
Muslims
Hindus
Buddhists
Sikhs
Jehovah’s Witnesses
Mormons
Branch Davidians
Zororastriasts

Again, what faith/ethnicity did Hitler want to remove from the face of the earth? A CYA press release doesn’t change history. And what a mealy mouthed press release it was.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

They are honoring International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which was established "to remember the six million Jewish victims of the Holocaust and the millions of other victims of Nazi persecution."

AND. So, their materials covered more than Jews. Because that is what the day was established to honor.

They are not "changing history." Instead of latching on to one thing, perhaps looking at the whole thing, including the actual materials provided, and that "business items also include calls to stand up against antisemitism, promote Holocaust Remembrance and education, and promote content to mark Jewish American Heritage Month.”

ETA: "In the newest Never Educate Anyone 2025 handbook (HT Dr. Ed)"

A troll and a h/t to "Dr. Ed." Not promising.

[Jazzizhep]

Non responsive. Did Hitler try to exterminate any of the other groups?

The NEA didn’t cover Jews at all. “Several faiths” is not Jews

[bernard11]

You're going to argue the Holocaust was only against Jews?!

Yes, as I understand it. That doesn't mean Hitler didn't kill millions of others, or that I think that was no big deal. It's just that the term, and its Hebrew counterpart - shoah - originated as a description of specifically the genocide directed at the Jews, and has vaguely religious overtones.

[hobie]

Excluding MAGA who - and let's just drop all the pretexts - has been relishing another civil war to reestablish a white nation (note I didn't say white 'Christian' nation, because a) they don't believe in Christ anyway and, b) Christ would crucify himself if he saw all this horseshit), I think the reason our slide into authoritarianism hasn't drawn a pitchfork mob sacking the White House already is because I think all us normies are sort of looking at it like a tryst. We know it is wrong. We know it is naughty. But it's a little exciting. Can't we just dip our toe in the water? Just for a few seconds to see what it's like? We can always get that horse back in the barn. What's the worst that can happen?

[Jazzizhep]

Is this your outline for a novel? It certainly is not non-fiction.

[LexAquilia]

How long will these blog authors tolerate some Euro-fag shitting up this board with his who-gives-a-shit-shithole lefty/euro politics?

[Frank Drackman]

Not sure who you're talking about

[Martinned]

Presumably until US democracy and the rule of law are restored. If you prefer to avoid inconvenient truths, there are several cable news channels you can watch.

[jb]

Lex is still wondering what that "Mute User" button on every post does, apparently.

[John 4]

I don’t trust anyone with Latin names. Go back to Europe, loser.

[John F. Carr]

From the "burying the lead" deparment:

The Guardian is outraged that something bad happened to a non-white woman. Her baby was taken away even though she is not white.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/23/protests-as-newborn-removed-from-greenlandic-mother-after-parenting-competence-tests

The real story, which I hadn't been following, is Denmark has a parental competency test. The mother was a victim of sexual abuse. Therefore, she had to prove she was fit to raise a child. She failed the test.

Apparently there is some disagreement about whether she is legally Greenlandic, which would exempt her from parental competency testing. Activists recently persuaded the government that tests are racist.

[Jazzizhep]

Wouldn’t this be a better world if people who shouldn’t have children didn’t?

I mean that from a personal responsibility perspective—not a govt mandate perspective.

[Sarcastr0]

The Guardian is outraged that something bad happened to a non-white woman. Her baby was taken away even though she is not white.

Way to turn this into a story about white oppression, weirdo.

[Martinned]

It's almost as if JFC doesn't know the history of taking indigenous children away from their parents.

[Jazzizhep]

I’m outraged it happened to anybody. I would not be more outraged if it happened to a white person, That would be racist.

[ducksalad]

It's so awful as described that I have to wonder if the Guardian left something out. Having a parental competency test is bad enough by itself. The reason for failure given in the article is much worse.

Questions for anyone who might know more:
(a) Is this test applied in general to all new parents, or does something trigger it?
(b) Was there some other reason to question the mom's fitness that the article left out? The Guardian usually doesn't fabricate facts but they're not above only telling one side of the story.

[LexAquilia]

Want a list of words people like Sarcastr0, loki, hobie, or Queenie won't be uttering soon?

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/think-tank-urges-dems-drop-these-45-terms-turn-normies

Privilege
Violence (as in “environmental violence”)
Dialoguing
Othering
Triggering
Microaggression / assault/ invalidation
Progressive stack
Centering
Safe space
Holding space
Body shaming
Subverting norms
Systems of oppression
Critical theory
Cultural appropriation
Postmodernism
Overton Window
Heuristic
Existential threat to [climate, the planet, democracy, the economy]
Radical transparency
Small ‘d’ democracy
Barriers to participation
Stakeholders
The unhoused
Food insecurity
Housing insecurity
Person who immigrated
Birthing person/inseminated person
Pregnant people
Chest feeding
Cisgender
Deadnaming
Heteronormative
Patriarchy
LGBTQIA+
Latinx
BIPOC
Allyship
Intersectionality
Minoritized communities
Justice-involved
Carceration
Incarcerated people
Involuntary confinement

lol, Sarcastr0's comments are gonna be mostly blank

[Michael P]

I have to dispute the inclusion of "stakeholders" in that list. I use it a fair bit in security contexts, because there are a lot of people involved with various roles, and their priorities and sometimes even objectives differ based on those roles. A systems engineer won't have the same perspective or interests as a contractor's security officer or a customer's project manager or an approving officer's representative. Stakeholders seems like the best word to reflect that (dare I say it?) diversity.

[ducksalad]

Yeah, but that's exactly why the word isn't very useful. Sending out a memo telling us to "prioritize the interests of the stakeholders" is useless because it's a laundry list of conflicting things.

I believe it's one of those words writers use when they have to write something but haven't completely worked out the details of what they want to say.

[Michael P]

Yes, but I don't say dumb things like that. It's still a good idea to consider the priorities and interests of the stakeholders; there are a fair but not huge number of both stakeholders and their priorities/interests. One should solicit input from stakeholders for the same reason. There are places that it's the right word, where calling out the various identities of stakeholders would be hugely more verbose and would suggest that some come before others. That's different from, say, "chest feeding", where the only appropriate mention is in mocking people who use the phrase.

[Randal]

I think a lot of you are going to have problems with Overton Window.

The one I don't get is Postmodernism. Huh? I guess I'm missing some connotation or current usage? I just thought it meant "whatever Quentin's getting up to."

[Michael P]

Who is "you" in "a lot of you"? This is a list from a leftie, written as advice for fellow lefties about where the Overton window actually is.

[Randal]

This might be your most self-defeating post of all time.

[John 4]

Truly incredible.

[David Nieporent]

Who is "you" in "a lot of you"? This is a list from a leftie, written as advice for fellow lefties about where the Overton window actually is.

It's about as far as one can get from that without actually being published by Newsmax. It is a list from a centrist, written as advice for fellow centrists. Third Way are the people that lefties hate.

[Estragon]

The repeated gloating over this list is kind of interesting to me. Like, what is it that you’re so happy about?

Many of the words on this list have not appeared in constituent-facing communication from democratic politicians going back to at least 2010. Other terms, for example cultural appropriation and deadnaming, are used more often— and in some cases exclusively— by Republicans.

https://dcinboxinsights.substack.com/p/was-it-something-the-democrats-said?

[LexAquilia]

I'm happy to see where the Overton Window is and that it's moving in the right direction. Away from Lefty freakary and back to normalcy.

[Estragon]

“Overton window.”

Making certain terms politically toxic is not shifting the Overton window if you’re not shifting people’s opinions about the underlying ideas.

[LexAquilia]

The Democrat messaging monitors changing their language suggests people's opinions have already shifted on the underlying ideas.

Was that really lost on you?

[Estragon]

“Democrat messaging monitors changing their language”

The third way people are not “Democrat[s]”

As I pointed out above, since 2010, many of these terms are rarely or never used in constituent-facing communications from Democratic politicians. So what is there to change from terms that were never or rarely used? Others are used more often by Republicans. So it’s not really a Democratic messaging thing. The whole thrust of the original piece seemed to be “Democrats should stop using words Republicans falsely accuse them of using.”

Now, if what you’re really crowing about is people like Chris Rufo having an ability to make certain terms politically toxic, that’s a different story.

“Woke” is a perfect example of this. Woke is now bad. Toxic. No politician would now ever describe themselves as “woke” regardless of their underlying substantive views. But what is woke? Don— although not “right about everything”— was indeed right about this when he said:

“I don’t like the term ‘woke’ because I hear, ‘Woke, woke, woke.’ It’s just a term they use, half the people can’t even define it, they don’t know what it is,”

So when you say that this bogus thirdway BS is indicative of a larger shift in public opinion, that seems like an assertion that’s not really supported by this.

“Deadnaming” is another great example here. According to my link, only used once and by a republican. It may or may not be a term to avoid now for politicians— but that’s just a term. Unless you have polling to the contrary, I think most decent Americans would agree with the proposition that we should simply refer to people by the name they prefer to be referred to as. Asshole 5th circuit judges excepted, of course.

[ducksalad]

Mostly a good list except for the following:

Postmodernism - used more by conservatives against progressives than by progressives to describe themselves.

Stakeholders - I don't like it but it doesn't have much political leaning. It's more a corporate thing.

[bernard11]

No need to get all worked up over this. Yeah, there are a lot of silly terms here. There are also some reasonable ones. So what?

Groups develop jargon, often impenetrable to outsiders. This very much applies to business, BTW. Anyone work in a big corporation? The amount of buzzwords can be overwhelming. Here are some, a few taken from a document I got a few days ago:

Curated preferential access (everything is curated these days)
Maintain full optionality
De-risking both economic, operational and reputational exposure. (Both?)
Deep dive (no one studies a topic these days. They only take deep dives.)
Market (or business) development. (Heaven forbid you should talk about sales.)

Etc.

[Mr. Bumble]

In case you missed this comment to Somin's Friday post re: Intel.

William of Brooklyn 2 days ago
Flag Comment
Mute User

Partial list; there are more than this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the_United_States

List of partially or wholly federally owned enterprises
• Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)[1]
• Community Development Financial Institutions Fund[2]
• Corporation for National and Community Service (AmeriCorps)[2]
• Export-Import Bank of the United States[3]
• Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation[4]
• Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC)
• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
• Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation
• Federal Financing Bank (FFB)[5]
• Federal Home Loan Banks[6]
• Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)
• Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae)
• Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR)[7]
• The Financing Corporation
• Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae)[8]
• Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
• Intel Corporation
• Legal Services Corporation[9]
• Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)
• National Cooperative Bank[10]
• National Corporation for Housing Partnerships (NCHP); Washington, D.C.
• National Credit Union Administration Central Liquidity Facility (CLF)
• National Endowment for Democracy[11]
• National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
• National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
• Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation[12]
• Overseas Private Investment Corporation
• Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation
• Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
• Presidio Trust[13]
• Resolution Funding Corporation[13]
• Rural Telephone Bank
• Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
• Securities Investor Protection Corporation[14]
• Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
• U.S. International Development Finance Corporation
• United States African Development Foundation
• United States Enrichment Corporation
• United States Postal Service[13]

[Randal]

So... you're a socialist now? That was easy.

[Martinned]

If Trump is a (national) socialist, so are half the commenters on this blog...

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought Trump and company were fascists.

[JasonT20]

I thought Trump and company were fascists.

Did you not know what party he was referring to with "(national) socialist"? I see people on your side pointing this out all the fucking time. And not understanding or deliberately misconstruing how and why that party used that word in their name.

[Frank Drackman]

Godwin came early this week.
You get free Dental Care in Holland??

Frank

[CountmontyC]

Coming from someone whose grandparents or great grandparents were likely NSB your accusation of anyone else being a national socialist sucks.

[Jazzizhep]

No, it proves you chicken Littles who think it’s the end of democracy as we know it are lying or incredibly stupid.

I know you must feel compelled to believe the end is nigh because..,Trump. Get some perspective.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...are lying or incredibly stupid."

Both?

[Randal]

Chicken Littles

I don't see anyone here caterwauling over this.

All I see are MAGA ex-conservatives toeing the socialist line now that Trump's the one doing the socialism.

[Jazzizhep]

You didn’t see Sarc, loki, Howie and the others caterwauling over Trump and Intel?

Sorry, I can’t help your ignorance.

[Estragon]

Once again, this is kind of dumb. LOB was too timid, so I’ll put it to you:

Can you guess the sole congressperson, since 2010, to use the words “microagression” or “cultural appropriation” in a press release or official statement?

[Michael P]

congressperson, since 2010, to use the words “microagression” or “cultural appropriation” in a press release or official statement

But did they do it while standing on this particular postage stamp of land, while twirling around counterclockwise?

[Estragon]

Wrong place

[Ridgeway]

I don't understand why this list is supposed to make the Intel "investment" look normal.

All (or almost all) those other companies are quasi-governmental entities created by statute. We can argue whether government involvement in them is still wise (or was ever wise), but they are conceptually very different from the Intel situation.

A much closer example would be GM back during the financial crisis.

[Jazzizhep]

You don’t see the similarities between the govt having a stake or owning private businesses and the govt having a stake or owning private business?

Not sure I can help you here.

Yes, it is similar to GM, Dodge, and the banks we bailed out. It is still the govt in the business of private businesses.

[Sarcastr0]

This isn't a bailout. Intel isn't getting bailed out.

This is nationalizing industry.

For no reason.

By just about any principle people on here claim to believe, including my own, it's really bad.

[Jazzizhep]

So your problem is Trump didn’t go full Obama?

[bernard11]

Not the same thing. These are mostly agencies created by Congress and operating, for whatever reason, as corporations. Intel is not.

[Paul Elliott]

Attorneys for those injured for persons injured by the various COVID lies are urged to contact me. The USPS is trying to steal my ivermectin. In a legal context this theft has close to zero value, but I wonder if this issue could be used to force people to testify, that the system would like to not testify. The issue is, is the theft attempt an ordinary governmental endorsement issue or is it a small part in conspiracy against rights? This question turns on the question was the "ivermectin" does not work lie, is really a lie. I would like to work with those trying to expose lies. Please contact me.
Paul Elliott
[e-mail]
3300 plaza drive, apt 1
New Albany IN 47150

[Brett Bellmore]

Um, you do know that you can just pick up some more at Tractor Supply, right?

[Paul Elliott]

It is easier to figure the dosage with human targeted IVN. The FLCC makes this BIG BEAUTIFUL CART showing what the proper dosage in mg. I don't know how many inches of paste that is. I think FLCCC would be worried about flac if they told people how to use paste.

[Brett Bellmore]

Frankly, if you can't do those sorts of calculations in your sleep, you probably shouldn't be compounding your own medications.

[ducksalad]

Haven't checked a Tractor Supply, but the farm and ranch supply places around here now seem to keep the veterinary meds behind the counter, and want to hear your reasons for asking for it.

So feasible but only if you're willing to lie.

[Ridgeway]

I just said I was filling a prescription for Smuckers.

Didn't do much for my cough, but my tapeworm is gone!

Now, does anyone know how to get generic Ozempic? Asking for a friend.

[Estragon]

“prescription for Smuckers”

Now that is a good Seinfeld reference!

[Dr. Ed 2]

When King George sent Royal Troops into Boston in 1768, he sent 4,000 soldiers into a city of 16,000 -- 25% of the population.

The population of DC is something like 700K, Chicago is over 3M, so a few thousand soldiers is much less significant.

[JasonT20]

There's a reason we separate military and the police: one fights the enemy of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.
--Commander William Adama (Edward James Olmos), Battlestar Galactica

[bernard11]

Well, if King George did it it's good enough for me.

[Mhxekszj]

do traythug supporters even know the facts of the case? i don't think they do. what it boils down to is that traythug felt "dissed" by some "creepy ass crackuh" following him at night, and he wanted to show his "girlfriend" (in reality, his future baby momma) that he wouldn't let said diss go unpunished! he violently chimped out, and george zimmerman shot the piece of crap through the heart. rot in hell, scumbag.

[jb]

Giving "bot programmed with the controversies of the 1990s".

[hobie]

"Alex, I'll take armed white dumbass vigilantes for 800."

"And the answer is, 'This dumbass fucked around where he shouldn't have been and found out.'"

"Who is Rittenhouse?"

"No, I'm sorry, the correct answer is Tiny Microscopic Saint Ashtray Babbitt. As you may recall, Rittenhouse, like Zimmerman, both lived and made lucrative careers out of speaking to absolutely pro-semitic MAGA militia rallies"

[Jazzizhep]

Babbit wasn’t armed, Einstein. Congratulations on the complete self-own.

Rittenhouse was chased and a man pulled a gun on him—hardly vigilantism.

Zimmerman was getting his head bashed against a sidewalk while walking back to his car. That would be concrete for the uninitiated.

Anything else you want to get wrong today?

Rittenhouse and Zimmerman as opposed to Omar, AOC, and Presley getting rich speaking to antisemitic socialists crowds. I don’t have a problem with this. Ya know, assembly clause and all. Why you do is beyond me.

[hobie]

My favorite part of MAGA militia rallies is when the leader gets on the stage, starts pumping his fist, and chants 'Let's here it for the Jews! Jews! Jews!' And the MAGA rabble - their Nazi and Confederate flags waving in the breeze - repeat, 'We love the Jews, We love the Jews!'

Meanwhile, us Libs and the majority of American Jews that have joined us...are looking on and sipping our pina coladas and thinking to ourselves, 'Wow! These guys really care about Jews.'

[Dr. Ed 2]

I fail to understand why American Jews fail to realize that "Kill the Jews" means them too.

[Jazzizhep]

2012 is not the 1990s.

Controversies of the 90s include;

Read my lips

First Gulf War

Just exactly how “is” is defined

Stains on blue dresses

The Seinfeld ending

[tylertusta]

Bill Shipley's latest on the Kilmar Abrega-Garcia saga. Paywalled, but free trial subscriptions are available.

Free At Last, Free At Last, Kilmar Abrego Garcia Is Free At Last -- To Go To Uganda.

Some highlights:

I expect that his attorneys in Maryland will file a petition for habeas relief in the District of Maryland before Wednesday, seek to have the matter assigned to Judge Xinis, and ask her to block his removal from the United States while his habeas petition is pending. The basis of the petition will be that he has due process rights to contest removal to a third country — such as a fear of persecution or torture — and those rights can only be asserted after the third country destination is disclosed. Since Uganda was only disclosed on August 22, he must be afforded adequate time to seek relief under due process.

After the prospect of removal to a third country arose, Judge Xinis invited such a filing in her July 23 Order that he not be taken into ICE custody:

Accordingly, the Court shares Plaintiffs’ ongoing concern that, absent meaningful safeguards, Defendants may once again remove Abrego Garcia from the United States without having restored him to the status quo ante and without due process.

Note the reference that KAG will be at risk of removal from the United States again “without due process.” This comment ignores the fact that a Notice of Removal has been in place in 2019, and the only restriction was that he not be removed to El Salvador. All his immigration matters are closed. KAG has already received the “due process” he was entitled to as an illegal alien with no right to remain in the United States. The only error that implicated his due process rights was being sent to El Salvador. Now Judge Xinis is overtly suggesting that other due process errors might be involved if KAG is removed to someplace other than El Salvador.

Shipley's ultimate conclusion is that Judge Xinis is engineering another confrontation with the executive by telegraphing to Garcia's attorneys to file with her so she can block his deportation. This effort by Xinis is unlikely to succeed due to DHS v DVD, but that hasn't stopped Xinis from telegraphing her intentions already.

[tylertusta]

Also, Garcia was just arrested by ICE. I would not be surprised if his lawyers are rushing to file paperwork with Judge Xinis today.

[tylertusta]

....and they did. They filed a habeas petition and the case was assigned to Judge Xinis.

Because of course it was.

https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1959970082924228641

[tylertusta]

More from Bill Shipley on twitter:

As it turns out -- and I do not think it is coincidental -- under Judge Xinis' prior order that the Govt did not appeal, ICE had to give Abrego-Garcia 72 hours notice prior to removing him.

He was given written notice at 4:01 pm on Friday. Weekends did not count under her order, so 72 hours would be 4:01 pm on Wednesday, Aug. 27.

The 48 hour automatic stay under the Maryland standing order expires at 4:00 pm on the second business day following the filing of a habeas petition.

4:00 pm on Wednesday.

The DOJ/ICE had this lined up.

https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1959999147265982762

[David Nieporent]

Um, yes, duh, of course it was. It's a related case. That's how the federal courts work.

[tylertusta]

Yes. Because of course it was.

That's what I said. Duh.

[JasonT20]

The "deal" Garcia is offered is not a deal. It is a threat. "Stop fighting for your rights, or we will deport you to Uganda."

[tylertusta]

What right are you talking about? A right to remain in the United States?

[JasonT20]

Due process rights. The right to a jury trial. Etc.

Try all you want, but you can't wash over the obvious attempts by the Trump administration to save face. Had they followed through and brought him back after the DoJ attorney admitted that he was deported to El Salvador by mistake, then they could have examined his case and possible deportation under some kind of reasonable process and he never would have become known by the general U.S. public.

But they (Trump administration) need you to see them being "tough" on "illegals", so anyone swept up by their attempts to meet their 3000 a day deportation goal, must be a horrible criminal, and getting them out of the U.S., by whatever means they can, is protecting you from those dangerous aliens.

[Mr. Bumble]

He was likely going to jail but even if he beat the rap he was eventually going to be deported (he was under an order of deportation already) so if he was smart he'd take the offer and go to Guatemala.

[tylertusta]

I heard he was offered Costa Rica, not Guatemala.

But any offer had a time limit attached to it, and I suspect that the time is now up.

[Mr. Bumble]

Either or, better than Uganda and easier for him to re-enter the US again. Plus he already speaks the language.

[tylertusta]

Costa Rica is a paradise compared to Uganda, and I would prefer the former over the latter.

Then again, I'm not an alleged MS-13 gang member who may have fled El Salvador after possibly murdering a rival gang member.

[David Nieporent]

But then again, neither is Abrego Garcia.

[tylertusta]

Garcia is not alleged to be a MS-13 member?

What alternative universe are you living in?

[David Nieporent]

Does "alleged" just mean "One lunatic on the Internet said it?" If so, then, yes, he's alleged as such. But by that standard Donald Trump is an alleged lizard from Mars. I assumed that, in context, "alleged" was meant to incorporate the concepts of credibility and evidence.

[Magister]

incorporate the concepts of credibility and evidence.

Not how tylertusta rolls.

[tylertusta]

I guess David and Magister live in a magical fantasy world where a grand jury didn't indict Garcia and allege he was a MS-13 member:

Up is down with you fools today.

KILMAR ARMANDO ABREGO GARCIA was a citizen of El Salvador, was not a United States Citizen, and was living in the United States. KILMAR ARMANDO ABREGO GARCIA was also a member and associate of the transnational criminal organization, La Mara Salvatrucha, otherwise known and hereinafter referred to as MS-13.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25966105-united-states-of-america-v-kilmar-armando-garcia-indictment/

[JasonT20]

I guess David and Magister live in a magical fantasy world where a grand jury didn't indict Garcia and allege he was a MS-13 member:

I looked at that document. Unfortunately, they seemed to forget to allege in the indictment that he was a ham sandwich. I'm sure it was just an oversight.

[tylertusta]

I suppose it would be inevitable that people will get their panties twisted into a knot over the use of the word "allege" when a grand jury alleges something.

David revels in pedantry except when it doesn't suit him anymore.

[Magister]

My comment was simply about the usual quality of tylertusta's comments; I'll let others comment on the evidence about Abrego Garcia.

[tylertusta]

You might want to look in the mirror there, bud.

[Magister]

Oh, who's that good looking person in the mirror? The one who actually cites evidence on a regular basis, and not nonsense borrowed from partisan talking points? Ah, c'est moi.

[tylertusta]

Narrator: "He said, not actually citing evidence while preening in the mirror."

[Magister]

Oh, you forgot to link to your partisan talking point source! Pro tip: you don't need to cite evidence when responding to comments free of evidence or assertions.

[tylertusta]

Is this evidence and credibility in the room with us now?

You realize that it's a simple matter to just search this open thread to look at what you've said so far, right?

tylertusta
Total comments to date: 42
Number of substantive comments making factual assertions: 18
Number of sources/links for factual assertions: 11
Sourced comment percentage: 61%

Magister
Total comments to date: 12
Number of substantive comments making factual assertions: 4
Number of sources/links for factual assertions: 0
Sourced comment percentage: 0%

Even with your rule of "don't need to cite evidence when I don't feel like it" you seemingly have neglected to support anything you've said, period.

Perhaps you shouldn't have made this argument in this thread. Oops.

Conclusion: You were- and are- full of shit.

[Magister]

My comments about your propensity are based on a history beyond this open thread. Your judgement of whether my posts are substantive is more baseless drivel. But keep digging! There must be a pony underneath all your shit.

[tylertusta]

No evidence. Again. You still don't get it, do you? Were you dropped on your head as a child?

If I were to do what you just did and go off of what I remember about your commentary of past comments- what our mutual friend Sarcastr0 calls 'vibes'- then you're one of the worst of the worst when it comes to saying shit without backing it up.

Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining, Mr. Zero Percent.

[Magister]

Entertaining nonsense from tylertusta all day long.

[tylertusta]

-

[jay.tee]

Can we please put this particular David Nieporent lie to bed?

The Court first reasoned that the Respondent failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his release from custody would not pose a danger to others, as the evidence shows that he is a verified member of MS-13.
[…]
Regardless, the determination that the Respondent is a gang member appears to be trustworthy and is supported by other evidence in record

He was found to be an MS-13 member by an Immigration Judge. That finding was upheld on appeal.

[Mr. Bumble]

Facts, is there anything they can't do?

[bernard11]

He was found to be an MS-13 member by an Immigration Judge. That finding was upheld on appeal.

Because he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat, and some anonymous informant said so.

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. We've been over this before. He was not found anything by any immigration judge. You can't look at a paper you don't understand and quote from it without knowing the context. That was a bond hearing, not a merits hearing. The only thing the judge found was that Abrego Garcia failed to rebut the claim by the dirty cop who had been fired and thus wasn't there to be questioned that some unnamed source told him that Garcia was a gang member. No evidence was presented and the burden of proof at the hearing was on Garcia.

[jay.tee]

Regardless, the determination that the Respondent is a gang member appears to be trustworthy and is supported by other evidence in record

Yes, that quote came from a bond hearing. I can read and understand the judge found him to be a verified member of MS-13.

While you may not agree with the evidence, process, or outcome, your opinions are irrelevant here. He was found to be an MS-13 member by the immigration judges.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, but I will say that I am not terribly comfortable with the very existence of non Article-3 'judges'. Outside of the military, I'm not seeing any constitutional basis for their existence.

[tylertusta]

Funnily enough, I think that if the facts remained the exact same except that Garcia was instead one Donald J. Trump, there would be no shortage of perfidious commentators here saying that not only was the evidence strong enough to say "allegedly" but they'd even go so far as to say that the evidence was strong.

Such is the state of our legal commentary today.

Brett: A grand jury indicted. I know they say a lot about grand juries and ham sandwiches. If you can't say "allegedly" even after a GJ indictment then there are no rules or customs anymore, and I can say it anyways.

[tylertusta]

Due process

What process is he due?

The right to a jury trial

Garcia isn't being denied his right to a jury trial in his Tennessee case.

If Garcia is deported before going to trial, his case in Tennessee will be dismissed with prejudice.

and he never would have become known by the general U.S. public.

Unlikely. The American media have turned every stubbed toe into a national scandal, and every allegation of misconduct against the government is taken at face value even after it was shown to be bullshit.

[Sarcastr0]

At minimum he deserves the right to petition the judiciary about what process he is due.

As noted, this is a threat to prevent him from standing up to himself against executive thuggery.

And you're on the side of the thug. They call that licking the boot.

[tylertusta]

You may prefer that he has another opportunity to challenge his deportation now after he did just that years ago- and lost, I should add- but your preference doesn't create a right.

[David Nieporent]

He does not have a right to an opportunity to challenge his deportation. But he does have a right to challenge the destination if it, e.g., might violate the CAT or other humanitarian law.

[tylertusta]

Not at the district court he doesn't.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"As noted, this is a threat to prevent him from standing up to himself against executive thuggery."

All plea bargains are threat. Heck, sometimes they approach you in jail and offer you a deal where you can go home today by giving up your right to a trial, or stay in jail indefinitely if you continue to hold out for an acquittal.

In such an arrangement, you end up serving more time if you are acquitted than you do if you confess.

I'm generally in favor of abolishing such plea bargains, including this one, but I don't seem to have a lot of company.

[tylertusta]

Some people are going to be surprised to find out that there is no absolute right to habeas corpus for people being removed under the INA.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, if you obliterate perspective 'plead or you'll get a week in jail' is the same as 'withdraw your due process claim or we'll deport you to Uganda.'

But what a shamefully ridiculous argument that would be.

[David Nieporent]

The difference between this and a plea bargain, is that a plea bargain is, "If you admit guilt and forgo a trial, you will get less punishment. But if you refuse and take it to trial and lose, we'll seek to punish you more harshly."

This, though, is, "If you admit guilt and forgo a trial, you will get less punishment. But if you refuse, we won't give you a trial at all; we'll just punish you harshly."

[TwelveInchPianist]

No, as I said above, sometimes a plea bargain is, "If you admit guild and forgo a trial, you get out of jail today. But if you refuse and want to take it to trial, you stay in jail indefinitely."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The "deal" Garcia is offered is not a deal. It is a threat. "Stop fighting for your rights, or we will deport you to Uganda."

Tomato/oe, right?

It fits overall in the abuse of plea bargaining, which often involves a form of legal blackmail.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The "deal" Garcia is offered is not a deal. It is a threat."

Oh dear, just like every other plea bargain. Stated or just implied, there is always a "threat".

[Don Nico]

Yup, that is the entire idea behind "plea bargains."

[tylertusta]

I recall the left's collective shrug over SCO Mueller's threatening to charge General Flynn's son if Flynn didn't plead guilty, so the performative outrage here is eye-rolling.

[JasonT20]

I recall the left's collective shrug over SCO Mueller's threatening to charge General Flynn's son if Flynn didn't plead guilty, so the performative outrage here is eye-rolling.

Is this documented? Genuinely curious about that.

[tylertusta]

It was years ago and I didn't think I'd be questioned on it, so I didn't bookmark things.

Google's AI says this:

When the allegation became a central part of Flynn's defense and a cause for his conservative supporters, many on the left were skeptical of the claim, viewing it as a tactic to undermine the Mueller investigation.

Skepticism about undermining the investigation: When the claim emerged in 2017 and 2018, many on the left viewed the possibility of a threat against Flynn's son with skepticism. They saw it as an attempt by Flynn's legal team and political allies to discredit the special counsel's investigation into Russian interference. Flynn's son, Michael G. Flynn, had also drawn scrutiny for spreading conspiracy theories, which further fueled doubts about the family's motives.

That jives with my recollections.

[JasonT20]

It jives with you recollections that Flynn's defense claimed that he was threatened with his son being prosecuted if he didn't plead guilty? And that people on the left were skeptical of those claims?

Okay. That jives with my recollection as well. It still doesn't answer the question of whether it is true or not, though.

[David Nieporent]

To be clear, it does not jive with either of your recollections. It may jibe with your recollections, though.

[jay.tee]

Here’s Flynn’s declaration to the DC district court. It includes two exhibits that are largely redacted aside from references to prosecuting MF Jr.:
https://www.scribd.com/document/458177953/Flynn-Supplement-to-Motion-to-Dismiss-April-pdf#fullscreen&from_embed

Here’s more background on the threats:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/flynn-evidence-calls-into-question-statements-by-former-special-counsel-brandon-van-grack

[jay.tee]

Xinis has now barred the administration from deporting Garcia despite the final deportation order and the Supreme Court not standing in the way of third-country deportations. Should be interesting….

[ThePublius]

UK Police Arrest a Man for Saying He Loves Bacon.

Holy shit! What the hell is going on in the UK? It's against regulations to hang up the Union Jack or St. George's Cross flags, and now you can't say you like bacon! They have gone to shit, and need a revolution.

"This young man was arrested for saying he loves bacon which is actually part of an English breakfast

This is not a joke

He was arrested"

https://x.com/rhmaldonado1/status/1959374774452298056

[tylertusta]

I don't know the details behind them arresting someone over liking bacon, but the Brits are taking a hard line against peoples' speech lately. Between going after 4chan and throwing people in jail for Facebook posts, they're looking less like a liberal democracy and more like Cold War-era Eastern Europe.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Between going after 4chan and throwing people in jail for Facebook posts..."

Let's not forget punishing people for praying.

[Jazzizhep]

Well he did say it outside a mosque construction site.

I am going to wait until I see a more reputable news org report this before I take the bait. Zerohedge, The Blaze, X, YouTube, and facebook doesn’t cut it for me. I don’t expect ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNow?, CNN, or NPR to ever cover it even if it was true.

[tylertusta]

For things like this, I find it's best to wait a while and let the facts come out.

[Kazinski]

It happened 5 days ago.

Here is a clip from SkyNews Australia where the audio of the police is very clear explaining why he is being arrested...
He said the "B" word.

https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/outsiders/orwellian-dystopian-state-uk-police-arrests-man-for-the-most-ridiculous-thing/video/c959a0fc3c1693a466ed5c22b669bebb

Telegraph UK also has an article but its paywalled.

The only thing we are waiting for is to see how many years he gets.

[Sarcastr0]

Here is a clip from SkyNews Australia

If all your sources are super partisan, and the story sounds too good to be true, that doesn't bother you?

It should.

I don't post Rachel Maddow blog posts either, even if they contain an audio clip they claim proves what they're saying.

[Brett Bellmore]

Do you have a video clip from somewhere else that has a different sound track? I mean, the idea used to be crazy, but I suppose faked audio tracks are a thing these days.

Or do you just object to people actually hearing the speech he got arrested for?

[Sarcastr0]

Oh I dunno how this story will come out.

I'm going to wait till I see a story that isn't from a right-wing rage factory, is all.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, as long as the outlets YOU like continue to 'cover the news; with a pillow until it stops moving', you feel free to ignore anything they want you to ignore.

You're not just in a bubble, you're proud to be in a bubble, and demand everyone else join you there.

[Martinned]

Yes, the Volokh Conspiracy comments section is obviously a liberal bubble...

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, he does lean up against the edge of his bubble sometimes, but refusing to look at a video of what somebody got arrested for doing because it wasn't in an outlet that he likes IS bubble inhabitant behavior.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, this was prebutted: "I don't post Rachel Maddow blog posts either, even if they contain an audio clip they claim proves what they're saying."

I've got by biases but I have a balanced media diet and a healthy skepticism of all initial reporting.

I'm not as pickled as you are.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you claim you're impartially rejecting relevant evidence, and you think that's a defense? "I can't hear her, either, when I have my fingers in my ears!"

Sometimes sources we don't like are the only place we can get genuine, relevant information, because nobody we DO like has any motive to make it available. That's just a fact of life.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't reject the evidence, I said before I took anything as *proven* I was going to wait for a source that wasn't two posts from accusing the left of eating babies or whatever.

Like I said, flip the script - if I posted something from Maddowblog as proof of what's going on, and maybe followed it up with a MediaMatters post, would you be like 'well, that's some good evidence, guess it's true.'

All I'm saying is apply that standard even if you want to believe.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and I'm saying that, so long as you take that position, 'mainstream' sources can force you to ignore stuff.

If Maddow posts video of something that actually happened, I'm not going to refuse to pay attention just because the WSJ or whoever doesn't feel like carrying it. I have too much experience dealing with the newspaper industry to think that they are in any way, shape, or form a representative sample of what's going on in the country.

[Sarcastr0]

Better only trust PowerLine!

Transparent editorial standards do add credibility, Brett. You just hate the messy real world and regularly take refuge in comforting delusion. Sometimes you get it from others, sometimes you make it up yourself.

It's a pretty weak character that does that. But hey, you're a cut above the many on here who don't care enough to even construct a reality for themselves and just insult and shitpost.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Transparent editorial standards do add credibility, Brett."

Then maybe these outlets you do like could give them a try some time. Maybe at the same time they could start linking to original sources, complete transcripts, and stop publishing paraphrases in preference to actual quotes.

In my experience, 90% plus of media bias isn't expressed in bogus stories, it's expressed in killed stories, things omitted. As David Burge famously said, “Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving.”

Maybe start developing some curiosity about what's under the pillow?

[Sarcastr0]

Ignoring your inevitable conspiracy theory, I think we agree here: In my experience, 90% plus of media bias isn't expressed in bogus stories, it's expressed in killed stories, things omitted

And so we come back to reading multiple sources before you decide about a story.

2 hours ago that was rejecting relevant evidence.

[ThePublius]

"I am going to wait until I see a more reputable news org report this before I take the bait."

Did you watch the video?

[hobie]

If he had just stuck to asking for peace in Gaza, no one would have touched him.

[Estragon]

When was the last time Trump played golf? Scotland?

[jb]

I figured there had to be a site for this, and indeed there is:

https://didtrumpgolftoday.com/

It's a shame that site doesn't link each day to the details, but their source is here:

https://rollcall.com/factbase/trump/topic/calendar/

And it looks like yesterday he golfed at his "DC" club in Virginia.

[jay.tee]

The site is crass, a little childish, and somehow really funny!

Crazy someone would have that much dedication and time to create a website to track a president’s golf schedule, but I think it’s an important element of public accountability.

For those curious, here’s a history of US presidents’ golf habits:
https://golfweek.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/2023/01/20/u-s-presidents-play-golf-donald-trump-joe-biden/76531915007/

Reportedly, only Carter, Truman, and Hoover didn’t play.

[Mr. Bumble]

Find it hard to believe that Roosevelt played. Maybe before he got polio and before he was president but not after.

[jay.tee]

Looks like you’re right. From TFA:

Franklin D. Roosevelt was an avid golfer and in college became the club champion at Campobello Island Golf Club in New Brunswick, Canada.

According to Don Van Natta, Jr., author of "First Off The Tee", Roosevelt played golf until he was 38. He would often play with other politicians in Washington. Van Natta called him "probably one of the better presidential golfers."

Roosevelt contracted polio at age 39 and it "robbed him of the game. He really, truly loved it," said Van Natta.

Roosevelt left a legacy with the federal funding of public-works projects, which included dozens of municipal golf courses like Bethpage State Park in New York and FDR Golf Club in Philadelphia.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is there a site that tracks Biden's playing?
Oh wait, he couldn't even make it through a round of miniature golf at Rehoboth Beach.
Never mind.

[Estragon]

With Trump’s rapidly necrotizing hand, is this the path you really want to go down?

When was the last time Don attempted to ride a bicycle, do you figure?

[Mr. Bumble]

When was the last time Biden did? When he fell over?

[Estragon]

I’ll guess 40 years ago

[Mr. Bumble]

Probably more like 65 years ago.
Probably something like this:
https://bikehistory.org/bikes/hornet/

[Estragon]

I will merely point out here that the source material doesn’t say if he actually played— just that he was at the club all day. But thank you, very interesting nonetheless.

[hobie]

"“Can you believe that, with all of the problems and difficulties facing the U.S., President Obama spent the day playing golf. Worse than Carter,” Trump said in 2014.

“I’m going to be working for you, I’m not going to have time to go play golf,” he said at an event in Virginia."

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-obama-golf-235217

[loki13]

Pointing out that Trump lies is as easy as pointing out that Trump ... um ... lies.

Look, it doesn't matter to his fans (they aren't supporters, really, they are fans). Because they do not care that he lies. They do not care that he is doing all the things that they lied about Democratic politicians and/or The New World Order doing (um ... using a standing army to police the states? really?). They don't care about any inconsistencies, or ... anything.

They only care that what he does makes other people mad. Really. In fact, even if what Trump does should make them mad (not releasing the Epstein files, transferring Maxwell to a cushy place after a nice talk with his attorney, selling chips to China so long as he is able to tax without the permission of Congress, the ability to suspend laws to favored companies and contributors, using the ... Executive's power of the purse (??!!!) to force states to change their criminal processes, etc.) ... it doesn't matter ...

Because it makes people they don't like mad. And that's enough for them. It's like ... rooting for internet trolls simply because you like to see other people be unhappy, angry, and hurt. Because you think it's funny that other people have standards, or morals, or think that America has ideals and should be better.

Cool.

[hobie]

Yes, I know all this stuff. Lying causes MAGA to release endorphins making them happy and calm. I get to point out the lies causing me to release endorphins making me happy and calm. With all us masses properly opiated and distracted, the Trump Clan and the other oligarchs get to carve up the nation. Which they are indeed doing

[Sarcastr0]

This is all kinda weak-tea speculation.

We're not going to know anything unless and until Trump is dead, and even then maybe not for a bit of time.

In the meantime diagnosing from afar based on his golf habits and having a wonky hand seems too much like the right's constant wanking about Biden and before him Obama (remember when Obama was supposed to have secret gay AIDS?)

[loki13]

Personally, I would be a lot happier if Trump spent more time golfing and less time on social media, watching TV, and worst of all ... doing things.

More golfing, please.

[Estragon]

No offense but the “last reasonable man on the internet” thing can get pretty tired.

The guy is almost 80. He has subsisted on hamburders, well done steak, and Diet Coke for years. Zero exercise. Overweight. Rotting hand from… something. How often he is playing golf is actually a really useful heuristic for how he is feeling, physically. Because whatever else you want to say about the guy… he loves to golf.

They are undoubtedly aware of this which is why he’ll keep going to the club on the weekend. But that’s not the same as playing 18 in the heat, even if you are literally driving the cart onto the greens. Just something to keep an eye on.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure how you get from a bruise to "rotting". My mom used to get bruises like that, on account of being old and on aspirin, and there wasn't any rotting involved, she lived for years after they started showing up. And, frankly, she was pretty sharp until the end.

I mean, it's a clear indication he shouldn't take up mixed martial arts, and that all men are mortal, but not much beyond that.

[Estragon]

“she was pretty sharp until the end”

That is a comment about mental state, not physical state. Anyways, I take it as a clear indication that the guy is physically deteriorating— unsurprisingly given the factors I listed— and we should keep an eye on how often he’s playing golf.

[Mr. Bumble]

Was it also "your take" that he'd be in jail by now?

[Estragon]

Was it? My take has been consistent on whether he’d ever see the inside of a cell.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, he's physically deteriorating. Anybody his age who isn't is something of a freak.

[Mr. Bumble]

He's aging, just like all the rest of us who are among the quick.

[LexAquilia]

Can justice ever be blind when complainants can forum shop and court clerks put their thumbs on the scale instead of random judge selection?

[not guilty]

"Can justice ever be blind when complainants can forum shop and court clerks put their thumbs on the scale instead of random judge selection?"

To what are you referring?

[hobie]

He must be upset at the mifepristone lawsuits

[tylertusta]

The New York Times is ringing the alarm bells for Democrats' prospects after the 2030 census and reapportionment occurs. I guess Democrats are now in the "Finding Out" stage for learning of the consequences of their political choices over the past two decades.

The 2030 census and apportionment will cause significant problems for Democrats attempting to win the electoral college due to the "blue wall" strategy no longer being viable outside of the waviest of wave election years:

Across all of the possible scenarios in the nine states that would be considered battlegrounds in the 2032 election, Democrats would see about a third of their current winning Electoral College combinations disappear if population projections hold. However, when looking only at the most feasible winning combinations based on voting behaviors in the 2024 election, the outlook is far worse. Of Democrats’ 25 most plausible paths to victory in 2024, only five would remain.

Ironically, in response to this mountain of woes, some Democrats are advocating for a "Southern Strategy" of their own.

https://archive.ph/bI0O2#selection-789.10-797.189

(The paywalled site has an interactive tool so people can test various state combinations)

[hobie]

Glad to see you trusting The Times, tyler.

Of course it doesn't matter what states gain or lose, the new districts will all be gerrymandered into oblivion. Democracy, baby!

[tylertusta]

I trust the Times when it's criticizing Democrats. Admission against interests and all that.

[Kazinski]

Hard to Gerrymander the presidency or the Senate, which maybe why the Times ran this

Abolish the Senate.
End the Electoral College.
Pack the Court.
Why the left can’t win without a new Constitution.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/14/opinion/trump-democracy-test-left.html

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I enjoyed re-watching The Notebook, which James Garner notes in his autobiography was one of his favorite films that he was involved in. His favorite was The Americanization of Emily.

The DVD has many extras, including a film editor discussing the deleted scenes, including the thought process that went into removing them. Interesting bit.

One thing that came up in extras was a discussion of the author of the source novel, including another work, A Walk to Remember, which was based on his sister's experience.

That film was also pretty good, with a good performance from Mandy Moore, whose character at one point warned someone not to fall in love with her.

[Ridgeway]

Big James Garner fan here -- Rockford Files is my all-time favorite series.

He is also a nice example of how politics is not (and should not be) that important in our day to day lives.

By his account, be was a "bleeding heart liberal", but by everyone else's account, he was just an all-around great guy. Tom Selleck (who differs strongly from him politically) loved the guy, and said everything he tried to do running the set on Magnum PI, he learned from watching James Garner behave on the Rockford set.

Relatedly, some of the best Rockford episodes involve poking fun at the politics of the era (from hippie nonsense in Quickie Nirvana to gun nuts in Battle of Canoga Park).

[Ska]

My brother texted me this last week:

Why do you stand here by the truck?
I'm stealing tools.

[Ridgeway]

For stealing tools? Alligator Alcatraz ... er ... Cooler!

[Ska]

Crazy mixed up kid, that Werner, but I like him.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Garner played a conservative justice on a short-lived television series (if one that was around longer than the OTHER SCOTUS-themed series -- that one had Sally Field!). As he said, that was ACT-ING.

[bernard11]

Big James Garner fan here -- Rockford Files is my all-time favorite series.

I liked Garner from his Maverick days. I do think that in many of his later roles, including Rockford, he tended to continue playing Maverick.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A lot of his characters had a general "James Garner" feel to them.

[Ridgeway]

Yeah -- it works because the James Garner persona is so charming and likeable. I'd compare him in that way to Tommy Lee Jones.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh man, saw “a Walk to Remember” at the theater 2002(Mrs Drackmans pick) trying to hold back the tears when Mandy dies at the end,
Oh, I’m sorry, did I “spoil” it for anyone? It came out 23 years ago for Christ sake.
Opening scene with “Cannonball” by the Breeders is great, makes me want to get a 69’ Camaro and run from the Cops like our hero

Frank

[jay.tee]

We’re four days from an ignominious anniversary: on 29 August 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall in New Orleans.

NatGeo has a good, though horrifying, documentary:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/tv/show/835e484d-dbd3-426b-97e2-97000a792748

I sincerely hope we never again witness such abject failures at every level of government and utter disregard for the wellbeing of fellow Americans.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and 2 days plus 86 years from the Nazi-Russian non-aggression pact. The prelude to WWII.

[hobie]

People seem to forget that Germany and Russia were two Jew-hating allies in WWII...until they weren't. Russia's long standing hatred of Jews and LBGT is a natural attractant to MAGA...it explains the cozying up

[Frank Drackman]

You need to get out more Hobie-Stank, it’s not “MAGA” who be hating on the Hebrews now a days

[bernard11]

Yet Russia in fact provided some sanctuary from the Nazis. When they withdrew from eastern Poland as part of the (revised) deal with Hitler they invited residents, including Jews, to come along and enter Russia.

The story gets complex from there, but in fact many who took up the offer survived the war.

[SRG2]

Cities with highest crime rates:

Murder and non-negligent manslaughter: Birmingham, St. Louis, Memphis
Rape: Anchorage, SLC, Cleveland
Robbery: Oakland, Baltimore, DC
Aggravated assault: Memphis, Detroit, Little Rock

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

I don't see Trump sending the NG to Memphis or Birmingham or SLC...

[Mr. Bumble]

Nor to any of the others you listed.
Patience grasshopper. All in good time.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Cities with highest crime rates:"

Democrat mayors, so of course.

[jb]

Anchorage has an independent mayor. During the time in which these stats were reported, the mayor was Republican.

Also: there's entire Republican-led *states* with higher crime rates than some of the cities that Trump is threatening to send the national guard to.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Anchorage has an independent mayor"

"Independent" in name only, she was the Democrat nominee for assembly previously.

"entire Republican-led *states* with higher crime rates than some of the cities that Trump is threatening to send the national guard to"

Because of the "blue" cities dude.

[jb]

"Independent" in name only, she was the Democrat nominee for assembly previously.

Cute how you just skipped over the part that the mayor was Republican for the period that the data applies to.

Because of the "blue" cities dude.

Umm, other states have cities too. With Democratic mayors even. The top-crime Republican states: Alaska (#2 in violent crime), Arkansas (#3), Louisiana (#4) and Tennessee (#5) are all more rural than average, with all but Louisiana being significantly more rural than average. New Mexico, the #1 state for violent crime and the only blue state to crack the top 5, is more urban than any of the Republican states on the list, but still a bit more rural than average.

So no, that's not why.

[Bob from Ohio]

"So no, that's not why."

Demographics then

[jb]

Anything to avoid acknowledging the fact that red states are just high crime cesspools I guess:

https://www.thirdway.org/report/the-21st-century-red-state-murder-crisis

I'd actually be pretty interested to see if anyone has done some analysis on the topic controlling for population density. This is the closest I could find and it basically says there's no difference in red vs. blue once you control for various factors (age, race, socioeconomic status):

https://manhattan.institute/article/red-vs-blue-crime-debate-and-the-limits-of-empirical-social-science

[jay.tee]

Thanks for the links. I don’t think the Thirdway analysis is as informative because they only removed one “blue” county from each of the “red” states to claim elevated “red” state crime rates aren’t due to “blue” cities. What if the “red” state has multiple “blue” cities? How do you even define “blue city”?

The Manhattan Institute’s analysis seems more interesting, though it might be a bit circular. They find that removing biases in age, race, and socioeconomic status largely evens out the crime stats. However, do those age, race, and socioeconomic status biases largely mimic the biases between “red” and “blue” voters? If so, they’ve ultimately concluded making “blue” cities look like “red” states largely evens crime rates - not really all that insightful. Also, it seems population density is a glaring omission.

All that said, I don’t know that any analyses could ever “settle” this debate. Approaches (policing, education, development, etc.) between “red” states aren’t necessarily consistent, nor are approaches between “blue” cities, further complicating comparisons. Also, state- and city-level governance can be split between “red” and “blue” (or even, God forbid, non-partisan!).

[jb]

"Also, it seems population density is a glaring omission."

Yes, this is the one I want to see. I couldn't find anyone that's done the analysis, though.

[hobie]

Unleashing the Guard on the streets of all of Ohio's crime-ridden cities would be a tacit acknowledgement that all across DeWine's red state, crime is out of control under Republican rule.

Crime in California is governor Newsom's fault. Crime across Illinois is governor Pritzker's fault.

Ergo....

[Mr. Bumble]

DeWine doesn't need Trump to call out the Ohio NG to help control crime in Dem run cities.
What DeWine needs is a pair.

[Randal]

Democrat mayors, so of course.
Dem run cities.
What DeWine needs is a pair.

No, what DeWine needs is money. Fighting crime Trump's way is expensive. These NG deployments aren't cheap. Even regular police are expensive.

Cities are trading off between taxes and crime, and to the extent the answer is taxes, they're figuring out the most effective use of the taxes, which isn't always police. Unemployment is by far a bigger predictor of crime than police budgets, so investing in jobs is better than more police, for example. There's no way that Trump's NG strategy is a cost-effective long-term solution to crime. As soon as they're gone, the crime will come back, probably worse. It's just a) a publicity stunt and b) softening people up for accepting the idea of federal soldiers running around the country.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your ability to write fiction is amazing.

[hobie]

You missed the 'Ergo...' part, Bumble.

I remember in 2020, San Antonio wanted to have stricter local masking requirements but the rubes in Austin enforced state supremacy and sent them all into the viral meatgrinder. The state has ultimate control of itself.

Ohio has rampant meth, oxy and related property crime (as documented by Vance in his book, Dreams of My Meemaw) throughout the hayseed areas. And it has rampant neegro crime in its cities. Who controls it all? The Toledo City Council? Sheriff Buford T. Justice in Lollapalooza County?

[Brett Bellmore]

Except that masking really didn't have any life saving effect, according to later surveys, so there wasn't any sending into the viral meatgrinder; You went through it regardless.

[Magister]

Masking did save lives. I wouldn't have traded vaccination for masks, but both was better.

[Mr. Bumble]

There is no proof of either.

[Brett Bellmore]

Masking saved some individual lives, for people who were particularly immune compromised.

There is, in fact, a decided lack of evidence that mandated widespread masking did much to save lives in general.

It wasn't even supposed to! It was one of those 'flatten the curve' measures that expressly wasn't expected, (until the claim was needed to bully people into compliance) to do anything but redistribute cases in time to avoid overloading medical facilities.

Paradoxically, while masks sort of work, they also don't, because in the end basically everyone was going to get Covid. The CDC estimates that over 3/4 of the population eventually contracted Covid. 96.7% had either contracted Covid or been vaccinated, (Or both!) by the end of 2022.

And overloading of medical facilities was not a thing outside of some very exceptional places like NYC. It wasn't going to be, it turned out.

[Sarcastr0]

a decided lack of evidence that mandated widespread masking did much to save lives in general.

What kind of studies would you require?

[Randal]

Brett, you're actually mostly right, except for failing to realize that redistributing the COVID cases in time itself saves lives, duh, that's why we did it.

First, it moves cases to times when the system is less overloaded so there's sufficient capacity to treat everyone.

Second, it moves cases to times when better treatments are available.

Third, it moves cases to times when people have had more rounds of vaccinations, which improves outcomes.

Fourth, it moves cases to times when the virus has mutated to become less lethal.

Masks undoubtedly saved millions of lives when you account for all that.

[Magister]

Masks benefited those who used them, even if only (as Randal notes) to delay infection to a time when it was less dangerous. There is an argument that mask mandates were not helpful because people didn't use them; the difficulty was doorknob licking morons told by their cult leader that masks were bad, not that masks did nothing.

(The observation that masks benefited those who used them is implicit in Randal's observation that masks delayed getting COVID to times when dealing with COVID would be easier.)

[Brett Bellmore]

"except for failing to realize that redistributing the COVID cases in time itself saves lives, duh, that's why we did it."

Nah, I realize that was the original basis for the action: It was feared that a fast, high peak in Covid cases would overwhelm the medical system.

In reality, it turned out that most cases of Covid were asymptomatic or nearly so, and that for most of the symptomatic cases it wasn't nearly bad enough to require medical services, so that was only really an issue in a handful of places, like NYC, that had extraordinarily high population density to aid the spread.

After the fact statistical studies that properly controlled for confounding variables showed that measures like masking had a statistically insignificant effect on mortality.

So, forget your "undoubtedly", there's essentially no reason at all to think it saved millions of lives.

That said, there's no question at all that careful mask use was essential to people who were fragile or immune compromised.

[Randal]

After the fact statistical studies that properly controlled for confounding variables showed that measures like masking had a statistically insignificant effect on mortality.

This is simply false. We've been over this before. Study after study showed that masking reduced the impact of COVID in terms of fatalities.

You made the point yourself, the efficacy of masks depends a lot on the population density. So you can't just pick a handful of studies from rural areas and say see? No impact. There are some places where masks weren't useful because the rate of contagion was already low. That's irrelevant to the fact that masks saved millions of lives in places where they did impact the rate of contagion.

[Frank Drackman]

More like Cities with lots of Blacks

[hobie]

You need to think about this , Frankie. Once all the browns and libs are settled or eliminated, they have a couple more demographics to consider. You can Anne Frank yourself for only so long...but they'll eventually find you

[Kazinski]

DC should have the lowest crime rate in the nation.

Being only the 25th worst doesn't seem like the benchmark we should be shooting for.

[hobie]

Looking at a few charts and maps of DC this afternoon. I see that in 1980, the black population was 70% and whites 25%. And in 2020 it was 40% black and 38% white.

I also see that the most murders and sex crimes occurred around the Dupont Circle/Chinatown areas. On Redfin, I see apartments in those areas going anywhere from $400k to $2.5M.

It looks to me like DC suffers from a wealthy white crime wave

[jay.tee]

Of course, where the crimes are committed isn’t necessarily indicative of who committed the crimes.

According to 2025 FBI NIBRS data in Washington DC:
Rape victims
71% Black or African American
24% White

Rape offenders
78% Black or African American
16% White

Homicide victims
91% Black or African American
6% White

Homicide offenders
31% Black or African American
2% White
57% Unknown

https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/home

[Sarcastr0]

Correlation without interrogating confounding variables is abuse of stats. And this is a solved problem when it comes to racial crime stats. Such that I make assumptions when someone posts the raw numbers and nothing else.

jt - Do you think blacks are inherently more savage and criminal?

[jay.tee]

LOL, I made no claims of correlation, only that hobie’s assertion is obviously not supported by data. That’s you reading something into it that’s not there.

To quote Sarcastr0:

blacks are inherently more savage and criminal

That’s effectively what you’re trying to do. Instead of trolling, why don’t you constructively add to the discussion? Do you realize comments like yours deter those who actually have something to add from posting? I.e., you’re being a net negative to the conversation.

[Sarcastr0]

You did show a correlation - that's what your rates are!

And you didn't contradict what hobie said, about certain bits of DC specifically, and DC population number specifically.
Different stats do not contradict one another.

Don't abuse statistics.
I said this: 'I make assumptions when someone posts the raw numbers [of black criminality] and nothing else.' I stand by that.

Do you think blacks are inherently more savage and criminal? There are 'race realists' on this blog who believe this; it's a legit question to ask.

[ThePublius]

"Do you think blacks are inherently more savage and criminal? There are 'race realists' on this blog who believe this; it's a legit question to ask."

So you're ascribing to racism an observation someone might make, despite the fact that it is irrefutably supported by statistics? I thought you were the guy who eschewed "vibes" and wanted statistics and evidence. Well, the stats and evidence of this are impossible to ignore. And it's not racist, it doesn't make one a racist, to make this observation.

[Sarcastr0]

To repeat myself, "Correlation without interrogating confounding variables is abuse of stats."
This holds even if you say 'irrefutable.'

Do you think blacks are inherently more savage and criminal?

[ThePublius]

"Do you think blacks are inherently more savage and criminal?"

Yes. The statistics back that up. My personal experience backs that up (yea, I know, anecdotes and all of that).

It's not so much a skin color thing than a cultural thing.

[Sarcastr0]

See, jay.tee? This is why I asked. And why I'm still waiting for you to answer.

And no, TP, the stats don't back that up.
I've gone over correlation vs. causation and confounding variables before; you don't seem interested in being reasoned out of your position.

Not a big surprise.

[ThePublius]

No, you are wrong, the statistics DO support it.

First line in an NIH report on crime:

"Official record studies consistently show that Blacks exhibit higher levels of involvement in criminal offending than Whites do."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2782848/#:~:text=Abstract,criminal%20offending%20than%20Whites%20do.

[Sarcastr0]

The analysis suggests that consistent race differences of the kind normally seen in the criminological literature are not evident in our sample of serious offenders.

Your cited paper ends up supporting the opposite of what the first sentence of their abstract would indicate.

You seem to misunderstand my objection. I do not deny the correlation, I deny the causation. Your paper doesn't address that at all. I begin to wonder if you know the difference.

There are lots of confounding factors, which is why I keep going on about them.
For instance, socioeconomic class; urban/rural placement; food security. And lots and lots more. Real people are not black (or any demographic) in isolation.

[ThePublius]

Let's just take a deep breath here and confront the facts. The facts are that blacks are more criminally inclined than other races in the U.S. Are white worse? Hispanics? Asians? South Asians? Someone has to be in last place, and it is, unfortunately for them, blacks. It's so obvious it's remarkable that you refute it. If you want to continue to refute it, back up your claim.

[Sarcastr0]

The facts are that blacks are more criminally inclined

Here is where you jump from correlation to causation.

Do you even understand what that means?

[ThePublius]

Why do you have to be so insulting when arguing, always making personal attacks?

In any event, correlation v. causality have nothing to do with this. It's a simple fact that blacks commit crimes far out of proportion to their representation in the population. I don't know why, and I don't care why, in terms of my personal safety. I avoid black neighborhoods, large gatherings of blacks, and so forth. You should, too.

[Sarcastr0]

correlation v. causality have nothing to do with this

OK one more elementary stats lesson just because I am bothered by your ignorance.

Correlation: Shark attacks go up when ice cream sales go up.
Causation: Shark attacks go up when the weather is warmer.

To bring it home:
Blacks commit a lot of crime, relatively.

BUT
Poor people commit a lot of crime, relatively.
Black people tend to be poorer, relatively.

Blacks live more in cities, relatively.
Cities have more crime, relatively.

Those are not the only potentially confounding variables, but controlling for poverty and city residence explains a lot of the rates you're bandying about.

[ThePublius]

How does that explain the whites and asians who live in similar circumstances?

[Sarcastr0]

Do you have stats for 'whites and Asians who live in similar circumstances?'

If so, you sure have never presented them. Just bare, race-based crime rates.

And agreeing that blacks are more savage and criminal than other races.

[jay.tee]

Sarcastr0, your post looks like something produced by a badly hallucinating AI model.

On second thought, that’s not quite right. Even an AI model shows contrition when you point out it’s incorrect.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think blacks are inherently more savage and criminal?

TP does. You got offended I asked, and then didn't answer.

[Sarcastr0]

DC should have the lowest crime rate in the nation.

1. There is no utility specified to set the scope; just vibes.
2. There is no cost threshold; just vibes.

This is how you rationalize a police state.

[David Nieporent]

Where does that assertion come from? Which city "should" have the 25th highest crime rate?

[tylertusta]

I don't see Trump sending the NG to Memphis or Birmingham or SLC...

Didn't Trump float the idea of sending the Guard to other cities?

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

[jb]

Yes. I presume that's the point of this comment thread. Notably, Trump is not threatening to send the guard to cities in red states, despite many of them having extremely high crime rates, as noted above.

He also doesn't seem to be thinking about sending the National Guard to murder-y rural areas that are even more dangerous than any of these big cities, like Coahoma County, Mississippi and Phillips County, Arkansas.

[tylertusta]

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

[hobie]

I've got an idea. How about we don't use our military on American citizens no matter where they live?

Trump 2017: vows no troops to Libya
Trump 2024: vows no troops to Ukraine
Trump 2025: vows no troops to Gaza

Nope...let it be America First (promises kept, motherfuckers!)

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump’s first military order ended with a dead little American girl…but she had it coming because she called Trump a “poop head”. Promises made promises kept!

[jb]

I'm not wishing for anything--just taking note that, as usual, Trump is full of shit.

[tylertusta]

Well, I don't know if Trump means to go through with it or not, but he's also said that he's also willing to send troops to Red cities and states.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/l3TfSvvkwBQ

[jb]

I guess it might actually work better in red states, since the governors would probably go along and therefore you could just do Title 32 deployments and not worry about the Posse Comitatus Act.

But, really? Although Trump did cause a big crime wave in his first term, most measures of violent crime are back to being below 2019 levels and still declining. I get that Trump wants to distract from the Epstein files, but why are we deploying the military to deal with a problem that states seem to generally have under control?

[ThePublius]

"Although Trump did cause a big crime wave in his first term,..."
What?

"...why are we deploying the military to deal with a problem that states seem to generally have under control?"
Urban crime is not under control. What gave you that idea?

[tylertusta]

Although Trump did cause a big crime wave in his first term

No, he didn't. The "summer of love" caused it.

I get that Trump wants to distract from the Epstein files, but why are we deploying the military to deal with a problem that states seem to generally have under control?

Because it's a wedge issue that he's playing very well so far.

Democrats have reflexively opposed anything Trump has done, so Trump is taking advantage of their predictability. This time the issue is crime, and Democrats are habitually unable to speak about it without sounding like they're pro-crime.

Trump's deployment of the Guard to DC has allowed him to paint an image that Democrats prefer higher crime rates and more homicides. Every time that Democrats mention that crime was going down allows their opponents to say that DC's crime rate was already staggeringly high. Every time that a Democrat says that they'd rather deal with crime than have the Guard, it allows their opponents to focus on the first half of that sentence.

National Democrats don't like having the Guard in their city, but Trump isn't trying to woo them. He's wooing swing districts far removed from DC which see rampant crime in the Democratic cities next door and have to deal with the spill-over effects. After living with feckless Soros-trained non-prosecutors for years, strong arm tactics starts to look appealing to your median voter.

And before you think I'm just spouting out things, I'm not the only person to come to this conclusion.

Here's Slate coming to the same conclusion over a week ago:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/08/trump-washington-dc-national-guard-democrats-response.html

And here's CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/13/politics/trump-dc-police-crime-democrats-2028-analysis

[jb]

No, he didn't. The "summer of love" caused it.

Well, he was President at the time. If people can blame Biden for inflation, I can blame Trump for the crime. It's not actually clear at all what called the large increase in crime that started under Trump; lots of people have theories, but none of them seem to actually hold up to much scrutiny. Even if you want to blame them, you could imagine the BLM protests looking very different under a different president.

Because it's a wedge issue that he's playing very well so far.

Democrats have reflexively opposed anything Trump has done, so Trump is taking advantage of their predictability. This time the issue is crime, and Democrats are habitually unable to speak about it without sounding like they're pro-crime.

You're probably right from a political perspective; my point is that it's pretty silly from a policy perspective (and bad from the perspective of setting a precedent for the routine use of the military for domestic policing).

And yes, the Dems need to get their act together and emphasize their positions that are actually popular rather constantly getting trolled by Trump. I addressed this above, so won't regurgitate my response.

[ThePublius]

You're such a liar!

"Although Trump did cause a big crime wave in his first term..." is a total lie! What's wrong with you? You even admit it's a lie. Yes, he was president, but he didn't cause the crime wave, and you know it, liar!

[jb]

Wow, ThePublius is having a tantrum.

I'm sure next time someone attributes something to Biden or Newsom or some other Democratic politician based on nothing other than they were on office at the time, you'll definitely be calling them liars as well, right?

Trump likes to play this game where he gets credit for all the good stuff that happens while he is President and gets to disavow all of the bad stuff. Maybe all Presidents want to play that game, but Trump is much more brazen. I say it's totally fair to give him credit for good stuff that happens (everyone loved the economy in the first Trump term, for example) but then we get to blame him for the bad stuff too. So Trump Crime Wave it is.

[tylertusta]

You're probably right from a political perspective; my point is that it's pretty silly from a policy perspective (and bad from the perspective of setting a precedent for the routine use of the military for domestic policing).

Historically, we've called out the military regularly for domestic policing that the regular police can't handle. It's only in the past 30 years that a sort of taboo has grown around it.

I mean, just take a look at the list of invocations of the Insurrection Act: prison riots, 'regular' riots, protests, strikes, even gang activity in the then-territory of Arizona! Since reconstruction there hasn't been a whole lot of 'insurrecting' and an awful lot of domestic policing.

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

[Magister]

There are significant patterns in the uses of the Insurrection Act. But it's not clear that its recent non-use was because of a taboo in the last 30 years or just that states have just handled things without federal troops intervening, such as Minneapolis after George Floyd was murdered. In the past 30 years, what other large scale unrest might have justified it? Casual use would create a bad precedent.

Four instances before the Civil War: two were resolved before troops were sent, one was apparently ineffective since "Violations continued, act repealed [the following year]", and one slave rebellion suppressed.

Civil War and shortly after: Lincoln's was the lengthiest, and Ulysses Grant holds the record for most invocations; all of them dealt with white supremacists.

1877 to 1932 saw a few issues in territories (one targeting Chinese citizens) and a number aimed at strikes. (The Bonus Army and Douglas MacArthur was a protest but involved demands for pay.)

Post WWII until 1968, the incidents were all race riots before and during the Civil Rights era.

The Cuban prison riots seem strange, that the Insurrection Act would be necessary to handle unrest within federal prisons. Looting in the Virgin Islands after a hurricane seems to be another territory issue. And an undoubted racial cause for the Rodney King riots after police were acquitted.

So, lots are race related (with much history of state governments on the wrong side); some strike suppression; some territory issues where the locals might not have been able to handle unrest on their own. Trump has repeatedly threatened things that would require the Insurrection Act, but mostly TACO'd (e.g., George Floyd related riots) until Los Angeles. Actual attempts to overthrow the government (the Business Plot and January 6th) did not get the Insurrection Act invoked; the former never got beyond conspiracy and the latter because Trump organized it.

[David Nieporent]

Although Trump did cause a big crime wave in his first term,

Mostly committed in the Oval Office!

[Kazinski]

El Mayo has plead guilty in New York, and agreed to forfeit 15 billion:

"Zambada entered his plea Monday in federal court in Brooklyn, New York, to one count of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise and one count of racketeering conspiracy. He faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison and agreed to forfeit $15 billion as the proceeds of his crimes."

https://www.livemint.com/news/us-news/el-mayo-faces-life-in-prison-forfeits-15-billion-after-plea-11756144056818.html

No details of whether the Trump Org already has the funds or when they will be transferred.

[Swede425]

LOL!
Are Ugandan prisons nicer than El Salvador prisons?
Asking for a really good friend of Senator Chris Van Hollen's.
Also, what're the best drinks to order in Uganda?
Are they better than margaritas?
Frying pan to fire?
Somebody's about to find out.

[jb]

Immigrants being sent to Uganda presumably aren't going to prison, they're just being sent out of the US. Uganda apparently has a pretty progressive policy towards refugees and other immigrants, and tries to integrate them into society.

I'd guess freedom in Uganda is a lot better than CECOT.

[Swede425]

Whew!
That is a relief.
Kinda like telling the kids that the dog didn't die, he just went to...a farm! Where he's frolicking with other gang-bangers...I mean dogs.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I'd guess freedom in Uganda is a lot better than CECOT."

Maybe he can live in the Mamdani family compound.

[tylertusta]

Good for Garcia. His wife and kid can join him there if they want.

Sounds like they'd be welcomed.

[Bob from Ohio]

Sorry, his personal judge won't permit it.

Mandamus time DOJ.

[Frank Drackman]

I’m reminded of that “To Serve Man” Twillight Zone episode.
And I’m not going to explain more for any of you culturally illiterate Poltroons

Frank

[Martinned2]

Today in "the Trump Administration hates free speech":

Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s rulings on First Amendment protections, the Court has never held that American Flag desecration conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action or that is an action amounting to “fighting words” is constitutionally protected. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 408-10 (1989).

My Administration will act to restore respect and sanctity to the American Flag and prosecute those who incite violence or otherwise violate our laws while desecrating this symbol of our country, to the fullest extent permissible under any available authority.
(...)
(c) To the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution, the Attorney General shall vigorously prosecute those who violate our laws in ways that involve desecrating the American Flag, and may pursue litigation to clarify the scope of the First Amendment exceptions in this area.

I will spare you the rest of this monstrosity, but it is here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/prosecuting-burning-of-the-american-flag/

[Bob from Ohio]

Flag burning is not "speech". The opinion was only 5-4, wrongly decided at birth.

[John 4]

Let me guess, only the American flag is off limits to the rubes?

[bernard11]

A 5-4 decision doesn't count if Bob disagrees with it.

[Bob from Ohio]

It "counts" but shows that the "law" was not clear.

Be happy, Roberts and Kav at least will never go for a reversal.

Jackson will probably burn a flag on the bench!

[John F. Carr]

It strikes me as an empty threat. The Justice Department should put more effort into prosecuting crimes involving flag burning than crimes not involving flag burning. There aren't that many federal crimes involving flag burning.

Maybe he shouldn't have put that in writing because the order can be used as evidence of discriminatory prosecution.

The visa threat would be a little more serious if not for the new policy of searching foreigners' social media posts for anti-American sentiment.

[hobie]

I note on Jan 6 there was tons more Trump flags than there were American flags. I suppose that doesn't count as desecration. But it does hint at loyalties

[John F. Carr]

A new executive order pressures states to hold people in pretrial detention instead of setting them free to await trial.

"TAKING STEPS TO END CASHLESS BAIL TO PROTECT AMERICANS"
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/taking-steps-to-end-cashless-bail-to-protect-americans/

The Attorney General will produce a list of jurisdictions that have "substantially eliminated cash bail as a potential condition of pretrial release from custody for crimes that pose a clear threat to public safety and order, including offenses involving violent, sexual, or indecent acts, or burglary, looting, or vandalism." OMB will advise departments on terminating federal grants and contracts involving such jurisdictions "as appropriate and consistent with applicable law."

It looks like the kind of order that judges like to enjoin these days, despite the disclaimer that it will operate consistent with applicable law. Those last words are the big question mark in this order.

[jb]

Remember when Republicans said they liked small government? And federalism?

[Mr. Bumble]

Remember when Dems didn't?

[ducksalad]

I remember both and therefore voted for a party and its candidates that have been reasonably consistent on the issue.

[jb]

I don't, actually. Bigger and more centralized government may be necessary to support various Democratic policy objectives, but they were never goals unto themselves.

[Bob from Ohio]

DC arrests surpass 1,000 as Trump-backed crackdown enters 12th homicide-free day
Michael Dorgan By Michael Dorgan Fox News
Published August 25, 2025 11:46am EDT

Sarcasto sad!

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, I am.

I don't think all arrests are good arrests, and I don't much like Trump turning DC into a police state.

[Bob from Ohio]

You are sad about "12th homicide-free day". Weak.

[Sarcastr0]

Not what I'm sad about, and you know it.

As DMN noted below, you don't even have a strong correlation, much less causation.

You just love the boot to stomp, so long as it's not on you.

Terrible way to be.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Not what I'm sad about, and you know it."

I posted a headline with two statements and said you would be sad. You agreed you were sad. Proper inference is you agree with both.

Good news, no car hijackings either.

[Mr. Bumble]

"I don't think all arrests are good arrests, and I don't much like Trump turning DC into a police state."
Bad arrests anywhere are a fact of life and sorry Pollyanna but DC is hardly a "police state"
Grow up!

[David Nieporent]

You have to go back several whole months to find a stretch that long w/o a homicide in DC!

[tylertusta]

Summer is typically where the murder rate skyrockets. Warmer temperatures and longer daylight hours, so a long lull in homicides in the middle of summer is definitely atypical for any American city, much less D.C.

Was your 'several whole months' during the summer, or was it during a colder/wetter season where people were inside more?

[Sarcastr0]

Dance harder.

[tylertusta]

You have nothing of value to add to the conversation.

[Jmaie]

Not nothing - I did get a chuckle when he called someone out saying all they do is shit post and call people names...

[jay.tee]

Second chart on the page shows breakdown by month for 2013 to 2025. I’m not going to total or average the numbers - too many confounding factors (selective timeframe, event-driven surges, etc.).

https://www.crimedatadc.com/todate/homicide

[jb]

Pirro said that on Sunday alone there were 86 arrests and 10 illegal guns seized, bringing the totals to 1,007 arrests and 111 guns taken off the streets.

"What does that mean? They can't be used to shoot people, to kill people," Pirro said Monday on "Fox & Friends," referring to the weapons seizures. "And on top of all of that, we've got a government now where the people in D.C. are feeling safer. They know that there is a president who's looking to protect them."

Republicans suddenly like gun control when they're on the hook for controlling urban crime!

[Mr. Bumble]

Are you really stupid or do you play stupid for the comments?
Removing illegal guns from people who are prohibited from owning them has wide support among Republicans and legal gun owners.

[jb]

Sure, but the gun laws in DC are close to "no one can own guns". I'm sure the Nazis passed a law against private ownership of guns before they confiscated all of them. You guys have been warning us about this for decades in fact. But now that your team is doing it, you're cheering it on.

[Estragon]

“At least 20 people, including five journalists working for the international media, have been killed in an Israeli double strike on Nasser hospital in Khan Yunis in southern Gaza, the territory's Hamas-run health ministry says. The journalists had worked with Reuters, AP, Al Jazeera and the Middle East Eye, the news outlets confirmed. Four health workers were also killed, the World Health Organization's chief said. Footage of the attack shows a second strike hitting rescuers who had arrived to help those targeted by the initial attack.”

[Mr. Bumble]

"...the territory's Hamas-run health ministry says."
Hahahahahahaha.

[Estragon]

Could you articulate a little better what you find funny here?

[Mr. Bumble]

Certainly not anyone's death, but the idea that the Hamas run health ministry is a reliable source of information.

[Estragon]

“Certainly not anyone's death”

Ok. Cause you had me worried there for a sec.

[tylertusta]

Hamas-run health ministry says.

Given's the 'ministry's' lies before, that itself should be enough to think that the story is largely fabricated by Hamas.

[Estragon]

“Largely fabricated”

The Israelis came out and called it a “tragic mishap.” I take it you disagree?

[ducksalad]

Sorry for the dupe, you type faster.

[tylertusta]

I see nothing that disproves my statement.

The Israelis didn't admit that it happened in the way that Hamas said it happened. Israel said that they didn't target journalists and will investigate.

[ducksalad]

How about a different government authority:

"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it was a 'tragic mishap' and promised a 'thorough investigation'".

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump’s first military order was for SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a little American girl and 9 of her little friends! And a SEAL was tragically lost in the strike in which obviously no actionable intelligence was gathered because why would little kids have information?!? My point—who cares about Netanyahu when our own country has a president that assassinated a little American girl!!! WTF???

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullshyte.

[Martinned]

Yes... Tragic mishap...

The first strike hit the top floor of a building at the Nasser hospital, killing the Reuters journalist Hussam al-Masri and others. Journalists and rescuers then rushed to the scene to help the wounded, when a second bomb struck the same spot, 15 minutes later.

Bomb a hospital (= crime) then wait 15 minutes, then bomb it again.

That's the kind of war crimes on steroids that the Russians do in Ukraine, specifically designed to kill as many medical personnel and other aid workers as possible.

[Brett Bellmore]

The difference is that the Russians are doing it to destroy hospitals as such, Israel is doing it because Hamas violates international law by using hospitals as military bases.

Under international law, military attacks that hit hospitals are permitted if militarily justified, if the hospitals are used as shields.

[Martinned]

The difference is that the Russians are doing it to destroy hospitals as such, Israel is doing it because Hamas violates international law by using hospitals as military bases.

I'm not sure why you would come to that conclusion other than based on lots of evidence you didn't mention. Also, in both cases the point is to kill the people, not just destroy the hospital. If they wanted to destroy the hospital, they would just drop one big bomb on it, instead of bombing, waiting, then bombing again.

Under international law, military attacks that hit hospitals are permitted if militarily justified, if the hospitals are used as shields.

That is true only in the most technical sense. The situations where it would be proportionate to drop a bomb on a hospital are so vanishingly unlikely that it's easier to say that it's illegal to bomb a hospital.

It's like how it's technically legal to kill the US president in self defence. As a legal statement that's not wrong, but it's not exactly a sensible way to describe the situation either.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The situations where it would be proportionate to drop a bomb on a hospital are so vanishingly unlikely that it's easier to say that it's illegal to bomb a hospital."

Outside of dealing with an outfit like Hamas, sure, that's true. But Israel IS dealing with Hamas, not some random state actor that mostly complies with international law. And Hamas does have a long established record of deliberate use of human shields.

[Sarcastr0]

Hamas justifies all started as needing a limiting principle. At this late date it's a pretty threadbare excuse by it's own terms.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hamas doesn't justify all, but Hamas justifies a hell of a lot, because they objectively ARE real rat-bastards.

I think they tend to benefit from people like you thinking, "They can't be THAT bad." and discounting their record. No, they actually ARE "that bad".

Middle Eastern terrorist groups really ARE cartoonishly evil.

[Sarcastr0]

If you gotta bring in collateral stuff from over a decade ago to get your hate-on against fucking *Hamas*....well, I don't know what you got going on but nothing good.

[Martinned]

And Hamas does have a long established record of deliberate use of human shields.

It does, but that doesn't mean shooting at the human shield is legal. (As I've explained to you many times before.)

[Brett Bellmore]

No, their record isn't what makes shooting through human shields legal. International law does that.

You can't deliberately target human shields, but subject to proportionality with military objectives, you can deliberately target what they're shielding, despite knowing they'll be killed in the process.

Of course, the point of Hamas using a hospital as a military facility IS exactly so that when Israel, in accord with international law, blows them to hell anyway, they can claim Israel was really going after the hospital, not the arms depot or military HQ Hamas had located in it.

[Martinned]

You can't deliberately target human shields, but subject to proportionality with military objectives, you can deliberately target what they're shielding, despite knowing they'll be killed in the process.

You can, but there is no evidence that that's what Israel is doing. There isn't even any evidence that Israel is doing any sort of proportionality assessment. Heck, there isn't even any evidence that there is any sort of Hamas presence at any of these hospitals. The last time Israel shared any sort of evidence about Hamas presence at a hospital is more than a year ago, and yet they've kept bombing hospitals.

[tylertusta]

You can, but there is no evidence that that's what Israel is doing.

There's plenty of recent history to show that Israel does its best to limit civilian casualties. You just have no memory what war looks like when a country doesn't try to limit civilian casualties.

There isn't even any evidence that Israel is doing any sort of proportionality assessment.

The evidence is that they use precision munitions. If you want the actual paperwork from lawyers, those materials are considered military secrets by every country, including the UK.

Heck, there isn't even any evidence that there is any sort of Hamas presence at any of these hospitals

No evidence except the one you yourself said, you mean to say.

But you're incorrect in either meaning: Hamas regularly uses hospitals, and it was more than just 'that one time' they committed a war crime.

Hamas's actions are so persistent that it even has it's own Wikipedia page talking about all of the times they used human shields. They take advantage of suckers like you and prey upon your antisemitism to achieve their goals of garnering support from overseas.

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

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in case you missed it:
Trump fires Fed governor Lisa Cook.
https://www.axios.com/2025/08/26/trump-fires-federal-reserve-lisa-cook

[Martinned]

Well, he purports to fire her anyway. I have no idea why all the media tends to skip over that word.

[Mr. Bumble]

"President Trump purported to fire me 'for cause' when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so," Cook said in a statement via Lowell & Associates, the law firm representing the Fed official.
From the linked article.

[Martinned]

Yes, the media does sometimes quote what the target of Trump's actions says. But that's very much not the same thing. "Opinions vary on shape of the earth", etc.

[Mr. Bumble]

Trump didn't purport to fire her, that is the opinion of those who claim he doesn't have such authority.

[Martinned]

Wait, so Trump has "facts" and people who disagree with him have "opinion"? Wow. Could you be any more authoritarian?

[Mr. Bumble]

Where did I claim Trump had "facts".
As on "The Apprentice", Trump said "you're fired". That is the only fact, not Trump's fact.
More to come.

[Brett Bellmore]

I will bet right now that the Supreme court will agree that he actually fired her.

[Mr. Bumble]

Of interest (at least to me) is that Abbe Lowell and company is representing her. Who pays for these high priced attorneys when Dems need a lawyer?

[jb]

It's a worthy question since no Democratic politician has blackmailed them into donating politically-aligned pro bono services.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know if you're right or not, but why are you so sure you can predict the Supreme Court?

[Brett Bellmore]

While you mock "Brettlaw", I actually have a fairly good track record of predicting how the Court will rule. Disagreeing with them doesn't interfere with my understanding how they tend to reason, because I AM capable of analyzing reasoning I disagree with.

Trump is racking up some wins on the unitary executive front, and I expect that to continue.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah. Your vibes have been very good in the past, you say.

Well, then.

[ThePublius]

Sarcastr0, you use the term "vibes" quite a lot, but I confess I don't really know what it means, and this blog is the only place I've ever encountered it.

Can you please explain it?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, this I'd like to hear.

[Sarcastr0]

Vibes - factual assertions with no support other than the posters' being super duper sure they are true.

Lots of examples on this very thread.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...other than the posters' being super duper sure they are true."
Your lack of self-awareness is amazing.
That is why you are Il Douche.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, then: Which of us was right about how the Court would rule in the Section 3 case? You, or me?

[Sarcastr0]

Wow incredible evidence of your skills from that one data point.

What skills. I guess you're right all the time!

[No one on here thought Trump would be kicked off the ballot, Brett. Maybe not guilty? But not me, not DMN, not Noscitur.]

[David Nieporent]

I don't think there was a single person who got that wrong. There was of course much dispute over how the Court should rule, but I don't recall a single person saying, "Oh, yeah, they're going to rule Trump ineligible."

[Martinned]

"Trump wins" doesn't seem like that much of a difficult prediction for a Supreme Court case. (See above.)

[Sarcastr0]

They did a dedicated carveout for Fed leadership last time this came around.
Not the best look, but not something to ignore.

I don't know how it'll come out, and I think given our conflicting and spotty info, guessing is one of those things that says more about your worldview than the Court.

[Martinned]

Last time it was obiter. If Trump insists, their track record from the last five years suggests they will cave.

[Bob from Ohio]

"dedicated carveout for Fed leadership last time"

He's acting under the statute, firing for cause., not any unitary executive power.

Mortgage fraud, if provable, is good cause, especially for a person in government finance, don't you agree?

[Sarcastr0]

If provable! Big if true.

Weird Trump didn't wait for that proving.

[Bob from Ohio]

It can be proven in her lawsuit challenging the firing.

One need not wait for a criminal conviction to act on evidence of fraud before firing.

[Sarcastr0]

It can be proven in her lawsuit
So it's not a firing for cause. So it's lawless.

I often wonder how sincere you are, versus posting as an authoritarian asshole as some kind of performative trolling.

[Bob from Ohio]

"So it's not a firing for cause"

It sure is.

You just don't have any idea how firings work. Litigation, if it occurs, is post firing.

Employer finds out/believes/has evidence of theft or fraud or other bad behavior. Fires X. Now, in many cases, that is it, because most US employment is "at will".

However, X will likely file an unemployment claim. The employer will object. A hearing officer will decide if the cause is sufficient to deny benefits.

There may be a labor contract. Grievance is filed on behalf of X. An arbitrator will decide if the cause is sufficient to uphold the firing. Same for many government employees like police or fire.

In dates where "at will" is not the norm, or there is an employment contract. X may sue.

In all these cases, the employer decides if its "for cause, and has to support the reasoning in some POST firing proceeding.

[David Nieporent]

Mortgage fraud, if provable, is good cause, especially for a person in government finance, don't you agree?

I've been reliably informed that lying to a bank to get a loan at a lower rate is perfectly legitimate as long as one pays back the loan.

[TwelveInchPianist]

As things stand now, that's not the case. Why do you want to have it both ways?

[OpinionsVary]

As the saying goes, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. And even in the rare case that a grand jury does reject, the prosecutor can just go ask a different grand jury to try again. In practical terms, they're a rubber stamp at best. Most of the time that is...

>The United States, by and through its attorney, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, respectfully submits this notice alerting the Court and counsel that an Indictment has not been returned in this case. As was previously disclosed by the Court to defense counsel, a third grand jury returned a no true bill. On August 25, 2025, within the thirty-day timeframe provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b), the government submitted for filing an Information charging a misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) (Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain
Officers).

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.284133/gov.uscourts.dcd.284133.16.0.pdf

Three no bills. Three! The DOJ tried to indict a woman for allegedly assaulting an ICE officer during an arrest of two purported gang members three times and failed.

One no bill, maybe. You get a weird grand jury or an incompetent prosecutor. But what in the world is going on when attempts two and three also fail?

I can see no explanation that doesn't boil down to incredible incompetence in the District of Columbia office. Either they're messing up basic presentations to grand juries on a systematic scale or overcharging to such a massive degree even grand juries are turning up their noses.

Can anyone think of another three no bill example in recent memory?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Jury nullification.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I can see no explanation that doesn't boil down to incredible incompetence in the District of Columbia office. Either they're messing up basic presentations to grand juries on a systematic scale or overcharging to such a massive degree even grand juries are turning up their noses. "

Well, you might consider that it's a grand jury drawn from the District of Columbia. And the District of Columbia is wildly unlike every other judicial district in the country; The last time a Democrat got less than 80% of the vote there was Jimmy Carter in 1980. Even Mondale got 78% of the vote there!

So any grand or petite jury drawn from the district is basically guaranteed to be utterly dominated by Democrats, and any legal case Democrats strongly oppose faces a hurricane force headwind.

Border enforcement is an issue of extreme political disagreement, that's enough to explain this result.

Really, Congress ought to do something about that.

[Sarcastr0]

How many actual practitioners have told you this whole 'DC juries' thing is full of shit? You have a vibe, and you're overconfident. Yet again.

You don't seem to believe in the legitimacy of people who vote for Democrats to do anything.

[Mr. Bumble]

Grey box here. You are still and apparently will always be a douche (with vibes).

[Brett Bellmore]

"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

Are you seriously disputing that DC juries are wildly unrepresentative of the nation at large? Or just claiming that DC Democrats are inhumanly objective?

To be clear, it's legally legitimate for DC grand juries to return no-bills for prosecutions they dislike politically, even if the legal cases for them are spotless. Live by jury nullification, die by jury nullification, and I AM an advocate of jury nullification.

It would also be constitutionally legitimate for Congress to solve the problem by enacting a law mandating that DC juries be drawn from a larger area more representative of the nation as a whole.

You know, if the situation were flipped, I bet you'd actually realize that it's a problem that most cases involving the federal government go before juries consisting almost exclusively of one party's adherents, regardless of which party is in power.

[LexAquilia]

He genuinely believes that's what a fair justice system is, one filled and with partisan Democrats "doing what is right" and being "on the Right Side of History".

He's a tyrant.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm seriously disputing your whole 'they all vote Dem so they are voting in bad faith.'

You have no idea. You also don't understand how jury selection works.

You find bad faith everywhere a liberal has ever been. People don't work like that; you're broken.

But hey you have the antisemites and Mr. Bumble here to back you up. No issues there!

[tylertusta]

It's like he's never even seen a politically-charged trial in certain jury pools.

[Sarcastr0]

It's like you're using some anecdotes to charge up your cynicism.

MAGA loves cynicism these days. The bitterest winners.

[tylertusta]

ItS JUsT AnECdoTEs!

I'm going to resume my 'believing my lying eyes.' You can go back to sticking your head in the sand.

You also don't understand how jury selection works.

Evidently you don't know how it works in D.C. either.

[Sarcastr0]

Anecdotal evidence is not generalizable, by it's very nature.

What you're doing is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

It's a great example of what I call vibes.

[Don Nico]

"a great example of what I call vibes."
yes, your vibes are to be dishonest. Or may they are your druthers.
As Richard Feynmann said, what you name something is meaningless.

[Randal]

Or, the DOJ is actually over-charging these "assaults."

I also have anecdotes, with video, and my eyes tell me that's what's happening.

[jay.tee]

Here’s an actual, very experienced practitioner who disagrees with you, Sarcastr0:

There are also reasons why, in examining politically-charged and high-profile issues such as these, the Office must exercise — and has exercised — special care. […] First, juries can bring strongly held views to the courtroom in criminal trials involving political subject matters, and those views can, in turn, affect the likelihood of obtaining a conviction, separate and apart from the strength of the actual evidence and despite a court’s best efforts to empanel a fair and impartial jury.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf

His observations appear justified. Here’s the foreman of Michael Sussman’s jury:

Personally, I don’t think it should have been prosecuted because I think we have better time or resources to use or spend to other things that affect the nation as a whole than a possible lie to the FBI. We could spend that time more wisely.

Note that Sussman’s guilt wasn’t in doubt:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/05/us/politics/durham-sussmann-trump.html

[Randal]

Durham! You couldn't find a "practitioner" with less credibility.

[jay.tee]

Durham! You couldn't find a "practitioner" with less credibility.

Haha, sure that’s enough to discredit someone who was considered a straight-shooter and apolitical. He was nearly universally praised when appointed to investigate Russiagate.

[Randal]

He was nearly universally praised when appointed to investigate Russiagate.

Ah hahahaha you must subscribe to the "universal" package of the right-wing bubbleverse: Fox News, Truth Social, and Newsmax.

[David Nieporent]

Sussman's guilt was not only in doubt, but was not proven, and the foreman of a jury saying after the trial that it was a waste of time is entirely consistent with him hearing the evidence and deciding that the case was crap; it is not evidence that he was biased.

[Bob from Ohio]

It can be interpreted either way.

[David Nieporent]

Ok? Then it really can't be cited as evidence for either position.

[Swede425]

Your man-crush on Brett continues unabated.
You follow him around the schoolyard constantly, loving when he pulls your little pigtails.
You're the living punchline for the bear and hunter joke: "you don't come here for the hunting, do you?"

[Bob from Ohio]

"How many actual practitioners have told you this whole 'DC juries' thing is full of shit? "

None from DC though.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like starting by repealing the DC home rule act.

[Martinned]

Sure. Par for the course if you're dismantling democracy in America anyway.

[Mr. Bumble]

DC home rule, a well intentioned? experiment that failed.
Returning to the previous state is hardly "dismantling democracy".

[Martinned]

Of course. Why should the inhabitants of a city be able to elect their own city government? It's much better to let the people of Iowa decide who should be in charge in Washington DC!

[Swede425]

LOL!
A citizen of the EU has some thoughts on Democracy.
That's rich. In irony.
And irony is an important part of your daily nutrition.

[Magister]

The last time a Democrat got less than 80% of the vote there was Jimmy Carter in 1980. Even Mondale got 78% of the vote there!

If you remember that Mondale ran in 1984, you don't have to look up the DC vote from 1984 to know that there is an error here. (Mondale got 85% in DC.)

I dispute the claim that very partisan Democrats do not take the responsibility of impartial jury duty seriously. It's the Trump cultists around here who don't care if there is any basis for charges (e.g., "the process is the punishment" and dismissing the need for evidence).

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, sorry, I confused him with McGovern.

But the fact that you have to reach that far back to find a Presidential election in DC that was merely a total blowout establishes my point: DC is wildly unrepresentative of the country, it's a single party state where the GOP barely exists once you get outside of the Capitol building or White House.

And I'm not saying they don't take the duty seriously, I'm saying that they have a "Democrat living in a city where everybody else is a Democrat" notion of what taking that duty seriously MEANS.

[Magister]

And I'm not saying they don't take the duty seriously, I'm saying that they have a "Democrat living in a city where everybody else is a Democrat" notion of what taking that duty seriously MEANS.

Well, it's obvious what Brett believes; I hope nobody is unfortunate enough to have him on a jury, because his brand of motivated reasoning and certainty without evidence might convict an innocent person.

That 90% vote for a Democrat does not mean that many are in fact Democrats, nor doe it mean that they won't approach being on a jury with a proper non-Brett-Bellmore attitude.

[Bob from Ohio]

"DOJ tried to indict a woman for allegedly assaulting an ICE officer during an arrest of two purported gang members three times and failed."

If this becomes a trend, ICE agents will just shoot the person interfering.

But libs gotta lib.

[tylertusta]

Well, well, well. It appears that Garcia's attorneys might not have been telling the truth in their representations of the plea negotiations. The government filed a response to Garcia's motion in the Tennessee case:

From the outset, it was the defendant's attorneys who first raised and required that any plea agreement must "also resolve [defendant's] outstanding immigration issues by ensuring that upon the completion of his sentence, he is deported to a Spanish-speaking third country in North or Central America - like Mexico - where he can live freely and safely without the specter of refoulement to El Salvador." Prior to this demand, the Government had never offered a third-party country placement for the defendant as part of a plea to his criminal charges...

... However, ultimately, and in response to the defendant's desires expressed through his counsel, the Government delivered on its end of the bargain and provided such assurances from Costa Rica, a country the defendant (not the Government) had previously identified as a country acceptably to him for deportation. In response, defense counsel used the third country placement that they requested as part of its supplemental vindictive prosecution motion just 48 hours later, twisting the Government's good-faith efforts into something sinister, and blatantly misleading the Court about the true progression of this case...

... Just when the Government presented agreement and assurance on a critical part of the plea agreement that the defense had been lobbying in favor of for weeks, they filed a motion before this Court alleging coercion. These allegations then were widely reported in the media and appear to have been designed exactly for that purpose rather than an honest one, especially since the defense still wanted to consider the allegedly "coercive" plea agreement just hours after making that filing and inquired if the offer was still "open." It was, despite their antics.

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1960166964543803739

The full government response is still behind a paywall, sadly.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70475970/united-states-v-garcia/

[Magister]

So sending him to Uganda would be because it's a Spanish speaking country in North or Central America?

[Swede425]

No.
For the diversity.
Which, as you are well aware, is a worthy goal that stands on it's own merits.
Everybody wins!

[Sarcastr0]

1. Don't take pleadings as objective statements of fact.

2. Don't take the Federalist as a sole source. They do everything but openly lying to try to fool you. They are very bad.

[tylertusta]

1. You should give that advice to your political allies here. When they aren't fellating a defense brief, that is. Regardless, the government provided exhibits of the correspondence between them and the defense attorneys. The defense has provided... not much of a rebuttal.

2. If your first reaction to an author from the Federalist literally posting screenshots from the brief is to ignore the screenshots, then you are beyond hope.

You preach about eschewing vibes but you're the worst offender.

[David Nieporent]

It appears that Garcia's attorneys might not have been telling the truth in their representations of the plea negotiations. The government filed a response to Garcia's motion in the Tennessee case

It appears that Tylertusta is really gullible. It was the government, not Abrego Garcia, that sent him to El Salvador. It was the government, not Abrego Garcia, that brought him back to charge him based on bribed testimony. And it was the government, not Abrego Garcia, that publicly said that if the court released him on bail because those charges were so flimsy, they intended to deport him immediately. And it was the government, not Abrego Garcia, that brought up Uganda.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, the whole Margot Cleveland "gotcha!" is retarded and completely misses the point. The government's filing does not even address the thing that Abrego Garcia (via his lawyers) is complaining about. It's not "We'll deport you to Costa Rica as part of a plea deal" that's coercive. It's "We'll deport you to Uganda immediately unless you plead guilty" that's coercive.

[Life of Brian]

Test