Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Three former officials of the FBI who were fired by Kash Patel have filed suit against Patel and numerous other federal officials and agencies in federal district court in the District of Columbia. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/driscoll-v-patel-complaint-usdc-district-columbia.pdf

The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were ultimately fired by Kash Patel, the eventual FBI director, for unlawful and politically motivated reasons that often appeared to be in response to social media posts from far-right critics.

“Patel not only acted unlawfully but deliberately chose to prioritize politicizing the FBI over protecting the American people,” the lawsuit states. “His decision to do so degraded the country’s national security by firing three of the FBI’s most experienced operational leaders, each of them experts in preventing terrorism and reducing violent crime.”

The Washington Post reports on the filing:

Before he was briefly named the FBI’s acting director early this year, Brian Driscoll says, he got a call from a Trump administration official who peppered him with a series of pointed questions that appeared to be a loyalty test.

Among them: “Who did you vote for?” “When did you start supporting President Trump?” “Have you voted for a Democrat in the last five elections?” “Do you agree that the FBI agents who stormed Mar-a-Lago … should be held accountable?”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/09/10/trump-fbi-fired-lawsuit-loyalty/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Countersuit?

[not guilty]

What would be the factual and legal basis for any counterclaim(s)?

[Dr. Ed 2]

False & frivolous lawsuit.
Abuse of process.
Needing to be Arkansided.

[David Nieporent]

Countersuit?

No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[hobie]

"Among them: “Who did you vote for?” “When did you start supporting President Trump?” “Have you voted for a Democrat in the last five elections?” “Do you agree that the FBI agents who stormed Mar-a-Lago … should be held accountable?”

Yikes

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hobie, do you honestly think that Bide/Obama didn't ask similar questions? Of course they did.

It's what "serves at the pleasure of the President" means.

[Martinned]

No, it's what "L'état, c'est moi" means.

[David Nieporent]

Countersuit?

I honestly think Biden/Obama did not ask similar questions. I don't think Bush did, or the other Bush, or Clinton, or Reagan. Or Carter or Ford. Maybe Nixon.

It's what "serves at the pleasure of the President" means.

It is not, nor is that cliché relevant here.

[Commenter_XY]

Each of them lost the confidence of the FBI Director and were dismissed. Sour grapes. And they're not coming back.

Who is funding their lawsuit?

[LexAquilia]

Some dark money foreign Democrat Supremacist funds, that's for sure.

[Malika la Maize]

If they were fired because of their answers to those questions that’s pretty horrible. But we get you’ve no principles other than tribalism.

[Poxigah146]

About as horrible as not tenuring professors because they state publicly that they think marriage is between a man and a woman. Or in other words, that they don't think sodomizing another man in the rear is the holy grail.

[neurodoc]

That's what occupies your mind? Do you imagine and favor measures to discourage sexual conduct other than the "normal" heterosexual kind? Are you OK with coital sex outside of marriage? (I won't ask you to say what sexual practices are and aren't acceptable, but feel to say what gives some idea of your thinking in this regard.)

Qualified academics are being denied tenure because they state publicly that they think marriage is between a man and a woman? Where has that happened?

[not guilty]

Poxigah146, are you as troubled by male/female buttsex as you are about male/male buttsex? Why or why not?

[Poxigah146]

Yes, except that it barely happens. It's not the center of the identity of those heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals.

[not guilty]

Au contraire. Heterosexual anal intercourse is not an uncommon behavior with 36% of women and 44% of men 25–44 years old in the United States reporting ever having HAI in their lifetime. Thirty percent of women and 35% of men reported HAI in the past year. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4949144/

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter really seems like he doesn't think talent or skill are things.

Or he just doesn't care if the FBI is good at it's job.

[Estragon]

Two of these guys got promoted weeks before firing. I guess the “confidence” didn’t last long? I mean, Driscoll gets Kash TO ADMIT the firings are probably illegal and he’ll be deposed but his superiors are demanding it. “You can’t save everyone” Kash says. Doesn’t really sound like a lack of confidence, sounds like Kash wants to continue being Director.

[Sarcastr0]

Huh. That is an interesting dynamic coming from Kash. Like he's not really MAGA and so feels oppressed trying to conform to their crazy mania for blind loyalty.

Either way, not good! Plenty I don't like about the FBI, but I'm not such a fool as to think it's good when they're incompetent.

[Estragon]

I mean, don’t you have to really wonder about a guy who thinks to himself “yeah, that Ke$ha was really onto something… maybe I’LL start spelling my name that way, too!”

And then his appearance at the press conference yesterday. He couldn’t have looked more in-over-his-head if he had wearing a sign around his neck that said “help me, I’m lost.”

If anyone is awake at the White House I can point out one person we are “losing confidence” in pretty quick!

[Sarcastr0]

Not that one can draw any conclusions from a photo, but I did notice they looked out of their depth.

More a commentary on who is good at faking confidence than anything else, though.

[David Nieporent]

Each of them lost the confidence of the FBI Director and were dismissed.

That is not what their lawsuit claims. Their lawsuit claims he was ordered to fire them or be fired himself.

Sour grapes.

That's not even remotely what that expression means.

Who is funding their lawsuit?

Why do you think anyone other than they themselves are, and how is that relevant?

[Estragon]

Many amusing tidbits in here. Most obviously, these veteran FBI agents back Kash and Bongino into certain corners during their interactions. They certainly seem to have gotten the requisite admissions from Kash in order to ask for President Trump to sit for a deposition. I also wonder how the conduct described in the lawsuit will affect Kash’s standing within the FBI.

Related to number 2, there are some tidbits designed to make Kash look silly. I have to ask— should be FBI Director really be drinking whiskey in the office? And the cigar obsession… it’s just a little childish, almost as if Kash is cosplaying J Edgar Hoover or something, rather than taking anything seriously. And the overly large challenge coin, inscribed with “Ka$h”! This is not a serious person. And of course now this lawsuit drops against the unfolding backdrop of Kash and Bongino completely stepping on their own dicks out in Utah. Whose idea was it to put podcasters in charge of the FBI, anyways?

[Estragon]

"During these briefings, Jensen became alarmed at Bongino's intense focus on increasing online engagement through his social media profiles in an effort to change his followers' perception of the FBI," the lawsuit said. "The emphasis that Bongino placed on creating content for his social media pages could risk outweighing more deliberate analyses of investigations."

Again. Not a serious person.

[Michael P]

It's not surprising that the Trump administration fired a Deep Swamp operative who thinks the FBI should operate under a veil of secrecy.

[Sarcastr0]

How is this responsive to a post about how Bongino is a social media obsessive first and a manager hardly at all?

[Estragon]

“Upon arriving at FBI Headquarters, Jensen found Bongino in his Chief of Staff’s office. Bongino looked as if he had not slept for several days. He seemed extremely anxious and agitated. Jensen asked him what was wrong. Bongino explained that he had found a room filled with classified documents and “burn bags” related to the now-closed Crossfire Hurricane investigation. He expressed shock at the existence of these burn bags.

By his comments, it seemed to Jensen that Bongino might not have been fully aware that the use of “burn bags” is a standard method across multiple federal agencies for preparing classified material for destruction when an investigation is deemed closed, or when physical copies of the materials are no longer necessary. He also appeared unaware that the FBI also stored digital copies of materials on the FBI’s classified computer system, and that this was likely the case with these materials. At the meeting, Bongino also made an unfounded additional allegation about Giardina’s handling of data, claiming that the allegation was “just out there.” Giardina was never assigned to work on Crossfire Hurricane.”

Firing people on the basis of inaccurate rumors on right-wing social media. This is what you get when you put podcasters in charge of the FBI! Duh!

[Michael P]

Are you also that gullible and credulous when reading a police write-up about a driver's glassy eyes, odor of alcohol, and so on? You're being played like a fiddle.

[Estragon]

Uh, no, I think if you read through the filing you’ll see it was Kash who got played. Expertly done, as well— as one might expect from a veteran FBI agent who has actually done interviews.

[Brett Bellmore]

"and that this was likely the case with these materials."

"Likely" seems to concede that it wasn't necessarily the case.

[Estragon]

How is that relevant? He’s attempting to fire people on the basis of inaccurate allegations that are just “out there.”

Furthermore, if your speculation is actually correct I’m not sure you thought through the implications. Who was doing the investigation into the origins of Crossfire Hurricane?

[Michael P]

Judging from news coverage about what was in those burn bags, there were a substantial number of government records in them that should have been properly retained under federal law, regulation and implementing policies and directives. Storage in burn bags is not an approved retention method, for obvious reasons.

[Randal]

He also appeared unaware that the FBI also stored digital copies of materials on the FBI’s classified computer system...

He could be describing you! Try reading before vomiting.

[Michael P]

You guys are likely paid trolls, Russian-Chinese agents, or maybe all of the above. And very likely as dumb as posts even if you are foreign agents and/or trolls.

"Likely" sure is a grand word.

[Randal]

Now you're assuming bad faith with zero evidence. That's usually Brett's territory. You better make sure he's ok with you invading his rhetorical turf.

[LexAquilia]

Omg, what an asshole! He wanted to improve the FBI's reputation. That's violating the constitution!!!

Someone HALP!! We need some DEI magistrate without law degree to overrule the President and RESTORE OUR SACRED NORMS.

You people are fucking idiots. Look at how critical you are of something so fucking basic and acceptable. You didn't even consider that guys claim for one second or you would've realized how absurd it is.

[Estragon]

“fucking idiots”

I think that would be our Leather-loving Director, no?

We got him! Oops, we don’t got him.

He should get back to his cigar business and whatever he was doing in Vegas and let an adult run things. Definitely not Bongino, though. He seems stressed enough as is.

[Joe_dallas]

Two fbi agents I deal with (and 2 federal prosecutors) have stated to me on multiple occasions that the field offices of the FBI are very non political where as the DC office of the FBI is a very left politically.

From reports, it looks like the fired individuals were very political

NG - Now do peter strozk

[David Nieporent]

Two fbi agents I deal with (and 2 federal prosecutors)

Uh huh. Was that before or after you taught that virologist a thing or two about Covid?

[John F. Carr]

According to the complaint, 5 USC 7511(b)(8) exempts FBI employees from the obligation to seek relief from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The complaint makes their terminations look like a Lisa Cook situation where an employee subject to removal for cause was removed without cause.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's looking like a tranny shot Kirk.

What should we do with trannies?

[Krayt]

It might not. Fog of war, but if what I saw over that bullet etching pans out, boy will the FBI be embarrassed.

We shall see.

[Krayt]

It turns out there were custom casing engravings. Ironically, had he been in Europe, he would have been arrested and sent to a reeducation camp for writing, "If you read this, you are gay lmao".

[neurodoc]

How about we just let them go about their lives as they let you go about your life? Or have you been harassed or somehow persecuted by transgendered individuals and you want something done to/about them? Please share the details with us, because it is decidedly strange that you have this preoccupation with transgendered individuals.

[Martinned]

I always assume that these guys accidentaly stumbled upon TS-porn on the internet once, found themselves aroused, and ended up in a terminal state of gay panic ever since.

[Riva]

Is that how the vile trans industry in this and other countries operates? Seems to be a bit more to the trans grooming than that. Although I suppose some of the repulsive propaganda they try to force on children could be considered porn.

[Dr. Ed 2]

For 0.6% of the population, their body count is stacking up. They AREN'T allowing me to go about my life.

[Estragon]

“They AREN'T allowing me to go about my life.”

This is pretty sad to hear. Nobody should live in constant fear.

[LexAquilia]

They're out there hunting conservatives and Christian school children for sport.

[Frank Drackman]

The innocent children/adults murdered by the Trannies in Nashville, Minneapolis, Colorado Springs were certainly "Persecuted"

[Malika la Maize]

Francis is full of it.

https://www.newsweek.com/desmond-holly-evergreen-school-shooting-suspect-2128804

[Life of Brian]

Evergreen is not even vaguely close to Colorado Springs.

[Magister]

But that person murdered nobody and so cannot be one of the people referenced as murdering innocents. The most notorious Colorado Springs shooting targeted a gay bar; the perpetrator claimed to be non-binary but there was no evidence that he had ever done so before the shooting.

[Life of Brian]

That's a gotcha on some level, I guess. But I'm not sure why the fact that this particular act of persecution was foiled at the attempt stage is supposed to make the targeted groups feel less so.

[Magister]

It's more that it contradicts the assertion regarding murders in Colorado Springs; yours had no murders. And the better known attack that actually had murders ... was a right-winger attacking LGBTQ+ people.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Imagine being too stupid to know the difference between "Colorado Springs" and "Evergreen".

[jb]

Imagine being too stupid to know the difference between murdering people and...not murdering anyone.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Yes, he/she/it only intended to murder people, but was stopped before being able to carry it out. That's OK then.

[not guilty]

"How about we just let them go about their lives as they let you go about your life? Or have you been harassed or somehow persecuted by transgendered individuals and you want something done to/about them? Please share the details with us, because it is decidedly strange that you have this preoccupation with transgendered individuals."

During the past twenty or so years it has become increasingly socially unacceptable to overtly bash lesbians and gays. I suspect that is because, as more same sex attracted folks have come out of the closet, more straight folks have realized that the bashing hurts someone near and dear to them.

What is a professional hatemonger to do? If only there were a group of unconventional people who are less numerous and less well organized than gays/lesbians and less likely to be "out"!

The hatred is all about having a disfavored class of people to look down on.

[bernard11]

The hatred is all about having a disfavored class of people to look down on.

Exactly. They've worked their way through lots of groups - Catholics, Jews, blacks, gays; in each case the bigotry became unacceptable in most circles over time, so they moved on. They will again.

[Joe_dallas]

NG - your characterization individuals opposed the woke embracing the mutilation of people suffering from a mental illness as hateful is absolute B-S-.

Its individuals embracing the mutilation that are evil and hateful.

[not guilty]

"Its individuals embracing the mutilation that are evil and hateful."

Joe_Dallas, you're a liar and the truth ain't in you.

I have never endorsed or "embrac[ed] ... mutilation," and gender incongruity is not "a mental illness." (Although it may co-exist with gender dysphoria, which can be.)

Breast/chest surgery is common among cisgender females. Do you regard augmentation or reduction as "mutilation" there?

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, genital surgery is rare, and studies have shown that it is associated with improved quality of life, high rates of satisfaction, and a reduction in gender dysphoria. Furthermore, some studies have reported that genital surgery is associated with decreased depression and anxiety. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2808707

[Joe_dallas]

A - your prior commentary says otherwise

B - consistent with most woke individual, you have failed to condemn mutilation
c - Breast chest surgery may be common among cisgender - it still has bad long term medical consequences

D - Consistent with most woke individuals, you lack any ability to recognize studies with serious methodology problems. Almost every pro result study of gender affirming care is crap.

[not guilty]

You lie, Joe. I have never on these comment threads advocated or "embraced" mutilation of anyone -- cisgender, transgender, straight, gay or otherwise.

I do endorse personal liberty and autonomy, as well as minding one's own business. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZH2bmbUTl4&list=RDRZH2bmbUTl4&start_radio=1

[David Nieporent]

D - Consistent with most woke individuals, you lack any ability to recognize studies with serious methodology problems.

You are not a fucking scientist. Or statistician. You wouldn't recognize a proper methodology if it punched you in the face.

[hobie]

It's looking like a kike shot Kirk.

What should we do with kikes?

There, I made the bigotry relatable to you. Besides, as antisemitic as Kirk was, the change makes for a good revenge fantasy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How about the Kikes shoot you.

How about a a Judeo Christian Army of Decency -- a modern crusade to rid the world of freaks and crazies.

And in which dimension of reality was Kirk antisemetic?
Or are you also claiming that Bibi N is too?

Bleep you.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't you have a meeting in Doha to get to?

[hobie]

Now be fair, Frankie. If you hayseeds weren't spewing vile bigotry and racism all the time, I wouldn't be forced to make these uncomfortable comparisons

[Riva]

So repulsive on so many levels. Are you vying for a position in democrat party leadership? Maybe The NY Times editorial board? Almost overqualified it seems.

[Sarcastr0]

There was a point being made. You missed it.

Maybe try again?

[Riva]

There was a point being made. You missed it. It is a tasteless repulsive way to present a childishly absurd analogy by a repulsive TDS deranged troll who has quite a reputation for posting race baiting, antisemitic crap here. And my comment points that out. Too effectively it would seem, hence the trolling.

Try again little communist girl who never smiled. Or just f’ing try thinking and attempt to conduct yourself like a reasonable adult. Try it for a day, you might like it better than your bullshit trolling.

[Sarcastr0]

Your refusal to engage act is getting tedious.

If you don't like the analogy, explain why.

And no 'the post made me mad' is not a good argument.

[Riva]

Try again. Your projection is way past tedious. But that’s not the point of the bullshit trolling is it?

[Riva]

I'll even help you out. The point of the bullshit trolling is to end debate, not to engage in legitimate conversation.

[Randal]

I'm proud of you for admitting this. Your programming is improving.

[not guilty]

"I'll even help you out. The point of the bullshit trolling is to end debate, not to engage in legitimate conversation."

Riva, online trolling is a fishing metaphor, referring to the practice of slowly dragging a lure or baited hook from a moving boat. The point is not to end debate, but to provoke a reaction from other commenters -- often an emotional response.

[Riva]

And I'll end by noting that, with respect to the comments above "Dr Ed 2" above that began this thread, to the extent that the vile trans movement is poisoning the minds of too many youth and also society at large, something should be done to combat the propaganda. Banning their child grooming in schools would be a good start. But the extent of the radicalization of the left, especially on college campuses, is broader than that.

[Joe_dallas]

hobie - you full of S---- with the claim the Kirk was anti-semitic

[Sarcastr0]

He said that the majority of Jews in America are Jewing it wrong, based on their politics.

If you're mad at people who call Clarence Thomas a traitor to his race, you should be mad at Kirk too.

[Riva]

If you’re going to defame someone just assassinated, at least have the fucking decency not to “quote” him out of context. And I thought you trolls were repulsive before this happened, apparently you were just getting started.

[Sarcastr0]

There was a lot of posting yesterday, maybe you missed it:
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/09/11/a-note-on-toleration-religious-and-political/?comments=true#comment-11200942

Now quit with your drama queen 'I'm even MORE angy now!' act. It's lame as hell.

[Joe_dallas]

the best you can do is accuse someone of "anger" when you get caught intentionally misrepresenting a persons statement

[Sarcastr0]

I linked to it, Joe.

But you're a pretty lazy dude, so let me paste it here:

"“Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them,” said Kirk on his show, later adding that “the philosophical foundation of anti-whiteness has been largely financed by Jewish donors in the country.”"

Now, maybe you can quit lying.

[Riva]

Charlie Kirk, unlike POS trolls, actually wanted to engage in honest debate. And your obnoxious insinuation that he was somehow antisemitic based a point he was apparently elaborating on at length in the course of his program by relaying discrete reported quotes and references to "jewing it wrong" is normally just contemptible and offensive. Coming so soon after a political assassination directed at silencing his speech, it is beyond contempt. And I thought I couldn't despise you trolls more. I was wrong.

[David Nieporent]

Charlie Kirk, unlike POS trolls, actually wanted to engage in honest debate.

If there is one topic that Riva has expertise with, it's POS trolls. But based on the above quote, if there's one topic that Riva knows nothing about, it's Charlie Kirk.

[Nelson]

“ Charlie Kirk, unlike POS trolls, actually wanted to engage in honest debate”

Considering that the facts that he often cited were known falsehoods, he wasn’t interested in honest debate at all.

But I’ll give the Devil his due, he wasn’t willing to go toe-to-toe with his detractors and was a superlative speaker. I wish he’d used his powers for good.

[Nelson]

That’s supposed to be “was willing to”

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastro - Who is lazy?

Did you fail to notice the linked article does not mesh with Kirk's much larger volume of commentary on the jewish faith and his much larger volume of commentary on Israel?

[Sarcastr0]

Yo I posted a quote.

Weaselly 'does not mesh with' won't bear the load of your original accusation.

I had the receipts.
You can take a seat. Or not; you're notoriously bad at taking the L when you need to.

[Riva]

To reiterate to the POS who calls himself or herself "Sarcastr0" (or is it a group of assholes? Who knows who cares). But again to "Sarcastr0," Charlie Kirk, unlike POS trolls, actually wanted to engage in honest debate. And your obnoxious insinuation that he was somehow antisemitic based a point he was apparently elaborating on at length in the course of his program by relaying discrete reported "quotes" and references to "jewing it wrong" (your wording) is normally just contemptible and offensive. Coming so soon after a political assassination directed at silencing his speech, it is beyond contempt. And I thought I couldn't despise you trolls more. I was wrong.

[Joe_dallas]

Yes you posted the link

you have taken it of context along with mispresenting the statement along with failure to reconcile that comment with a much larger body of commentary from Kirk

[hobie]

Just like anti-Israel does not equal antisemitic, MAGA/Kirk's pro-Israel does not equal pro-semitic. Trump and Kirk's overt antisemitism heaped on the American Jewry is well documented

[Joe_dallas]

hobies - comment - Just like anti-Israel does not equal antisemitic, MAGA/Kirk's pro-Israel does not equal pro-semitic. Trump and Kirk's overt antisemitism heaped on the American Jewry is well documented.

Again demonstrating you are making s-- up

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastro - again ignoring a much larger body of commentary from kirk that disputes the out of context characterization of kirks statement

[David Nieporent]

Sacastro - again ignoring a much larger body of commentary from kirk that disputes the out of context characterization of kirks statement

As always, a reference by bookkeeper_joe to utterly unspecified facts.

[bernard11]

Joe,

out of context characterization of kirks statement

Help us out by supplying the context. Just saying it exists doesn't mean anything.

It would be particularly helpful to me because I can't even imagine what context would render his remarks acceptable.

[Joe_dallas]

hobie 1 day ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
It's looking like a kike shot Kirk.

Hobie - another absolute B-S statement - It was a far left woke individual that shot Kirk

[not guilty]

"It's looking like a tranny shot Kirk."

Factual basis?

[Dr. Ed 2]

FBI

[jb]

Even right-leaning media isn't claiming this AFAICT. MAGA people love to claim this for every shooting, though. It's pretty gross.

[LexAquilia]

They found tranny-tinged Democrat Supremacist language carved on the bullets and the leading suspect is a tranny who recently published a song titled "Charlie Kirk Dead At 31" and recently got schooled in a viral debate with Charlie.

Yeah, we're making unfounded assumptions!!!!

[hobie]

With all the racist attacks Kirk piled onto gay people, one could almost consider this as an act of self defense, ala Rittenhouse. The sniper will get off at trial ala Rittenhouse, then we can fete him with speaking engagements...ala Rittenhouse. Revenge of the trannies!

[Joe_dallas]

Hobie - Again you are full of S--- claiming Kirk was throwing racist attacks

[Nelson]

Kirk was constantly throwing out racist and religious attacks. That was a sizable part of his schtick.

There are two incontrovertible facts about the Kirk assassination:

1) Kirk should not have been assassinated.
2) The world is a better place without Charlie Kirk in it.

He was a hateful, religiously and racially intolerant, culture war-fanning troll with no intellectually honest foundations to his cultural beliefs (his fiscal and economic beliefs didn’t suffer from the same deficiencies). He was a source of the problems facing America, not a solution to them.

That said, his speech was and should always be protected. He didn’t deserve to face a heckler’s veto, never mind a completely unjustified murder. Bad people exist throughout the world and if that were enough to justify killing them, we would have an endless stream of “justified” murders.

So, again:

1) Charlie Kirk didn’t deserve to die.
2) The world is a better place without Charlie Kirk in it.

[jb]

"2) The world is a better place without Charlie Kirk in it."

Sorry, but this is a gross sentiment. It seems way too easy to get from "the world would be a better place without people saying things I disagree with" to figuring out how to rationalize doing it.

To the extent that Kirk was convincing people of his bad ideas, we should come up with better counterarguments. And if our principles can't withstand scrutiny from someone like him, maybe they actually have some problems that we should think about.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and maybe his ideas are not really "bad", just not the same as your's.

[Joe_dallas]

Mr. Bumble 31 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
...and maybe his ideas are not really "bad", just not the same as your's.

Bumble - A better explanation is the "anti-racists " have become extreme racists and lack the self awareness of their extreme racism.

[Nelson]

“ Sorry, but this is a gross sentiment”

No, it isn’t. There is good in the world. There is bad in the world. Charlie Kirk consciously decided to champion the bad.

Charlie Kirk believed that wives should subordinate their opinions and interests to their husbands. That Muslims aren’t be acceptable as mayors of major cities. That America should be a Christianity-based government. That abortion should be illegal. That trans people shouldn’t be allowed to get surgery. That gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry. His cultural beliefs were largely anti-liberty, pro-theocratic, pro-discriminatory, pro-exclusionary things he was actively pushing through the political process. He was a political operative who was trying to transform American culture and didn’t think using legislation to restrict freedom was a bad thing.

He was a malign presence in American politics and actively opposed some of the most fundamental American ideals. He promoted the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. He was intentionally and aggressively divisive. He punched down at those less powerful and less fortunate.

So not only was he the embodiment of the anti-libertarian worldview, he openly spoke people’s worthiness and value was dependent upon gender, race, and religion.

It may be just a drop in the ocean, but the world is less bad without Charlie Kirk because he was largely a bad person who wanted to force bad things on people through force, using the government.

“the world would be a better place without people saying things I disagree with"

Don’t reframe or misquote or otherwise try to lie about what I said. Charlie Kirk was a bad person who pushed for and advocated bad things that would lock people into defined social roles regardless of their abilities or skills, but because of their gender or religion.

I fully and completely support his right to say whatever he wants. I will always fully support the right for hateful people to say hateful things. That’s what free speech is all about.

But being able to say whatever you want doesn’t mean that the things that people say are good. And the things that Charlie Kirk said and advocated for were not good things.

“ to figuring out how to rationalize doing it.”

I’m not Dr. Ed, with a hot civil war fetish. I oppose violence, period. I have always and will always condemn violence, whether January 6th or the shooting of Steve Scalise or the Las Vegas shooter or Sandy Hook or the attempt on President Trump. So don’t try that nonsense. Jesse and his paleocon friends tried that with the Trump assassins and you’re doing the same thing.

Violence, especially political violence, is wrong. Period. Don’t try to Jesse your bullshit narrative onto me.

[Nelson]

“ ...and maybe his ideas are not really "bad"”

Mr. Bumble, I’ve listed several of his ideas, all bad, here and elsewhere. He may have been a swell guy to have a beer with, but his ideas for America and what is “right” are terrible by any freedom- and liberty-supporting analysis.

[jb]

...and maybe his ideas are not really "bad", just not the same as your's.

...and maybe I addressed this in my last sentence.

[Commenter_XY]

Your #2 is simply wrong. The world is a little less w/o Charlie Kirk in it.

[Nelson]

Not at all. He wasn’t a force for good in the world. He made things worse by his presence and actions.

[Joe_dallas]

Nelson - you are delusion

By your standards , evil is good

Pointing out evil and why it is evil is bad

[Nelson]

Charlie Kirk advocated for evil, he didn’t “[point] out evil”.

Saying wives should submit to their husbands (regardless of the competence, cruelty, or abilities of the husband) is uncut misogyny and indisputably a thing bad people believe.

Misquoting the Bible to say that gays should be stoned to death (with a “just saying” to justify such evil) is advocating for both violence towards and a lesser value for gay people. That is indisputably a thing bad people believe.

Casually throwing out slurs like “tranny”, accusing an entire group of people being sexual predators with no evidence (especially in the face of the Catholic Church and it’s century-long international pedophilia ring), calling them all mentally ill (as if everything in the DSM means a person isn’t mentally competent), and saying we should treat them like they did in the 50s and 60s (when violence against trans and gay people was used and was socially acceptable) is bigotry and indisputably a thing bad people believe.

Claiming that the only groups that are being discriminated against are white males and Christians is demonstrably false and a lovely throwback to the bad old days. Not indisputably a thing bad people believe, but definitely delusional and whiny and embodying grievance about no longer being the default superior people in the world.

Charlie Kirk was a bad person who embodied things (misogyny, homophobia, bigotry, hatred, and advocating violence against those he disliked) that are indisputably bad, if not outright evil. While I have repeatedly said (unlike Kirk) that no one should be murdered, especially for their beliefs, the balance of the world between good and evil tilted slightly away from evil when he died.

[Joe_dallas]

Nelson 24 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Kirk was constantly throwing out racist and religious attacks. That was a sizable part of his schtick."

nelson - you are full of delusions

Dei is designed to create racial division - contrary to the stated reason. DEI reversed the great progress in racial harmony that has occurred over the last 50 or so years.

Kirk using his analogies explained why DEI was evil. By your woke concept, stopping evil is vile.

[jb]

Random Internet sleuths are not the FBI

[Estragon]

“leading suspect is a tranny who recently published a song titled "Charlie Kirk Dead At 31" and recently got schooled in a viral debate with Charlie.”

Wow this take aged well.

“Yeah, we're making unfounded assumptions”

Well, at least you admitted it.

[myself]

Don't worry. They either already forgot they claimed the shooter was a "tranny", or they'll continue to insist the shooter is a "tranny" no matter the evidence to the contrary.

[jb]

Dr. Ed is already doing the latter. It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad and destructive for society.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 6 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"It's looking like a tranny shot Kirk."

Factual basis?

NG - there were a couple of reports of the suspected shooter being trans. He was caught this morning, so we will likely know more shortly

[Joe_dallas]

follow up - tyler robinson, the suspect was arrested a few hours ago. Based on early reports on the suspect, he doesnt appear to be trans. He does appear to have irrational anger and pent up hate.

The prior commentary on possible trans appears to be wrong.

[David Nieporent]

"Appears to be wrong" has got to be the most pathetically sad non-admission since "mistakes were made." It doesn't "appear to be wrong." It appears to be a knowing lie by evil people.

[Life of Brian]

Since (I presume) none of us learned the actual suspect's identity until the press conference this morning, what basis do you have to call the earlier circumstantial speculation a "knowing lie"?

[jb]

If I said "Life of Brian is trans" and I have no reason to believe that it's true other than that it would be politically convenient, that's a lie isn't it? If you literally have no evidence to support a statement but make it anyway, it's lying.

[Life of Brian]

But your "no reason to believe" hypo isn't what happened. What was reported in the earlier gray-cloud phase was that a trans musician with facial features arguably mapping to the FBI's initially released surveillance photo just so happened to have uploaded a song to Soundcloud a month ago titled "Charlie Kirk Dead at 31." I'm not going to link it here, but it's super easy to find if you haven't seen it.

If someone had just photoshopped the song title or date, then that specific person certainly would be engaging in a "knowing lie" (though I'd feel a good deal more comfortable about that being a possibility had the musician responded in some way other than hiding the Soundcloud account and going silent). But even if so, I don't see how the "knowing" part could apply to people discussing it downstream.

[Sarcastr0]

Off the break speculation in the middle of initial news churn is bad.

Direct accusations of groups and individuals based on sketchy info alongside partisan speculation is full-on immoral.

Plenty on here have already stepped in that. You seem to be endorsing doing more of it.

In my opinion, that kind of bullshit frenzy is one of the worst things about the Internet. And that's a tall order.

[Life of Brian]

Off the break speculation in the middle of initial news churn is bad. . . . In my opinion, that kind of bullshit frenzy is one of the worst things about the Internet.

Agree, and that's why I personally try to avoid getting drawn into that cycle. But that's not the question here.

You seem to be endorsing doing more of it.

If you reread, it should be clear that I'm not endorsing anything at all, but rather just asking David to support his accusation that it was a "knowing lie."

[Sarcastr0]

You're quibbling about actual malice versus a knowing lie.

You're doing so in defense of the very bullshit frenzy you claim to be against.

Quit being an obligate contrarian.

[Life of Brian]

You're quibbling about actual malice versus a knowing lie.

When someone brands someone else a "knowing liar," it's "quibbling" to expect that to actually mean 1) they lied; and 2) they knew that?

[jb]

But your "no reason to believe" hypo isn't what happened. What was reported in the earlier gray-cloud phase was that a trans musician with facial features arguably mapping to the FBI's initially released surveillance photo just so happened to have uploaded a song to Soundcloud a month ago titled "Charlie Kirk Dead at 31." I'm not going to link it here, but it's super easy to find if you haven't seen it.

Especially not hard to find since ThePublius linked to it and explicitly named the (wrong) person in this very open thread.

But sure, there are some credulous people here happy to repeat whatever poorly sourced nonsense they read on the Internet as long as it aligns with their ideological priors. But of course, Dr. Ed not only kicked off this discussion without substantiating it at all (so we have no idea what he was thinking) but later on doubled down on it even after we knew who did it! See his "Profile on the Kirk Killer" post below. So, no, I don't give Dr. Ed 2 the benefit of the doubt and think he is just bad at vetting his media. He was lying on this topic as he often lies on many others.

[Life of Brian]

I actually don't see how this discussion I've been involved in has ever had anything to do with Ed in particular. If you're looking to drag Ed, there are plenty of his own threads for that.

If you rewind to where I entered the thread, Nieporent was accusing unnamed "evil people" (which, given the context, I took to refer to upstream sources Joe had alluded to) of engaging in "knowing lies."

There were plenty of more reasonable, nuanced positions David could have staked out (see, e.g., my response to Sarc above), but he didn't pick any of those.

If we're looking for ways to lower the collective temperature, it seems worth at least considering things like not going over the top and calling an entire segment of people "knowing liars" solely because they repeated an early-stage theory that ended up being wrong. Should we all be careful about mindlessly repeating things floating around the Interwebs that tickle our priors and have little backing? Of course. But those two things are a great distance apart.

[Joe_dallas]

you can ignore DN - he hasnt made a substantive comment in quite awhile.

[Joe_dallas]

another BS statement from D dishonest Dave

An updated report - Tyler Robinson living / roommate of a transgender individual.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15095195/tyler-robinson-roommate-text-messages-cops-arrest-utah.html

[David Nieporent]

That is not, of course, what that article says, and also in no way refutes anything said here.

[not guilty]

follow up - tyler robinson, the suspect was arrested a few hours ago. Based on early reports on the suspect, he doesnt appear to be trans. He does appear to have irrational anger and pent up hate.

The prior commentary on possible trans appears to be wrong.

The phrase, shoot from the hip, originated in the old west of America, during the cowboy days. It alludes to shooting a gun from the hip, without taking it out if the holster. This made firing quicker, but less accurate. https://www.theidioms.com/shoot-from-the-hip/ That is quite inappropriate for reasoned political discussion.

What is wrong with waiting for, you know, evidence instead of blathering ignorantly?

[Joe_dallas]

NG - appears that you have exposed yourself as the one blathering ignorantly

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15095195/tyler-robinson-roommate-text-messages-cops-arrest-utah.html

[Sarcastr0]

Looks like it was an Internet poisoned weirdo.

No wonder the usuals around here are trying to deflect!

[John F. Carr]

Any transsexual who possesses a firearm with intent to commit murder should be imprisoned.

[Mr. Bumble]

Shouldn't that read "anybody"?

[Nelson]

According to conservative wingnuts, any trans person with a gun is intending to kill someone. Or rape someone. Or groom someone. Or corrupt someone. Or do some other vile, illegal, or immoral thing.

Like Charlie Kirk, the believe that being a trans person means being an evil person. They are wrong.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and again shouldn't John F. Carr's comment apply to anybody?
Evil comes in all makes and models.
Find a quote where Charlie Kirk stated being trans meant being evil.

[Nelson]

Well, he constantly called them freaks and groomers. I’m sure you’ll want to say, “Yeah, but he didn’t say the word “evil”, but are you really that shameless? Groomers are, by definition, evil (unless they are Catholic Priests or the Church that protected and enabled them, apparently).

He also said trans people should be "dealt with the way we did in the 1950s and 60s,", which only a liar or a fool would pretend wasn’t a reference to violence. Or perhaps you want to pretend that he meant lobotomies or involuntary commitment, because that’s so much better?

Charlie Kirk was a bad man. One less bad man in the world is, while not earth-shattering, a good thing for the world.

[myself]

It's looking like a white Mormon from a pro-Gun Conservative family shot Kirk.

What should we do with white Mormons from pro-Gun Conservative families?

[Martinned]

Send the National Guard after them? Put them in a gulag in El Salvador?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Should we shut down the college campi in response to this?

[Martinned]

Just send in the National Guard to make sure no opponents of the Regime walk around campus unmolested.

[Frank Drackman]

If Glioblastomas can be caused by being a (redacted)

[Kazinski]

CPI came out today and it while it wasn't great it doesn't seem like its going to delay a rate cut next week.

All Items CPI went to .4% in August, it was .2% in July, but core CPi stay eyed the same at .3% in both July and August.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/cpi_09112025.htm

Market interest rates are falling in response to the projected fed rate cut, Mortgage rates hit 6.35%, down from 7% in January.

And the stock markets responded by hitting all time highs.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/11/investing/us-stock-market

[Commenter_XY]

Inflation has not meaningfully changed since 1/2025. So much for the resident economic genius doomsayers who confidently assured us that the economy would be crashed by now. What chumps.

To be fair, we have not seen the full impacts of tariff policy yet.

[jb]

Who asserted the economy would be crashed by September?

And also: this is the highest inflation in Trump's term.

[Michael P]

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/3-experts-who-predicted-crash-under-trump-and-what-theyre-saying-comes-next
https://www.businessinsider.com/burry-grantham-stock-market-crash-recession-trumpcession-tariffs-inflation-krugman-2025-3

You have an awfully short memory.

[jb]

Neither of those articles mentions anyone who claimed there would be a recession by September. So seems like my memory is pretty good!

[Magister]

In any case the many TACOs would of course delay the consequences.

[Kazinski]

Jaime Simon for one, in April.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-09/dimon-says-recession-is-the-likely-outcome-of-tariff-upheaval

[Martinned]

Back in April he presumably hadn't incorporated the TACO principle in his analysis.

[jb]

Paywalled, but I found the comments in other article. He doesn't seem to lay out a timeline. At best, it coincided with JP Morgan analysts changing their projection to have a 60% chance of a recession by the end of 2025. So...definitely not by September.

Also, he changed his mind in July:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5430858-jamie-dimon-changes-tune-on-trump-tariffs-so-far-so-good/

Then again, this week he's worried:

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/jpmorgan-ceo-jamie-dimon-warns-cloudy-us-economic-outlook-2025-09-09/

So it is indeed a bit hard to figure out what he thinks is going to happen. As he points out in the this week article, though, and Commenter_XY acknowledge above, a lot of the tariff impact hasn't really been felt yet.

[Kazinski]

You are splitting hairs.

[jb]

No, I'm pointing out that I don't think anyone credible has said that there would be a recession in the first half year of Trump's administration.

If the economy still looks roughly like it looks now in January, I think it will be fair to say that Trump did not, in fact, crash the economy. It may be reasonable to debate if his policies are helping or impeding growth, but that would be relative to what "could have been" and pretty theoretical. There's some signs we're seeing negative effects from the tariffs, but given the TACO reality many of the most problematic tariffs either haven't been in place for long or still aren't.

[Kazinski]

TACO?

Helpful AI summary:

Tariffs on China
Universal Tariff:
China is subject to the 10% universal tariff on all imports.
Additional Tariffs:
China also faces a 20% additional levy related to fentanyl smuggling allegations.
Reciprocal Tariffs:
China is subject to reciprocal tariffs under Section 232.

European Union-U.S. Deal:
The EU and the U.S. reached a tariff agreement, with the EU agreeing to a 15% tariff on all U.S. imports.
Reciprocal Tariffs:
Additionally, the EU faces the 10% universal tariff.
Tariffs on India
Reciprocal Tariffs:
India is subject to a 50% reciprocal tariff on its imports into the U.S..
Universal Tariff:
India is also subject to the 10% universal tariff.
Tariffs on Canada
Canadian Retaliatory Tariffs:
Canada has imposed a 25% tariff on about C$30bn worth of US goods in response to U.S. tariffs.
U.S. Tariffs:
The U.S. has increased its tariffs on Canadian goods to 35%.
Overall:
The U.S. tariffs increased by 25%.

If that's chickening out I wonder what he will do when he gets his courage up.

[Nelson]

How many pullbacks, delays, and reversals has he done (and continues to do) in his incoherent tariff policies? How many business plans have been disrupted by his thrashing around, responding to the latest person he talked to, the stock market, the bond market, the commentary from his base, or the latest tweet from someone he likes (or hates)?

He doesn’t have a tariff policy because he doesn’t have a tariff goal, unless he believes Peter Navarro and his ilk and thinks he can replace income taxes with tariffs. He already blew a hole in the deficit (the OBBB was the largest deficit spending bill ever) and the revenue from tariffs won’t even cover the service on the new debt he championed.

So yes, TACO. All the time, every time. The fact that he eventually arrives at a place where none of the potential benefits from tariffs can be achieved doesn’t mean he doesn’t chicken out. In fact, it reinforces the accusation, since short of raising a little revenue that he already spent to cover his massive deficit spending bill, he has accomplished nothing except making things more expensive for Americans.

[Sarcastr0]

TACO has 2 meanings.

The first, which jb was referring to, is specifically the markets refusing to react to Trump's words and policies, based on expectations he'll pull back from whatever his latest insanity is. Relying on the consistency of a madman has worked so far, but is setting us up for a harder reality check when the real world comes a knocking regardless of how hard you've coped. Plenty of financial commentary about this phenomenon.

The second, which Kaz and you are dealing in, is the larger political scene, where Trump's general character is being mocked. Here, his inconsistency feeds both narratives. He often says crazy nonsense and backs off. And just as often doesn't. That's still a lot less consistent than normal Presidents, but it's also not consistently backing off.
This is just the usual apologia but reversed by those who have more radicalism than sense.

[bernard11]

Inflation has not meaningfully changed since 1/2025.

There is a difference between, "the rate is just about the same as it was in 1/25," and, "it has not meaningfully changed since 1/25."

The former is true. The latter is not.

In fact the Jan year-over-year rate was 3.0%, and the August 2.9%. But a lot happened in between. It dropped in the early part of the year, getting to 2.3% in April ("Liberation Day was April 2, BTW), then started rising consistently, to its current level.

Nothing to do with tariffs, of course.

[neurodoc]

Am I the only person who would very much like to see changes to this website to make it easier to follow who is responding to whom? for example, how about if each comment got a sequential number to allow referencing?

[Martinned]

Agreed. At these Open Threads often become unwieldy.

[Martinned]

Probably the best solution would be to allow users to collapse parts of the thread. (Meaning like there would be a button under each comment to hide all the replies to it, like there is on Reddit and Disqus, I think.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

neurodoc — Be the change you seek.

[Frank Drackman]

You probably like what they did with NFL Kickoffs too. I'll stick with my Coke-Classic and analog TV thank you.

[Moderation4ever]

I agree. If a topic is important enough for the reader to follow they will find the thread. I think, and may guilty of this too, that there is sometimes just a silly back and forth response rather than good counter arguments. Want clean threads, think about what you want to say, make your point and move on.

[Riva]

It would be more desirable to have a block feature for some of the more obnoxious and deranged trolls.

[LexAquilia]

They do, Riva. Just click "Mute User".

All the vile threats against me and other conservatives on here just get grey-boxed now.

[Brett Bellmore]

I just wish there was some way to take a look at a particular muted user's immediate comment, (To see what others are replying to.) without having to globally unmute them, and then remute them again afterwards.

[bernard11]

Second.

Also, when I mute someone I would like to stay at the same place. Right now muting takes you to the top of the comments, and you have to try to find your place again.

[Life of Brian]

Third.

The reload happens because when you mute someone it re-renders the page with the muted comments physically removed rather than hiding them programatically. So if they were to address the first ask (by including all underlying comments in the page source but starting with the muted ones all programatically hidden) the second likely would come along with the ride.

[jb]

Riva's programming doesn't cover the use of that button apparently

[Riva]

It’s not the same thing. I can mute out obnoxious trolls like “jb” but that only means that I can’t view his bullshit when I’m logged in. Blocking would prevent the troll from replying at all.

[jb]

Oh, what Riva wants is a button so no one is even allowed to post opposing views at all!

[Riva]

By definition, trolls don't honestly express opposing views. Their only purpose is to harass and silence opposing views. Now I can appreciate something posted that has some wit, even from a troll, and I wouldn't mute or block that. But what you post, is not that thing.

[Randal]

So you want to block yourself? Hm, although I see why you'd feel that way, it's not a commonly asked for feature, so it might be awhile in coming. In the meantime may I suggest writing your comments on post-its and then sticking them up your ass? As a temporary workaround.

[Riva]

Thanks, I appreciate the input but another asshole troll generously provided an example already. So we won't need you today. Check back later.

[Nelson]

“ By definition, trolls don't honestly express opposing views”

So you know what you do, you just think it’s OK when you do it?

[Riva]

You're like cockroaches here. Sorry but, as noted above, only one asshole troll example was needed. Try again later.

[Nelson]

To be fair, I don’t think you’re a free range troll. I think you are part of a group that has “Bear” at the end.

[David Nieporent]

Seems like that would be an enormous self-own for the bot.

[Magister]

You could use the Flag Comment button but, while posters are occasionally banned, the Volokh Conspiracy shows no inclination to exclude bullshit so it wouldn't go anywhere.

[Nelson]

“ the Volokh Conspiracy shows no inclination to exclude bullshit so it wouldn't go anywhere.”

As someone who thinks that the First Amendment is the most important one, that is the thing that keeps me coming back. As awful as Jesse and his Paleocon Idiot’s Brigade is, leaving them to say whatever nonsense they want is the soul of America (and, in my view, libertarianism).

[not guilty]

Flagging comments on a blog does not implicate the First Amendment -- there is no governmental action involved.

[Nelson]

Fair point. I’ll rephrase.

VC follows the spirit and ideals of the First Amendment by banning people only in the worst and most extreme cases, and as far as I know not for anything that would be covered by the First Amendment.

[Kazinski]

The Mute button excludes a lot of the bullshit nicely.

Here is my mutes:

BravoCharlieDelta Afrikaaner Aktenberg78
Aoidized Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland Balisane
Biastians billardl
Jason Cavanaugh chemjeff radical individualist Corve5 CTaylor9 David Bhear DaivdBehar Defenderz
DixieTune elnurmamedrafiev Sebastian Cremmington FrancoisDB FTulalip
Efforidentalistionicker hobie Holden C hoppy025
Jaypd JDMD JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes
Jonathan Affleck Jumaira legalizeshrooms Lennyk78
LexAquilia m2t8cjxbdu Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2
Malika Nisiiko David Matthews Pavel Petrovich
Poxigah146 Saallarisa Sam Bankman-Fried sopij16501 SQRLSY Tony
TaioF920 Scooter Theendoftheleft Z Crazy zbidim

[Nelson]

Isn’t that Jonathan Affleck guy the one who wrote all the insane posts about his lawsuits? I forget what his subject was, but I remember thinking that his logic and argument sounded like sovereign citizen logic. Using that word very loosely.

[David Nieporent]

Jonathan Affleck a/k/a Joachim Martillo a/k/a LivyZionistsomethingsomething is a crazy guy who writes long antisemitic screeds and also long legally/technically illiterate screeds about § 230.

[Nelson]

That’s the one! His hobby horse was Section 230.

Still sounds like a sovereign citizen to me, just obsessed with the internet instead of personal sovereignty.

Straight-up, batshit crazy.

[hobie]

Hah! I got muted! Luckily, I ain't as sensitive as you, Kaz. Live in your bubble - as silent as it is. I've never muted anyone. How else would I know who to victimize?

[Nelson]

I try not to, but some are so tedious and/or crazy and/or hateful and/or disgusting (that would be Rev. Kirkland, Sqrlsy, Sevo, and Buttplug) that my world is better without them.

And Frank Drackman, of course.

But the Paleocon Idiot’s Brigade (JesseAZ and Mother’s Lament being the two foremost idiots) are completely clear. As terrible as they are, they are so ignorant and ill-informed I can have hours of fun just pointing out their gross mischaracterizations, outright lies, or partisan delusions.

Sometimes it feels like picking on the mentally crippled, but I have trouble resisting their shameless stupidity and ignorance.

[hobie]

Well, to let you know, I've seen no one by any of those names - including Kirkland who disappeared last year - so you're not missing anything lately

[Kazinski]

Well my criteria is do they add anything to the discussion?

And are they racist, or see everything in a stark good vs evil context (although I admit most liberals look at everything that way, but I am less forgiving with conservatives).

And of course are they all snark and no content, that's what tripped up Hobie and Malika.

[Kazinski]

The Republicans in the Senate changed the rules to allow faster confirmation of picks and make it much harder to obstruct them:

"WASHINGTON — Republicans triggered the "nuclear option" to change the rules of the Senate on a party-line basis Thursday, a move that will allow them to speed up confirmation of President Donald Trump's nominees for key executive branch positions.

The vote was 53-45 to establish a new rule that allows the Senate to confirm an unlimited number of nominees en bloc, rather than process each one individually."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-republicans-nuclear-option-change-rules-trump-nominees-rcna230565

I'm happy to see it, even though the Dems will be able to take advantage of the rule change too, next time they have the White House and the Senate, the same way Republicans benefited when Harry Reid ended the filibuster on judicial nominations.

[Commenter_XY]

It is not a welcome development. Team D intransigence is directly responsible for it.

[Martinned]

What do you mean "intrancigence"? Are they supposed to vote in favour of their own oppressors? Voting against these fascist nutcases is literally the least the Democratic Senators can do, and they can't even be counted upon to do that.

[Commenter_XY]

The least they can do. What is the most? You seem on-board with political assassination, eurotrash.

[Martinned]

I am not. But I am also not sad about the death of a radical extremist who contributed all his life to the toxic nature of American public life.

I am also puzzled by the gun nuts' approach to the 2nd amendment. Is armed resistance against tyranny only OK if you don't support the tyrant? Am I the fool for expecting at least a minimum of consistency?

[Brett Bellmore]

"But I am also not sad about the death of a radical extremist who contributed all his life to the toxic nature of American public life."

That's fine, but we're discussing Charlie Kirk, not whoever this radical extremists you have mind is. Frankly, if that's your description of Charlie Kirk, all you're doing is revealing that you have no tolerance at all for anybody dissenting from your own views; Kirk's own views were right in the political mainstream, and mostly what he contributed to was civil discourse.

"Is armed resistance against tyranny only OK if you don't support the tyrant? Am I the fool for expecting at least a minimum of consistency?"

It would be nice if we had an objective definition of "tyranny". From Merriam Webster:
"1
: oppressive power
every form of tyranny over the mind of man—
Thomas Jefferson
especially : oppressive power exerted by government
the tyranny of a police state
2
a
: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler
especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state
b
: the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant
3
: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force
living under the tyranny of the clock—
Dixon Wecter
4
: an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act : a tyrannical act
workers who had suffered tyrannies"

On one level, government is, of course, always oppressive to the losing side in an election, which is why as little of our lives as possible should be given over to governance in the first place.

But on the other level, we have an elected, term limited President governing as he ran on governing, with an elected Congress of his own party supporting him. And if you don't like the lawful policies he was elected to pursue, maybe win the next election instead of losing it and demanding that your policies continue uninterrupted?

Here's a statement by the guy who was questioning Kirk when he was shot.

“The point I was trying to make is how peaceful the left was (long pause) right before he got shot."

[Randal]

And if you don't like the lawful policies...

It's the unlawful policies that make Trump a tyrant (in addition to his self-dealing, favoritism, and general corruption).

[Nelson]

“ That's fine, but we're discussing Charlie Kirk, not whoever this radical extremists you have mind is”

Apparently you are unfamiliar with Kirk’s positions on most culture war issues. On virtually every issue, he lived at the fringe. Whether Muslim mayors of major cities or Jews or blacks or immigrants or abortion or trans people or education or marriage or women’s rights or voting rights or election conspiracies or any one of the thousand whining complaints of today’s conservative movement, he was at the far edge (and frequently over) the line between rational and delusional.

He was a Christian Nationalist who advocated for men to have a superior position in marriages and society regardless of their abilities or competence, among other beliefs that boiled down to “white Christian men should be running the world”.

Say that you agree with him if you wish, but claiming he wasn’t an extremist is laughable and an easily provable falsehood.

“ we have an elected, term limited President governing as he ran on governing”

The things he wants to do aren’t as much of a problem since, as you say, that is what happens to one side when the other party wins. Elections have consequences.

The problem is how he is doing it. The lack of seriousness in misapplying laws with clear meanings (like the AEA), the ignoring of court precedence, the unwillingness to accept the boundaries of the Executive branch in our system, the disdain for the Constitution and the protections it provides, and the desire to openly use the power of his office and the government to punish those who anger or oppose him.

If you think that the Democrats won’t take the massive expansion of Presidential power that Trump is exercising and do just as much damage, but in a radical left way, you are fooling yourself.

“The point I was trying to make is how peaceful the left was (long pause) right before he got shot."

And the fact that he got shot by someone who may or may not be on the left doesn’t change anything, any more than a bunch of torch-wielding Nazis chanting “Jews will not replace us” should be applied as a template for all conservatives.

Anyone who looks at the Oathkeepers and the Three Percenters and the Boogaloo Boys and the myriad other right-wing militias advocating violence on the right and says, “political violence comes from the left” is lying. Or so hopelessly partisan that their politics have made them delusional.

[Life of Brian]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with Kirk’s positions on most culture war issues. On virtually every issue, he lived at the fringe.

Even if you're basing this on your personal experience rather than the distorted bullet-point lists of his supposed beliefs that have been circulating over the last couple of days, isn't the relevant question which of those positions he sought to force upon others?

[Nelson]

Well, he was an ardent Christian theocrat, so we can start with ignoring the First Amendment and allowing a Christian government with Christian beliefs and values used in governance. Right there he is firmly in the “bad person” category.

And it doesn’t require just hating portions of the Constitution to show he was a bad person. His views on marriage (heterosexual and homosexual), religious tests for mayors (and presumably other elected positions), and gay people are horrifying, rely on stereotyping and tropes, and require structural supremacy for white, male, Christians in society, just to name a few.

When your belief system is based on the idea that a certain type of person should be granted superior status by virtue of their religious or biological aspects, you are a bad person.

[Life of Brian]

Right there he is firmly in the “bad person” category.

I'm going on the assumption you're not actually arguing that "bad people" (as subjectively measured by Nelson and his tribe) are subject to extermination. But I'd definitely appreciate a bit more detail on why in fact you feel the label "bad person" is relevant to this particular discussion.

His views on marriage (heterosexual and homosexual), religious tests for mayors (and presumably other elected positions), and gay people are horrifying, rely on stereotyping and tropes, and require structural supremacy for white, male, Christians in society, just to name a few.

Since you didn't respond to it, I take it you don't agree that what really matters is what of his beliefs he tries to force on others -- he's just "a bad person" because he personally believes things you don't. I can't imagine that's the same standard you use for everyone in your life.

In any event, I'll ask you again, more directly this time: are the above supposed beliefs based on words you've personally witnessed coming out of the man's mouth, or just the characterizations of others? If there's anything we're not short on, it's video footage of Charlie expressing himself. I suspect most people who paint him with this sort of wide-eyed brush haven't actually watched much if any of it.

[Nelson]

“ I'm going on the assumption you're not actually arguing that "bad people" (as subjectively measured by Nelson and his tribe) are subject to extermination”

I have clearly and unequivocally stated elsewhere, several times, that I oppose violence in general and political violence in particular. He should not have been murdered, but the number of bad people in the world (because the postmodern idea that everything is relative is complete bullshit) was reduced by one when he died.

I have posted all over about the various bad things he believed and supported and advocated. It isn’t “ subjectively measured by Nelson and his tribe”, I have stated various things h has said and supported that are disgusting, cruel, advocating violence, racist, misogynistic, etc. you may support those things, but the vast majority of people don’t.

Saying that Taylor Swift, a brilliant businesswoman and skilled marketer (even if her music kinda sucks, IMO) should submit to Travis Kelce and take his name when they marry because otherwise she doesn’t mean it is a cocktail of hateful beliefs.

“ I take it you don't agree that what really matters is what of his beliefs he tries to force on others”

Yes, that is very important. But the violent alcoholic who sits at home beating his wife and kids is a bad person, too, and they aren’t trying to get gay marriage banned or abortion banned or saying that a black pilot would concern him or a Muslim mayor should be concerning or that trans people should be dealt with like they were in the 50s and 60s.

And as a political operative, he was actively trying to get people who would implement his platform into office. Do you really think he was just helping people get elected and then hoped they would follow their own agenda?

“ because he personally believes things you don't”

Not at all. I know many people that don’t agree with me who I think are good people. What you do with your oower and who you use it against are very tellong. And he used his against the weak and powerless all the time.

Plus, I’m a libertarian so almost everyone disagrees with me on something.

There is a line between good and bad. For example, raping children and helping the perpetrators avoid prosecution is bad (unless, apparently, the offenders are part of a religious organization).

But you have to admit that believing (and wanting to legislate) that equal protection is a bad thing is also bad. So is calling for violence against trans people. So is calling for violence against gay people because it’s “God’s perfect law”. So is racist beliefs like a black pilot isn’t competent because affirmative action existed. Or that anyone who was chosen, even in the tiniest part, because they were a minority means that they lack the competence to do the job. Or that Jews have funded Socialism in America. Or that gay marriage should be illegal.

I mean, come on. He called Martin Luther King a bad person, but thinks calling for violence against others is good? His moral compass was non-existent.

So no, it isn’t some shallow “he doesn’t agree with me so he’s bad” reasoning. It’s that the things he believed and the things he said and the things he pushed were, by and large, bad things. Cruel things. Bigoted things. Violent things. Exclusionary things.

That is a perfectly valid (and detailed) reason why I said he was a bad person.

“ are the above supposed beliefs based on words you've personally witnessed coming out of the man's mouth, or just the characterizations of others?”

Some are direct quotes, some are paraphrases of things that he said at various different times, some are platform items of Turning Point. I get that you are trying to go for a “he didn’t really say it if you didn’t personally witness every statement” argument, but that is a fallacy and idiotic. He has a large and long history of statements and quotes and his organization’s positions are equally well-known. Pretending that they aren’t real makes you look like a fool.

“ I suspect most people who paint him with this sort of wide-eyed brush haven't actually watched much if any of it.”

Why should anyone waste their time specifically cataloging the various hateful and bigoted things he said, unless they were a paid journalist. I saw enough of Kirk and Turning Point before he was murdered to know what he stood for, some of the more hateful things he said, and his religious, racial and gender bigotry without having to waste more of my life watching the primary sources of his vile hatred.

You know that these are all things he has said and supported. It’s easy to find the quotes and it’s easy to find documentation.

Insisting that someone view every primary source or they can’t say anything is as intellectually bankrupt and morally dishonest as it gets.

[Life of Brian]

That was quite the wall of text. I have to say it's more than a bit surprising that one person on the globe supposedly having this set of beliefs that you don't agree with can put you in such an emotional tailspin. It's hard to shake the idea that there's a bit more to it than that.

I think the part that made be blink the most, though, was: "Why should anyone waste their time specifically cataloging the various hateful and bigoted things he said, unless they were a paid journalist."

The rather obvious answer is: "Because many a person who actually goes down the path of actually trying to validate the claims of the paid journalists rather rapidly discovers that those paid journalists were simply reporting their own gross caricatures as facts, which are then uncritically regurgitated from mouth to ear like a bad game of Telephone."

A couple of specifics:

So is racist beliefs like a black pilot isn’t competent because affirmative action existed.

There's currently a $10,000 prize being offered for video of this one -- make sure to post back here when you collect. (As a spoiler, the challenge is going to be smoothly cropping the "that's not who I am. That's not what I believe" part of the discussion and hoping everyone simultaneously forgets it was there.)

calling for violence against gay people

I'm limited to a few links in a comment so I can't post the full compliment of thoughtful messages from openly gay people who were good friends with Charlie and would (no doubt kindly) tell you to your face that you're utterly full of media-inflamed shit, but how about we start with this segment from Charlie himself when he was being hounded by someone much more like the sort of person you fear, and perhaps you can provide some actual, primary-source counter-evidence in support of your notion that what he actually believes is precisely 180 degrees opposite to what he extensively and eloquently expresses in this video.

[Nelson]

“ That was quite the wall of text”

Yes, I prefer to address the points of others in my posts, not cherry-pick the easiest point to dispute and ignore the rest. That’s the paleocon’s game and I don’t play it.

“ supposedly having this set of beliefs that you don't agree with can put you in such an emotional tailspin”

It isn’t supposedly, it’s his own stated opinions. It’s not because I disagree with him, it is that he believes and supported terrible things (unless you’d like to defend thinking someone isn’t competent because of their skin color, advocating violence against trans people, and disagreeing with equal treatment?). And it isn’t me who’s in a tizzy because I pointed out what a rotten person Kirk was.

“ The rather obvious answer is:”

Yes, if you choose to believe that the only options are to either ignore the history of hateful rhetoric or say that the news is fake. That conveniently frees you from having to accept that things you don’t want to believe are, in fact, true. “Have you seen the primary source” is the coward’s way to deny reality, especially when dozens of similar statements (like those about KBJ’s competence, just for one) follow the same theme of “if there was a racial consideration, the person isn’t competent” or the old racist dog-whistle “they took a white person/man/woman/child/ dog’s job, as if the job belonged to the white person and the desire for a diverse employee/student/viewpoint/music playlist isn’t a valid consideration.

“ There's currently a $10,000 prize being offered for video of this one”

Yeah, the MyPillow guy and other MaGA trols have tried that before and every time they lose, they try to wriggle out. You try for it if you want, but pretending that Charlie Kirk didn’t repeatedly make racist statements is just absurd.

“ can't post the full compliment of thoughtful messages from openly gay people who were good friends with Charlie”

Wait, he had gay friends? Then his diatribes against them and his statements about treating them like they did in the 50s and 60s and his misquoting the Bible to say that gays should be stoned and his desire to have gay marriage banned are just him joking around with his gay friends? What a guy.

Look, he has a history of hateful statements and opposition to equal rights and equal treatment under the law. If you want to tell yourself that he was really a swell guy who loved everyone and was nothing but nice, you go ahead and believe that lie.

But nitpicking about whether saying the Bible says that gays should be stoned and calling it God’s perfect law counts as supporting violence against gays doesn’t change who he was or what he said and did.

The preponderance of his public life was spent saying and doing things that decent people would call cruel or misogynistic or racist or inflammatory. He spent his life punching down. The MAGA/paleocon “he didn’t say exactly that, so ignore the evidence and the sentiment” is dishonest.

“ primary-source counter-evidence in support of your notion that what he actually believes is precisely 180 degrees opposite to what he extensively and eloquently expresses in this video.”

The quote is: “And it says, by the way, Ms. Rachel, might want to crack open that Bible of yours, in a lesser reference, part of the same part of scripture is in Leviticus 18, is that thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death, just saying. So, Ms. Rachel, you quote Leviticus 19, love your neighbor as yourself. The chapter before affirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”

Oh, but I guess if he says nice things, too, you can ignore his misquoting of the Bible?

Just saying.

[Life of Brian]

You try for it if you want, but pretending that Charlie Kirk didn’t repeatedly make racist statements is just absurd.

It sounds like you're saying the actual facts -- the actual words he said, the context in which he said them, the multiple follow-up conversations he had about the controversial exchange and the broader topic, and the scores of non-white-skinned people in Charlie's life who unequivocally say there wasn't a racist bone in his body -- just don't matter. It's basically feeling like you've walled yourself in with a non-falsifiable, faith-based belief system, and there's just no point in engaging with actual facts because you've already made up your mind. That's your prerogative, of course.

Wait, he had gay friends? Then his diatribes against them and his statements about treating them like they did in the 50s and 60s and his misquoting the Bible to say that gays should be stoned and his desire to have gay marriage banned are just him joking around with his gay friends? What a guy.

Responding to what I said about blindly relying on characterizations of others by just continuing to throw out nonsense like this just makes my point for me. Even Stephen King had the intellectual honesty to admit he had done that with "gays should be stoned" and that he was wrong. (And that article specifically deals with your crop-quoted language below -- even links to the video where it came from.)

Speaking of videos, did you watch any, much less all 4:40, of the one I linked? Of the many things you had to say, that was conspicuously absent.

[bernard11]

“ I take it you don't agree that what really matters is what of his beliefs he tries to force on others”

Why do you say Kirk wasn't trying to force his beliefs on others? He Was a professional political activist, seeking to have his beliefs enacted into law

Doesn't that constitute trying to force his beliefs on others?

[Life of Brian]

Why do you say Kirk wasn't trying to force his beliefs on others?

I think exchanges like this one speak for themselves in that regard.

[Absaroka]

"Why do you say Kirk wasn't trying to force his beliefs on others? He Was a professional political activist, seeking to have his beliefs enacted into law

Doesn't that constitute trying to force his beliefs on others?"

I mean, sure, in a democracy you can view advocating for a law to be trying to get the 51% to impose their preferences on the 49%. But can that really be an undesirable activity? That's what MLK did, that's what the Sierra Club and MADD and any other advocate does. So, sure, when the Sierra Club advocates for setting aside wilderness, they are hoping to get a majority to force their beliefs on the minority who wants to drill, baby, drill. But advocating like that seems part and parcel or democracy. Everyone saying 'I don't care, let everyone do what they want' is anarchy, not democracy.

[not guilty]

Uh, no one can be "forced" to believe a damn thing.

As at least one court has opined:

It is hard for us to acquit the ancient law of that unreasoning instinct that impels the civilised man to kick, or consign to eternal perdition, the chair over which he has stumbled. But law which would not confess to sanctioning this instinct still finds grave difficulties in its way if it endeavors to detect and appreciate the psychical element in guilt and innocence. "The thought of man shall not be tried, for the devil himself knoweth not the thought of man": thus at the end of the middle ages spoke Brian C.J. in words that might well be the motto for the early history of the criminal law.

United States v. Cordoba-Hincapie, 825 F.Supp. 485, 490 (E.D.N.Y. 1993), quoting Frederick Pollock & Frederic William Maitland, The History of English Law 474-75 (2d ed. 1968).

I have observed that the words "force" and "forced" are quite frequently misused in the comment threads on this blog. As I have suggested before, perhaps before doing so, a commenter should first put an unlubricated three inch butt plug to its intended purpose. That will give an idea of what "forced" actually means (or so I am told).

[David Nieporent]

Kirk's own views were right in the political mainstream, and mostly what he contributed to was civil discourse.

Kirk was a MAGA troll. His tone might have been civil — no ranting and raving, no racial epithets — but cordially lying is a bad thing, not something to celebrate.

[Nelson]

“ Kirk's own views were right in the political mainstream, and mostly what he contributed to was civil discourse.”

In no world was Charlie Kirk “in the political mainstream”. You couldn’t even see the suburbs of the mainstream from his ideological front lawn.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"I am also puzzled by the gun nuts' approach to the 2nd amendment. Is armed resistance against tyranny only OK if you don't support the tyrant? Am I the fool for expecting at least a minimum of consistency?"

In other words, why would anyone engage in "armed resistance" consistent with the 2d Amendment against a tyrannical government which they otherwise support?

I agree, they should, but it seems to me that, in practice, anyone who supports a "tyrannical government" in the first place is not likely to have been much of a "principled constitutionalist" beforehand--or they would have switched over to opposing such a government already.

But as the MAGA movement fractures over the economy and Epstein (and, probably, Jews) some of them may eventually twig that their Beloved Leader is just using them for his own ends, and that his feigned "reverence" for the 2d Amendment--like everything else--is actually conditional.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I said above, being on the losing end of an election is always experienced as a bit oppressive, which is why we should delegate as little of our lives to government as possible in the first place.

But anybody who thinks our current government qualifies as "tyrannical", who didn't equally complain about, oh, the last century of American government? They're just griping that they aren't getting their way despite losing an election.

Seriously, during my life, even, US governments have had people burned alive in their own homes. Show some perspective, already!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Despite the unambiguous current trajectory, Brett says, "keep hope alive!"

[Sarcastr0]

It’s pretty silly to see anyone at this point claiming this is a normal administration doing normal presidential things.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not seeing any American citizens being relocated to concentration camps. We don't have government agencies going around laying siege to church compounds and setting them ablaze, either. And, frankly, Trump's immigration efforts don't look all that extreme compared to Operation Wetback.

I think you're suffering from more than a little presentism and lack of historical perspective.

You got used to a kind of 1 1/2 party system, where the federal Republican party could be counted on to leave Democratic party policies largely in place when it had the majority. So you find reversion to the historical norm of an actual 2 party system where policies actually CHANGE with administrations kind of disorienting.

But, really, that's what you're reacting to: A reversion to normal American two party politics, after a few decades of abnormality.

[Sarcastr0]

OK so no citizens in concentration camps and the not even normal in it's time Branch Davidian thing is your bar for a normal administration.

That's not going to play. Your attempts to normalize Trump are on their face ridiculous at this point.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, yes, Trump's attacks on the bureaucracy, which hit uncomfortably close to home, are in that same vein; Civil service protections as we know them today only date back to the 1970's, and have become part of why that 1 1/2 party system exists at the federal level. It's quite natural that anybody trying to restore a federal 2 party system would have to attack them; You can't have a change of policy with administrations if the bureaucracy is free to continue pursuing the same party's priorities regardless of the election results!

[Brett Bellmore]

"and the not even normal in it's time Branch Davidian thing"

It was a lot more "normal" at the time than you'd want to confront, which is exactly why the militia movement was seeing explosive growth. The "Branch Davidian thing" was just the biggest and most public of it's sort, the culmination of a long and escalating series of incidents where the federal government had, bluntly, murdered inconvenient people.

It's just more presentism on your part, Sarcastr0. You routinely lack historical perspective.

[Sarcastr0]

And there we are. You like it, based on your pinched little ideology, so it can't be tyranny.

I really hope I never become so blindly ends justifies the means as you.

[Joe_dallas]

Branch davidians was a clinton/janet reno f--u-

[Sarcastr0]

Trump number one among people who carry weird grudges about shit from over 30 years ago.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Branch davidians was a clinton/janet reno f--u-"

That's a common mistake. The frank truth is that it was mostly a GHWB thing. Reagan had brought the BATF to heel, but when Bush took over, he slipped the choke chain off them and said "sic'em!". And they started going wild.

Ruby Ridge happened Bush's watch, and the Branch Davidian attack was planned on his watch, by people who'd been promoted instead of fired for what they did at Ruby Ridge.

I'm not saying that Reno wasn't absurdly easy for the BATF to manipulate, and you weren't going to get any push back from the Clinton administration on going after gun owners, but that massacre really was as much Bush's fault as Clinton's.

[bernard11]

Civil service protections as we know them today only date back to the 1970's, and have become part of why that 1 1/2 party system exists at the federal level. It's quite natural that anybody trying to restore a federal 2 party system would have to attack them;

You make it sound as if the protections just fell from the sky. They didn't. They were established by statute. The President has no power to rescind them. If he wants to get rid of the protections he needs to get Congress to pass a law doing so.

You're blithe statement about attacking them suggests that you don't give a shit about the laws or the Constitution. Please stop pretending you do.

It also belies your claims that you like Trump's ends, but not his means. You cheerfully shrug off his means, as long as they produce what you want.

[Commenter_XY]

It is not a problem to fire federal bureaucrats, Brett. 😉

[bernard11]

I'm not seeing any American citizens being relocated to concentration camps.

And why give a shit if non-citizens are relocated? Right, Brett?

[bernard11]

It is not a problem to fire federal bureaucrats, Brett

Even if doing so is illegal? I guess if Trump wants to do something the law doesn't matter to you, right?

[Krayt]

As I said above, being on the losing end of an election is always experienced as a bit oppressive, which is why we should delegate as little of our lives to government as possible in the first place.

Precisely. One feels oppressed on loss, because there's way too much power being slung around.

The proper solution is to reduce government's power, but that gets in the way of power mongers and their spouses mysteriously manifesting Gregory House levels of investment savant-hood.

The purpose of government, and the reason to go into government, is to get in the way, to direct inconveivable amounts of money, to make a better life for yourself and your family.

30 years ago, I was in Europe, and one week the BBC's big news was protesting of millions of college students in India, against new set asides of 50% of government jobs for the lower castes. I asked some Indian colleagues what was up with that.

He explained you go into government to be corrupt to, his words, make a better life for yourself and your family. He gave an example, the guy who approved new buildings charges a "fee" of 10% of the cost of the building.

I didn't fully realize it at the time, as it would take decades to formulate, but the seed of The Fundamental Theorem of Government had been planted.

Interestingly, this college protest perversion reared its ugly head again just a few years ago in Bangladesh or somewhere nearby. I was not a one-off.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I am not. But"

Classic. Everything before the But is just filler, he only means what he says after it, which is "SOB deserved it".

[Sarcastr0]

Pretty high horse strawman from the guy who roots for prison murders all the time.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nobody needs them to vote in favor of the political opposition's nominees. Republicans have a Senate majority, remember?

All that was needed was for them to be willing to allow a vote to be taken, and THAT is the point where the intransigence came in.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We gave Clinton and Obama their people.

[Magister]

Clinton and Obama appointees were often blocked by Republicans (most notably Merrick Garland).

[mulched]

True, some high-profile or controversial nominees got blocked.

What's going on now is different in that even the non-controversial nominees for low level positions are getting held up. Democrats have not given unanimous consent or a voice vote to even a single nominee so far.

That's very unusual. In Obama, Trump 1.0, and Biden, 90+ percent of nominees were approved without full debate and recorded vote.

Just yesterday, Democrats turned down a compromise to vote on a bloc of 10 non-controversial nominees from the same committee at the same time.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5498691-senators-deal-nuclear-option-rule-change-nominees/

The obstruction is the point, and it's something new. So, yay Democrats, I guess.

[Nelson]

“ controversial nominees”

Controversy is in the eye of the beholder. There are those who claim that Robert Bork wasn’t controversial. That doesn’t make it so.

[mulched]

They're not "controversial nominees" because the Democrats aren't even making a controversy of the nominees. They're just insisting on a full debate schedule and recorded vote for every single Assistant Deputy to the Second Assistant Undersecretary, whether they have an objection or not.

The obstruction is the point, and it's something new. They got steam-rolled now, which makes the Senate a worse place, so yay Democrats, I guess.

[Nelson]

“ The obstruction is the point, and it's something new.”

No, it isn’t. There is a Supreme Court Justice that can point to the most extreme version of obstruction and know it’s the only reason they have a seat. Nothing, ever, has surpassed that piece of obstruction. And if we’re lucky, nothing ever will.

Part of the problem lies in the drunken, abusive assholes Trump likes to nominate. Who are also, as it turns out, terrible at operational security. Among other job requirements.

[Martinned]

I see no reason why opposition Senators should do that. When the Senate is controlled by the other party than the White House, the White House and the Senate should compromise on a slate of people they can both live with. The US would be a much healthier society if it did business that way.

[Jazzizhep]

Republicans tried the whole compromise thing under W. After they threatened the nuclear option, they compromised and dropped a few nominees. Remind me again what Reid did a few years later.

I didn’t like it at the time, but hey, 6-3 SCOTUS is a wonderful thing.

[Martinned]

I didn't (just) mean judges. I meant all nominees.

[Riva]

What is meant by their intransigence? You profess to be so informed of current events yet are somehow oblivious on this? The democrats are engaging in unprecedented coordinated actions to block and delay nearly every Trump nominee. Senate democrats oppose unanimous consent motions on every Trump nominee when traditionally non-controversial nominations pass without extensive debate or roll-call votes. They’re forcing procedural and cloture votes, and demanding pointless extensive scrutiny and debate to slow down the confirmation process. No other administration has ever been subject to these tactics in the blatantly bad faith, coordinated manner employed by democrats.

[Nelson]

“ The democrats are engaging in unprecedented coordinated actions to block and delay nearly every Trump nominee”

Apparently you missed the “it’s too close to an election” (a year out) followed immediately by one of the shortest confirmation processes in history, right before an election.

Unprecedented doesn’t mean what you think it means. Mitch McConnell defined unprecedented obstruction and no kne has ever come close.

[Commenter_XY]

RE: Charlie Kirk murder

Are you telling me that the same gov't that can fly spirit bombers 36 hours and bomb the shit out of three sites in a distant country, can spy on any point on the planet with a dizzying array of spy satellites, but somehow cannot identify a person they have extensive surveillance video upon. What is wrong with that picture?

This leaves aside the question of political assassination as a means of civic intimidation becoming normalized.

If the perp is caught, does this murder warrant the death penalty?

[Martinned]

You're right. It must be a Trumpist false flag.

[Don Nico]

Next thing, you'll be telling us that it was the analog of the murder of Horst Wessel

[Frank Drackman]

I'm not a Nazi, but Horst's song is a catchy tune with a beat you can Goose-Step to. Like Nena's 99 Luftballons, it's much better in the original German.

[Michael P]

The bombing you mention was repeatedly planned for many years. I suspect it's just a matter of time before they identify Charlie Kirk's (apparent) shooter.

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox reminded the public that Utah still has the death penalty, and he intend to pursue it. Donald Trump also wants to pursue it from the federal level.

[Frank Drackman]

Not only does Utah still execute murderers, they have the option of using a Firing Squad if the drugs for Lethal Injection aren't available. Last used in 2010, they use 30-30 Winchester rounds from 25 feet, so even Dr. Ed2 might be able to hit the target (I'd still give him the blank round). Philippines once had a contraption where the weight of the condemned sitting on a chair started a timer that fired a rifle autonomously sparing any guilt feelings for a Human Executioner, must be a Catholic thing.

Frunk

[Bwaaah]

Was Fronk a cameo? Is he dead? Is this a rotation? Unconstrained urges for innocuous change? Did I miss Frenk?

[David Nieporent]

Did anyone ask Donald Trump what federal crime he thinks the guy committed?

[hobie]

Like Limbaugh, Carlson and Shapiro, Kirk was just another racist outrage peddler getting wealthy off the rubes. I doubt his removal merits the death penalty

[Dr. Ed 2]

I doubt yours would either.

You have three generations of pissed off white males, just don't forget that.

[Frank Drackman]

Dr. Ed 2 with a decent retort (for once)
of course it's Hobie-stank, who I picture as that Nerdy Fat Kid in "The Far Side" comics, you know, the one pushing with all his might on the door labeled "Pull"
Dr. Ed 2 vs Hobie-Stank in an Oxford Style Debate? I'd pay to see that,
wouldn't exactly be Lincoln/Douglas (More like Buckley/Gore Vidal)

Frank

[Randal]

The pissed-off white males appear to be turning on each other.

But you're right, this is the real legacy of TPUSA: grievance politics.

[Nelson]

“ I doubt his removal merits the death penalty”

The death penalty shouldn’t exist. That said, because it does this is exactly the sort of thing that it should address. Killing mentally incompetent children and innocent people because it makes you feel manly is different than putting the harshest possible penalty on political violence. This is as bad as January 6th and should be treated as such.

However it’s impossible to argue that a world with Charlie Kirk is a better world than one without him.

[Riva]

Yeah, no mental illness on the left.

[Kazinski]

They got him.

https://x.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/1966492495392489849?t=cexUhkRfUNoTPD6D5eBsWw&s=19

Tyler Robinson, I ironically I saw the news on Tommy Robinson's X.

[Sarcastr0]

Of course you follow Tommy Robinson.

[Kazinski]

Absolutely. I believe in free speech.

I will also be following his march in London tomorrow.

[Sarcastr0]

Believing in free speech doesn't mean you gotta be a fan of white nationalists.

[Nelson]

These days, on the right, it unfortunately does. Hopefully they will decouple at some point in the future.

[Kazinski]

I don't know if he's as much of a White Nationalist as you think he is, one of his biggest supporters is Ben Habib, former vice chair of Reform, who is Pakistani.

https://ab-melchizedek.medium.com/ben-habib-looks-to-be-the-uks-best-option-but-ec173900b00c

[Sarcastr0]

As of August 3 of this year, 'one of his greatest friends is a nonwhite!'

I've read his quotes about white people being raped and displaced in the UK. He's a racist awful human.

And you're a fan. I'm actually surprised you're not more openly bigoted like some on here. At least about Muslims if no one else.

[Kazinski]

No, I said biggest political supporter.

There is also not much difference between Robinson and Kemi Badenoch.

You just don't seem to get the issue is hordes of illegals that see themselves as conquerors.

Really I am just absolutely mystified you can't understand why people are upset that the incidence of reported rape in England and Wales has more than quadrupled in the last 10 years. And the two main political parties keep promising to do something about it, but the only thing that happens is the people who complain about it get arrested.

[JRipplefireEsquire]

You're right. The technical tools are within our grasp to prevent more carnage. We only need the political will to get off this status quo of partisan talking points keeping us paralysed.

The recent Catholic school shooter passed legal gun screenings and had some firearms which would have not been outlawed by assault weapon enhancements. But being dressed all in black and having several guns on him, approaching a soft target, could have easily flagged him to a smart security camera.

The recent New York City NFL office killer approached a crowded high rise in broad daylight toting an assault weapon with a large ammo magazine A smart security camera could have flagged him.

The recent street killer of two elders in their home was ringing doorbells and had violence convictions and parole records that could have been linked by a smart facial recognition camera.

The recent Charlotte light rail killer also had violence and parole records that could have been linked by a smart facial recognition camera. An officer alerted to his presence and going to the rail car might have deterred his sudden murder of the unsuspecting woman by his presence and might have found his concealed weapon upon investigation.

Even the Kirk killing by an assassin with no criminal record could have been flagged in advance if the cameras he appeared on as limping recognized the slight possibility that he was carrying a weapon in his pant leg and combined with approaching a highly politically contentious assembly in a soft target posed a reasonable suspicion of danger.

So while I’m not averse to further gun regulation which is capable of 2nd Amendment compatibility, I think smart public camera surveillance is far less exploited where it could have helped where gun regulations often fall short or don’t even apply, as in the two above knife-only killings.

[not guilty]

"If the perp is caught, does this murder warrant the death penalty?"

Utah is a death penalty state. https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter5/76-5-S202.html

I haven't yet found a pdf of the arrest warrant or supporting probable cause affidavit, but MSNBC reports that the affiant believed Robinson shot Kirk “in a circumstance that put many around him at grave risk of death.” https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/utah-death-penalty-charlie-kirk-shooting-rcna230792 That could elevate the grade of the offense to aggravated murder pursuant to Utah Code § 76-5-202(2)(a)(iii): "the actor knowingly created a great risk of death to another individual other than the deceased individual and the actor".

I don't know whether the circumstances of the fatal shooting here would constitute a federal crime or not.

[Martinned]

Because betting markets are legal now in the US, academics can do studies like this:

The Market Value of Fed Independence: High-Frequency Evidence from a Natural Experiment

Jérôme Taillard, Linghang Zeng

We study how financial markets price threats to Federal Reserve independence by analyzing one of the most direct challenges to Chair Powell’s tenure on July 16, 2025. Following media reports of escalating efforts to dismiss him, prediction markets sharply repriced dismissal risk within a two-hour window, creating a unique high-frequency setting to estimate market responses. Regression estimates imply that the certainty of Powell’s dismissal could erase $0.88–1.51 trillion in total market capitalization. Losses were larger for financial and credit-dependent firms, consistent with the credit channel of monetary policy transmission, and for high-beta firms. Treasury yields declined at short maturities but increased at longer horizons, steepening the yield curve, while the dollar depreciated against major currencies. These results show that markets price not only near-term policy-rate expectations but also the Federal Reserve’s ability to act independently.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5436816

(h/t Matt Levine)

[Malika la Maize]

Kaz Has a Sad (Doesn’t Look Great!)

President Trump spent his 2024 campaign promising Americans he'd lower grocery prices.

Virtually all major grocery categories are now more expensive than they were a year ago, some substantially so

https://www.axios.com/2025/09/11/trump-tariffs-grocery-prices-rise-cpi

“We're going to get the prices down. We have to get them down. It's too much. Groceries, cars, everything. We're going to get the prices down.”
Speech: Donald Trump Holds a Campaign Rally in Erie, Pennsylvania, Roll Call(September 29, 2024).

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oh, come on. Trump was just "being a little bit sarcastic" about lowering consumer prices. What he really meant, therefore, was that he'd raise prices--and he's kept that promise. They love that about him!

[Malika la Maize]

Locker room talk!

[Frank Drackman]

Must be sad to be in a financial state where you care about prices. Me? I'm like Bush the Elder circa 1992, amazed at the Checkout Scanners.
Paid $70 for 2 Old Fashioneds and a Tall Dos Equis at DFW recently (it was a long layover, 2 hours)
Of course, that's including the $20 Tip, and the drinks were actually in an Old Fashioned Glass, Makers Mark, and the guy smoked the Orange Peel with a Torch like he was friggin David Copperfield (or was it he made my $70 disappear like David Copperfield) The Dos Equis had a lime, and salt around the rim (Like Queenie likes it, but with an entirely different rim)
You know what I won't spring for though? TSA Pre-Check, not because of the cost, I just love mixing with the Hoi Polloi, especially now that you don't have to take your shoes off, with the way the lines snake back and forth at the bigger airports, gets you some close up views of some Prime (Redacted)
It's just money, you can't take it with you (if you can, I'm gonna be pissed)

Fronk

[Malika la Maize]

“amazed at the Checkout Scanners.”

And English, it seems.

[Frank Drackman]

at least I got the part about you and the Rims correct.

[Bwaaah]

God: "Did you bring your spending money?"

Fronk: "I thought the good times were all for you, Big Guy. Looks like I'm shit out of luck now. How long's this part supposed to last?"

God: "Strictly speaking, eternity has no analog in time. Anyway, we have a buddy system here. You can confer with your buddy. Here she comes now. Qu..."

I'd spend it all here if I were you, Frank. A hedge against possibility.

[Kazinski]

The 2.6 y/y inflation in food at home could be better, but it's not bad at all especially compared to the 11% in 2022 and 5% in 2023.

[Martinned]

And in 2024?

[Kazinski]

That was 1.2, looks like a slight snapback from the previous 2 years.

Food price inflation totaled 22.5% over the 4 years of the Biden Administration.

[Malika la Maize]

Scrutiny Mounts of F.B.I. Under Patel as Kirk’s Killer Remains at Large

Already, a series of missteps by Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director, in recent months have invited worries that he has eroded public confidence in the agency.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/us/politics/fbi-patel-kirk-shooting.html

Seems like firing career agents and putting podcasters in charge may not have been ideal….

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I was so surprised to see the Ka$h tweets, expertly contradicting each other...

[Mr. Bumble]

"... have invited worries that he has eroded public confidence in the agency."
When was there "public confidence" in the agency? When Efrem Zimbalist Jr. was an FBI agent?

[Magister]

In 2014, 59% of Americans believed the FBI was doing an excellent or good job.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Apparent fixed-camera footage showed up on late night news. It was described as footage of the alleged Kirk murder suspect making his escape. It looked like output from a surprisingly high-resolution device, edited to deliver an appearance of zoomed-in/zoomed-out isolation on the subject, and panning to follow his escape route. In short, it looked like a Hollywood portrayal of a scripted performance, with human intelligence deployed real-time to focus viewer attention, and to exclude distractions. Which is to say the news footage looked unlike any surveillance camera output I have seen previously.

I am so accustomed to Hollywood's scripted performances that I had to do a double-take. With the second take necessary to notice the unlikelihood that a surveillance camera would have done any such thing without a director and/or cinematographer controlling its operation.

I mention that not to imply that the footage actually was scripted, nor to suggest that it was fake, but just to say for whatever it is worth that it appears remarkable, And if the footage as shown looks the way it does because of a combination of a wide-angle lens, a high-resolution sensor, and post-production editing to optimize its explanatory power—which I assume is the explanation—that ought to be explained to viewers who see it.

A remoter possibility is that the footage as shown is the output of multiple cameras, some closer to various parts of the overall scene than others, with output digitally spliced into a continuous presentation. But I think that is a long-shot guess; if it did explain what was shown, the continuity and lighting consistency achieved would be remarkable. Much more likely seems an assumption of a fixed camera with edited output, from a surprisingly high-resolution sensor.

As presented without explanation, that footage could become basis for any number of conspiracy theories. Here is what it looks like, click on the bit with duration 1:03:

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c206zm81z4gt

[Malika la Maize]

I mention that not to imply that the footage actually was scripted, nor to suggest that it was fake

Don’t worry, someone will come along soon and do that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I'd tend to think that's from multiple cameras, I count at least two, possibly three. You can tell from the way the angles change on the cars as it pans and shifts from one camera to the next. These are light pole mounted cameras in the parking area.

I do agree there should be more release of unedited footage in cases like this. Transparency should be a spinal reflex.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Like with the Epstein files...

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Note my partial agreement below.

But be careful about interpreting angle changes. If you crop discontinuous frames out of an image made by an especially wide angle lens, you expect reliable verticals only in the exact center of the image. If the lens was pointed upward, you expect increasing convergence of the verticals upward (with the convergence shown relative to crops cut from opposite sides of the frame). If the lens was pointed downward, the opposite-crop verticals converge downward at the edges of the frame. That latter instance could account for what you see at the end of the clip, on the assumption that part of the video was cropped from the right edge of a wide-angle shot made with the lens pointed below horizontal.

I do not see enough information in the video to permit me to say with certainty how many cameras may have been used, and do not rule out just one of them. Apparent editing cuts could have been used to slightly adjust framing emphasis, or between zoom-in/zoom-out changes to framing, without necessarily implying a switch to another camera with a different directional orientation.

[Stephen Lathrop]

After reviewing my own link, I think output from at least two cameras must have been spliced to deliver an impression of continuity. I note also that the scene as shown in the link omits parts of a continuous presentation as seen by me on television last night.

The BBC link also shows a fairly obvious edit at the moment the subject prepares to jump off the building— an edit which was less obvious in the TV presentation, which also lacked the narrative presenter shown in the BBC link.

I think what showed up on TV last night may have been modified and subtly improved subsequent to what you see in the BBC link above.

Once again, with emphasis, I do not intend to suggest malfeasance or conspiracy—quite the opposite. I think what has been presented lends itself to misinterpretations which would be unwise to entertain.

[Krayt]

When the camera zooms in as he jumps down, I think they just used whatever video editing they had to focus in on a section of the larger frame. I don't think there was some Hollywood-like robo tracker following some moving thing in the image, much less some director faking up a focus shot.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You should see what can now be done with a simple, consumer action camera like an Insta360 X5. It makes this video look pedestrian in comparison. I have no idea what campus surveillance cameras are capable of these days, but it doesn't seem to me like it would require a film crew to achieve those results.

Also, looking at the other pictures shown on your link, I see the "person of interest" and his black rucksack, but does the recovered rifle break down so that it would fit inside? He could have planted it nearby earlier, I suppose.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Cameras can recognize faces. If it is a camera monitoring a roof, where you usually don't have people, could it be programmed to follow anyone it finds?

[Brett Bellmore]

It wasn't a camera monitoring a roof. It was a camera monitoring a parking lot, that had the roof in its field of view.

[hobie]

My personal conspiracy for this is that the shooter is a Russian asset. Putin knows Americans are easily massaged into internecine conflict with each other with just a little low-cost Russian meddling. Plus, that was a fairly impressive well-trained sniper shot.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Putin would have ordered the shooter use an "assault rifle", though, to maximize the stress this would place on the US gun control debate. An "assault rifle" ban would be much easier to achieve than anything more comprehensive.

By using a simple, bolt-action hunting rifle, the assassin has shown that effective "common sense gun control" capable of preventing this kind of political violence would need to cover ALL firearms, not just the "evil-looking" ones, and remove them from circulation in the US entirely.

[hobie]

I'm a little bummed as well that it wasn't an assault rifle. Getting offed by his preferred student slayer would have been deliciously poetic

[Frank Drackman]

His name is Charlie Kirk

[not guilty]

Yes, Frank, his name is Charlie Kirk.

Do you get your boxer shorts at K Mart, 400 Oak Street in Cincinnati? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cso7nzw8j0I

[Frank Drackman]

JFK was killed with a bolt action rifle, MLK Jr. with a pump action one, Malcolm the Xth with a sawed off Shotgun (they should make those Illegal, or at least highly restricted, oh wait, they are) RFK with a .22 Revolver, Brenda Spencer (She didn't like Mondays) used a .22 Semi Automatic Rifle, Meir Kahane with a .357 Magnum Revolver, and Nicole Simpson with a Knife (I hope they find the guy some day)

Frink

[Malika la Maize]

So, Francis, do you not know basic third grade English rules of capitalization, punctuation and such after what you say is extended schooling in the US or are you consciously performing some sad emulation of our weird POTUS? Apart from your past explanations of “I’m left handed” and ESL.

I mean, both are incredibly pathetic, but which is it?

[Frank Drackman]

I've told you a Gazillion times, I went to Pubic Screw-els, many of them were "ESL" (Ebonics was the Primary Lingua Franca)
Only 2 Engrish courses in College (Literature isn't really "Engrish")
where they treated Grammar like the outdated, unimportant, trivial subject it is, I think we had one test on it, rest of "Engrish 101/102" was the TA talking about his PhD Thesis...
No Engrish Grammar required in Med-Screwel, and my Left Handed Scrawl was a "Feature, not a Bug" we were actually encouraged to write illegibly, harder to be used as evidence in a Malpractice Suit. (and just try writing left handed in one of those old fashioned Medical Charts that were in 3 Ring notebooks)
and there were no "Accommodations" in 1982, Today they have the Menu in Braile at the Taco Bell Drive-threw, I took the MCAT at UAB, sitting in a cramped Movie Theater Style Auditorium Seat, with one of those fold-down (Right Handed of course) desks, and I Still scored 95th %
Only reason I got in, (Oh, I had the 3.8 Science GPA, everyone did, even back then)

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

That story is full of shit. Or, in Francis language:

that Story is Full
of )Shit

What a QAnon Shaman level weirdo. MAGA brings all the nuts to the yard!

[Bwaaah]

Your comments serve as resentful margins that frame Frank Drackman's rich prose.

"Call for Dr. Letters. Dr. Letters to the courtesy phone. Call for Dr. Letters." (It's your mom. It's time for your cod liver oil.)

(Dr. Letters: "Oh, look, Frankie's boy Bwaaah made a funny.")

[Michael P]

Assault rifles are already extensively regulated. Legally, they're machineguns. Normal citizens cannot buy any that were made after 1986, and around a dozen states prohibit new transfers or ownership entirely.

By your argument, a left-winger would order the use of a hunting rifle in order to maximize the political mileage for gun grabbers. However, circumstances make Trump's more targeted ban look more sensible.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh, Michael, Michael, Michael (I'm sounding like a "The Office" character)
You're using the term "Assault Rifle" in an outdated (but correct) way.
You'll notice the Marxist Stream Media has moved to "Assault-STYLE Rifle" "Military-Style Rifle", it's a "Style" like Espadrilles.

and like trying to explain how the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave, it's like trying to explain Quantum Mechanics to Tim Waltz, but briefly, for the Huddled Asses yearning to eat for free,
An assault rifle is a select fire rifle that uses an intermediate-rifle cartridge and a detachable magazine. Assault rifles were first put into mass production and accepted into widespread service during World War II. The first assault rifle to see major usage was the German StG 44, a development of the earlier Mkb 42. While immediately after World War II, NATO countries were equipped with battle rifles, the development of the M16 rifle during the Vietnam War prompted the adoption of assault rifles by the rest of NATO. By the end of the 20th century, assault rifles had become the standard weapon in most of the world's armies, replacing full-powered rifles and submachine guns in most roles.[8] The two most successful modern assault rifles are the AK-47 and the M16 designs and their derivatives

[Sarcastr0]

I'm glad you took that post seriously.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Hence, my use of the text style, "assault rifle", rather than assault rifle. I suppose I could have used the entirely made-up term "assault weapon", but I didn't. My bad. (I should add that you're making a distinction which very few people--and even fewer of the people who you should be addressing it to--even understand. It will convince no one. Maybe you're just trying to reassure yourself?)

A left-winger who wanted to completely fail would do that, yes. Any left-winger who wanted to achieve the realistically maximum gun control result, however, would use the nastiest-looking, most photogenic "assault weapon" available.

[Michael P]

I'm not sure why your core defense is that you *meant* to use misleading words.

The meaning of "assault rifle" is such a recurring theme in the comments here that I think most readers already know it, and don't need my explanation to understand it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I don't think it matters one way or the other.

[Poxigah146]

The left outted itself with the shooting at the Navy Yard some years back. They said that that was an example of why we needed common sense gun control. But the shooter used a regular shotgun, and used it go to take a cop's pistol.

It's clear that there is no gun, shotgun or bolt-action rifle, that they think civilians should be permitted to own.

[ThePublius]

"Plus, that was a fairly impressive well-trained sniper shot."

No, actually. The range was something between 140 and 200 yards. For someone skilled with a rifle (as I am), shooting off a rest with a scope, that is a fairly trivial shot. The target was the size of the 10-ring on a typical 200 yard target (7" diameter). Off a rest with a scope and a bolt action rifle I can bang 10's all day long.

[Frank Drackman]

and with a common 6-18X variable power Telescopic sight it's like shooting from 10-30 yards. I hit 2 Liter Coke bottles at 400 yards all the time. (If we're ever invaded by 2 Liter Coke bottles, I'm your man!)

[John F. Carr]

Hitting the neck makes me think the shot was probably several inches off target. I figure the intended target was the head or chest. A little less accurate than the shot against Trump which missed the target by 4-5 inches.

[ThePublius]

Yes, as I speculated in the Wednesday Open Thread, it looked like an intended head shot with a "trigger yank," perhaps due to nerves, that usually results in a hit low and right for a right handed shooter.

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
I am not a video expert but I agree that the clips shown appears to be a composite made from the output of several cameras. The resolution looks to be good but not better that many surveillance cameras that I have seen used recently to scan areas for humans starting wildfires

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, to even guess how good the sensor resolution is, you have to factor in the angle encompassed by the lens used full-frame. If you suspect you are looking at a cropped image, you do not know that angle, and it can be hard to guess.

Experience with image distortions characteristic of various framing angles can help with a guess. But for more direct evidence, zoomed-in visual examination of a cropped image can deliver approximate inferences about sensor resolution, based on how well-resolved fine details of approximately known sizes appear to be—such as grains of sand on a beach, or bird feather details shown in good light. But that is still complicated by expectation that such details will be better resolved with longer lenses, and less resolved with wider-angle lenses, which is the unknown factor your problem began with.

Note also that as sensor resolution increases in one dimension, data storage requirements go up in proportion to the square of that resolution value. And surveillance cameras designed to deliver anything but jerky-looking motion need to make and store a lot of images per second, and keep doing it continuously 24/7, which means even interim storage requirements can become large, expensive to manage, and slow to review. Computers depicted on NCIS deliver analytical performance and speeds still unavailable elsewhere. Hence the practicality of relatively low-resolution surveillance cameras, and improbability for high-resolution sensors routinely used for extended periods.

Also, you might suppose with some accuracy that there is emphasis in surveillance camera design to optimize low-light performance. For reasons related to electronic limits, high-resolution sensors deliver less-satisfactory contrast in low light conditions, making optimization of low-light imaging a trade-off exercise between opposite-tending requirements for two factors: resolution vs. contrast. As sensor capacity to record the finest variations in contrast decreases, adjacent pixels become more likely to get equal values, which degrades resolution.

Then, consider that the resolution vs. contrast result is affected by the length of exposure used for each frame. Longer per-frame exposures ameliorate somewhat that tendency of low light to degrade contrast. That comes at the cost of lost data with fewer frames, but with the advantages of lower cost sensors, less expensive data storage, and quicker review.

Trade-offs drive such decisions no matter what technological advancement has delivered. And lately, the technological advances in sensor resolution have been coming slower than previously. It may take some unforeseen technical revolution to deliver sensor performance much better than the best available for at least the last 5 years.

For at least twenty years, the standard for high-speed digital sports photography, and for some other imaging tasks demanding short exposures in low-light conditions (birds in flight, under jungle canopy), has been to reduce sensor resolution, in favor of improved contrast. The highest-performance, most in-demand, most-expensive camera bodies from Canon and Nikon, target that market segment. They typically feature sensor resolutions notably smaller than the highest available in less-expensive camera bodies from those same companies. Trade-offs.

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
Thank you for the lengthy reply. My only experience in this area was as part of a workshop on fire detection this past summer. The cameras were of the $2000 per item variety and part of a relatively extensive system that require wide fields of view. Rather amazing to me was the ability to zoom in to view an arsonist trying to start two fires. One could not immediately read the guys license plate number, but that might be possible with I post-processing.
I'd guess that the universities cameras were not as expensive or as good, but from the film clips shown, I'd say that had more narrow fields of view.
Again, thank you

[Riva]

It never ends with you sick bastards does it? How about giving the bullshit a rest, just this week? Next week you can go back to the bullshit, if you really want.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

A real bot would never be this incoherent... Just saying.

[LexAquilia]

The murder of a nice guy has triggered blood lust in the Democrat Supremacists as graffiti and signs are popping up all over Democrat Supremacist strongholds in support of the political terrorism and advocating for more. "Kill all Charlie Kirks" is the war cry getting popularized among the Democrat Supremacist foot soldiers.

A Reign of Terror is nigh. At the moment, the good guys have the edge and are self organizing and holding account Democrat Supremacist ghouls and demons who are publicly celebrating, but this may not be enough to stem the tide of fomented rage and bloodlust from the violent Left.

I've spent my share of time adding to the public database at https://charliesmurderers.com I encourage others to do the same. I personally target public servants: doctors, government officials, school faculty, enlisted, etc as I find those roles particularly dangerous to be held by a bloodlusted Democrat Supremacist.

The threat is real. Lives are at stake. People must be held accountable for their ghoulish desires.

[hobie]

One good outcome - apart from Kirk's removal from the lecture circuit - is that unamerican racists such as yourself are losing your minds.

[Frank Drackman]

His name is Charlie Kirk.

[Malika la Maize]

Speaking of lost minds!

[hobie]

Correction, Frankie...his name WAS Charlie Kirk.

[Frank Drackman]

His name is Charlie Kirk.

[Malika la Maize]

his Name was
Charlie )kirk

[hobie]

Frankie-bot appears to be stuck in a loop

[Frank Drackman]

His name is Charlie Kirk.

[LexAquilia]

And hate-filled Democrat Supremacists such as yourself are losing their jobs and having their businesses destroyed.

Fuck all Democrat Supremacists. Saving lives is more important than their rotten, demonic feelings.

May they rot in hell.

[LexAquilia]

In Roblox, Democrat Supremacists have created a world where five year old's can take turns killing Charlie Kirk.

But yeah, it's me whose lost my mind...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Have you no decency, Hobie?

[hobie]

This you?

"It's looking like a tranny shot Kirk.

What should we do with trannies?"

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, this is the same dynamic that got you Trump; You take out the nice opposition, it doesn't make opposition go away, it just means you get less nice opposition.

[hobie]

More "you made me vote for Trump" from Brett

[Bwaaah]

Your convenient misunderstandings are not likely to drive a winning strategy. Tell your like-minded allies too; they all seem to be under the same misapprehension.

Thanks for being the "other side," Hobie.

[Sarcastr0]

You've made it clear why you support Trump, and it's not that Dems got extra mean lately and forced you to do it.

You've thought insane paranoid things about Dems since at least Prez Clinton.

Your conviction the Dems want to put you in a camp is all you, chief.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've made it clear that Trump was way down my list of preferences, just not quite as far down as Biden or Harris. If you'd nominated Tulsi Gabbard, say, I'd have ended up voting Democratic for President for the first time in my life.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm sure you believe that.

But you know you couldn't as effectively blame Democrats for Trump if Trump weren't so lawless and terrible.

And you defend everything he says like it's your job.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, likewise, I'm sure you believe that. Less out of reasons than motivations, but you do.

The fact is, I didn't even bother voting in the 2024 primary elections, for the first time since I was old enough to vote.

[Nelson]

“ You take out the nice opposition”

There was nothing nice about Charlie Kirk. He was a hateful person and a high-end bigot. He may have been pleasant to tall to if you weren’t talking about culture war issues, but his life revolved around being a hateful person. And that’s the way he planned it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your take on Kirk reveals more about you then it does him.

[Nelson]

Really? I have listed, in several places, the abhorrent and awful things he advocated for. A simple internet search will find him advocating for violence against trans people (as well as calling them, in a blanket way, freaks and groomers). He advocates for wives to be subservient to and submit to their husbands, regardless of how much of an ignorant, abusive asshole he might be (which is consistent with his ‘dealing with them like the 1950s and 60s’ theme from his trans violence quote). He thinks that Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to be mayors (and probably extends that to more elected positions). He says that the 2020 million election was stolen (a known lie).

He is, by his own words, a liar, a mysogynist, a religious fanatic, and a racist (with frequent antisemitic overtones).

The things he advocated for and pushed in the political realm were terrible. He was intentionally and gleefully cruel to those who he hated (and there were many). He believed that the power of government should be wielded against the weak and powerless in support of white Christians.

It says a lot about you that you don’t find him repugnant. But I’m sure you are more blinded by your biases than supportive of terrible things.

He was a terrible person who believed terrible things and spread hate and division as a means of amassing power and influence (and a lot of money).

Just because he is dead and was willing to debate people in public doesn’t make him a good person.

[Malika la Maize]

On Ukraine and Gaza, Trump Casts Himself as a Bystander, if He Can’t Be a Peacemaker

President Trump often insists he can bring peace to global conflicts. But when allies and adversaries alike appear to be ignoring him or testing American will, he adopts a what-can-you-do shrug.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/us/politics/trump-gaza-ukraine-peace.html

“Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the disastrous war between Russia and Ukraine settled. It will be settled quickly. Quickly.“

[Frank Drackman]

Unfortunately Roosha and You-Crane have a say in whether they'll keep fighting.
Barry Hussein said "If you like your Doctor you can keep your Doctor!" (very White of Him)
That's something he supposedly had control over, it's still called "Obama-Care" after all.
But hey, He did get the Insurance companies to cover your HIV meds, how are those CD4's doing?

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

“Unfortunately Roosha and You-Crane have a say in whether they'll keep fighting.”

It’s almost like the dotard should have thought about this before his stupid claim!

[Frank Drackman]

So what was Barry Hussein's excuse?

[hobie]

Frankie's just mad that, when finally given a choice, no one opted to keep him as their doctor at the free clinic

[Frank Drackman]

You're wrong as usual, as with your choice of Orifices, they're still trying to guilt me into coming back, I didn't mind that I had to pay Malpractice, didn't get paid, and they'd put me on the schedule without asking first,
It's when a "Suit" questioned why I called 9-11 when a patient was having an Acute Coronary Syndrome, and didn't like that I brought my own Oxygen tank and Defibrillator (they had neither, and the Defibrillator was required for all the Immunizations they gave)
I wouldn't prescribe Amphetamines to Kids (or Adults), Antibiotics for Colds, or Viagra to Vagrants
Oh, and the NP's would use my DEA # (they didn't want to spend the $888 for their own) which is Ill-legal at Bushwood (and everywhere else)
It was "No Good Deed goes Unpunished" (HT Y. Berra)

I do love when a Surgeon will ask my "Opinion about Anesthesia" (they're meaning what specific technique"
I always say
"I definitely recommend Anesthesia, otherwise it's really going to hurt when you cut his belly open"

Frank

PS His name is Charlie Kirk

[Malika la Maize]

He’s on record here as losing his prescriptions because of the Medicaid work requirements.

Or Maybe he filled out
his Forms )like ) this

[Frank Drackman]

You've got me confrused with some other "Frank" (You're such a Slut, can't even keep your Schlong calls straight)
No Prescription Meds (not saying I might not benefit from any)
OK, yes, my "Glaucoma Medication" but that was (redacted), just a way for me to get some legal Mary Jane, now that my Glaucoma's improved (and they test for THC) I get along fine with just jerking off.
81mg ASA is OTC, and the Kroger brand is just fine, Acetylsalicylic Acid is Acetylsalicyic Acid,
When you had to renew your Medical License with a mail in form, I did have a few Typos that had to be corrected (they put down I was born in 1862) but now it's all on AlGores High-Speed Interwebs, and they'll tell you if you haven't been born yet

Fronk

[Malika la Maize]

Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked Chuck Schumer’s attempt to compel the release of the Jeffrey Epstein case files, hours after the Democratic leader made a bold procedural move to force a vote on the issue.

The Senate voted 51-49 to block the measure, with GOP Sens. Josh Hawley and Rand Paul joining with Democrats in support of it.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/10/politics/epstein-files-schumer-vote

“Listen, that Jeffrey Epstein story is a big deal, please do not let that story go. Keep your eye on this,” Bongino told his listeners in 2023.

[Frank Drackman]

It took 7 weeks to arrest Kohberger, a little longer to get James Earl Ray, almost 10 years to kill Bin Laden, guy was an Idiot to leave the Rifle behind, if the Governor has any sense of Style he'll have one of the Firing Squad use it.
OK, they still haven't got the guy who butchered Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman
Actually J-hovah did. (and the state of Nevada, 9 years? and not in a "Resort" Prison but in a State-Pound-me-in the-Ass Prison (they're harsh on guys who steal their own stuff back)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Rifles made before 1968 may not have a serial number.
Or one the ATF can trace.

If so, leaving it is a GOOD idea -- they won't find you with it later, and it does them no good now.

[bernard11]

I wonder if he remembered to take the cannoli.

[Swede425]

Totally not shocked by the number of "professionals" in hot water right now. The number of doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. that couldn't contain their glee at the death of Charlie Kirk and thought it wise to share it with the world. Imagine being that educated, credentialed, lauded, and STILL retarded as hell. And you can begin to add "unemployed" to their impressive records. The FAFO is real but the surprising part (so far) has been how quickly the FO part has been. And there will be more to follow. The sadly hilarious thing about it? These people are probably certain to think they're the smartest people in any room they occupy. The real irony here? Kirk, who was not college educated, often reminded those people who he was debating on campus, who often mocked him for not having a degree, that being college educated was no guarantee of actual intelligence. Demonstrated in real time by these very people.

[Malika la Maize]

Holy shit, Swedish Chef mustered a paragraph! He’s really worked up!

[Swede425]

Oh, look. My stocker showed up.
Who could have predicted that?

[Swede425]

Say the magic words so that I can fill my bingo card up.

[hobie]

What's even more stocking is that you are proving the need for better education

[Swede425]

Especially when it comes to spelling.
Or did you not understand the words that you meant to use?

[LexAquilia]

He typo pounced on one your use of 'stocker' earlier.

He isn't intelligent enough to really debate. So he just kibitz's and shits up the joint every once in awhile with low-brow, smooth-brained comments.

[hobie]

What a shocker! A huge number of Americans despise racist, pedo, rapist MAGAs...and ain't afraid to say so.

[Swede425]

LOL!
Some of them may not have been afraid.
But they probably understand what regret feels like...now.

[LexAquilia]

... and are losing their jobs and businesses.

They have Freedom of Speech, but not Freedom From Consequences.

[Swede425]

What do you do if you're the dean of something unimportant at some middle university and you get fired for showing the world that you're a shit human being?
Like, where do you go from there?
Probably some NGO to hang out for a while.
But NGO's aren't having their best year, are they?
What to do, what to do.

[Frank Drackman]

Similar to Rush Limbo, who was a College drop out but ended up advising POTUS's, still think his most genius work were his "Caller Abortions"
briefly, when Rush got a call he didn't want, he would "Abort" it, terminating the call with a Vacuum Cleaner/Scream sound clip, adhering to "Roe" he wouldn't terminate a call once it was "Viable" (conversation had started).
Response was furious, stations dropped him, sponsors dropped him, how dare he equate a woman's right to choose with a Vacuum Cleaner and a Scream!!
Rush yielded to the pressure (even he couldn't broadcast without stations) noting that the Uproar was over his playing a Sound Clip on the Radio, and not the thousands of dead babies (back then in all 50 states)

Frank

[LexAquilia]

What would America look like if we adopted Israel's attitudes towards Palestinian children but towards the children of Democrat Supremacists here, an equally deadly threat in the US.

[LexAquilia]

They wouldn't be rushing to film themselves saying this if they didn't believe there was a wide audience applauding them and cultural cachet to be had. That is the culture Democrats have fostered. Now they have to take responsibility and un-foster it. Not both sides. Them.

https://x.com/mirandadevine/status/1966151930759229739

Wow. I can't stop thinking about this. We can't coexist with a culture who celebrates political violence and has normalized it's acceptance.

The utmost principle must be our survival, all other principles must be secondary to that.

[ThePublius]

I am really appalled.

All along, all these years I've been following and commenting on the Volokh Conspiracy, maybe 17 years (?), I though all the arguing on here among commenters, even while it sometimes became quite strident and insulting and mean, was all good natured, and that people were generally good, according to their own personal and political philosophies. But not any more.

The event of Charlie Kirk's assassination has revealed that some here are genuinely bad and evil. They applaud his death, mock him at his passing. That's downright despicable and evil. And now I know who you are, you've been driven from the woodwork by this tragic event. God help you.

I'm equally appalled at all of the people who are also celebrating his demise: teachers, professors, government employees, soldiers, doctors, health care workers, and on and on. What motivates these people? Have they ever really listened to Kirk, or are they just exhibiting herd behavior? Leaders of that hate herd mischaracterize, or even make up things about him, and legions just follow along, repeating the lies. There was almost no one in the political sphere who was as objective and polite, willing to listen to any side, and respectfully debate and respond. No one. And someone, presumably on the left, or driven by the left, or employed by the left, took his life. Was he so scary, so terrifying to the left that he had to be eliminated?

What has this world come to?

[Swede425]

The only thing that I find a little amazing is that these people don't seem to learn.
There are several recent examples of supposedly smart people doing this exact same thing, and suffering the exact same consequences. How did you not see this coming? It makes no sense. Other than to come to the conclusion that they're so blindly hateful that they actually can't help themselves. What else could it be? The internet is forever. Your fucktardedness on display forever. Who hires you now? Was it worth it?
LOL! Let us know!

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, they had learned: That they could get away with it. Because they had been, for years.

You can't blame them for not realizing in time that things had changed.

[Sarcastr0]

Nothing's changed.

Again, what are you justifying here?

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course something's changed, Sarcastr0: There are a growing number of prominent left-wing assholes who are actually getting fired over cheering Kirk being murdered. That's a pretty big change, actually.

[Sarcastr0]

Growing number!
Big change!

You're doing anecdotes again.

And your wishes here are not consistent with your social media complaining of some years ago.

[Brett Bellmore]

You have this weird idea that repeating words constitutes an argument.

You want a valid statistical study on today's news? Seriously?

[bernard11]

You're claiming you can draw valid statistical conclusions from today's news ( that you see)? Seriously?

[Martinned]

Who needs free speech anyway? Gleichschaltung FTW!

[Bwaaah]

Take a look at the comments by New York Times readers in response yesterday to Ezra Klein's opinion, "Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way". (The comments were showing freely yesterday. Now they're paywalled.)

If you don't think we're better off with people like Charlie Kirk dead, then you're not keeping up with the prevailing sentiments welling up in the left right now (or you're just the spinster you've always been).

You want to see 30 million people quickly [though silently] high-five each other? A bullet to Trump's head will do it. Our "decent people" are like this now. (I'm quite sure that proposition gives you a whiff of a fresh note of progress.)

I know. That's just an anecdote. It's not representative of Democrats. It's just the typical New York Times reader.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I don't think they'd like JD Vance any more than Trump; do you?

I think Vance would be much, much worse.

[David Nieporent]

He would not be. People keep making this same mistake about Trump since 2016. Yes, Vance is smarter and less erratic than Trump — an incredibly low bar, of course. But there is no Cult of JD Vance; he's not going to inspire unwavering devotion. It's the blind worship of the Dear Leader that makes him so dangerous.

[Bwaaah]

Yes.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I disagree. If Vance achieves power after the new state apparatus being created by Trump is fully in place, he will not need his own personality cult--he will have the power to simply create one.

[LexAquilia]

Even notable public figures like Stephen King have been out there making some of these defamatory claims too. I hope he gets held accountable.

The event of Charlie Kirk's assassination has revealed that some here are genuinely bad and evil.

My moment was COVID. The COVID tyranny by the Democrat Supremacists opened my eyes to the true evil that infests the human condition. I never believed in true evil before then. Now I know evil is real. Satan is real.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Stephen King is an arsehole and has been one for 50 years -- he is the biggest one in Bangor, Maine. Typical new money.

That said, he never really came back from when he was hit by a car 20+ years back.

[hobie]

People like Kirk have been tormenting and humiliating gays, women and blacks for most of his short-ass career. Whether dead or alive, it is perfectly apt to smear him with his own style of hatred. I'm not at all surprised at all the pearl clutching this morning. But Kirk is being accurately described as the kind of person he proudly was...a eulogy of truth so to speak. And I'm not about to betray the truth and describe the man as being something he was not

[Swede425]

LOL!
You sound unemployed.
Something recent, TikTok boy?

[LexAquilia]

lmao yeah, he definitely sounds bitter.

Monsters are being held accountable.

It feels good.

[ThePublius]

No need to reinforce it, hobie, I've got your number.

[Frank Drackman]

"have"??
I thought you said his name "Was" Charlie Kirk?
His name is Charlie Kirk, and stick that up your loose-ass anal sphincter.
Wow, that wasn't "Kind" or "Gentle" (is there such a thing as "Kind" and "Gentle" Anal Sex??)

Fronk

[ThePublius]

Charlie Kirk
@charliekirk11
You can tell a lot about a person by how they react when someone dies.
4:42 PM · Nov 27, 2016

[Moderation4ever]

You have have come late to the knowledge that the world is a cruel place. You might just look back to the comment in this column when Paul Pelosi was attacked with a hammer. But the fact is you can go back even farther. George Wallace was visiting my city, Madison, WI. Madison is know for it liberals and during Wallace's visit a group held a protest pushing wheel chairs with signs to give Artie (Authur Bremmer) another chance. If is difficult to image something so cruel and tacky. The protesters justified their actions because Wallace had never apologized for standing in the doorway of University of Alabama to block integration.

[Kazinski]

The world is pretty bad on Blusky, someone started tracking screen shots of people making requests for the next assassination.

https://x.com/babybeginner/status/1966064272552906996?t=OnotZ3v2-yQNIdW78yHUrQ&s=19

Top requests are Ben Shapiro, Trump, and Jk Rowling.

And Blusky had to issue a warning about celebrating Kirk's death.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bluesky-warns-users-not-to-celebrate-charlie-kirk-assassination-after-dozens-of-horrific-messages-posted/ar-AA1MmvfC

[Sarcastr0]

Have you ever looked at twitter replies to a LibsofTikTok post?

Yeah, some people are terrible on the Internet.

Generalizing to make any kind of partisan point is just going to be an excuse for your own partisan validation.

[Frank Drackman]

Suspect in Custody

[ThePublius]

Yes!

[ThePublius]

Could it be?

Skye Valadez

https://x.com/SpikeDiet/status/1966478881470243181/photo/1

[Estragon]

Shameful.

[jb]

...and it wasn't. Do you feel kind of gross for posting this based only on the crack detective skills of 4chan or whatever cesspool produced it?

Also, notably: this guy wasn't trans despite Dr. Ed and Lex's confident claims that the killer was a trans person.

[Estragon]

Shamelessness is pretty much a core MAGA value at this point. I notice he is active downthread… will he have the courage to reappear and assert that, while false, his accusations were “directionally true” for various reasons? I imagine the only true feeling here is disappointment.

[Estragon]

I bet he feels about as gross as JD Vance did when he was forced to say this:

“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do.”

Which is to say— not gross in the least!

[Dr. Ed 2]

YES!

[LexAquilia]

Watch this if you want to warm your heart this morning.

https://x.com/SaltyBeach/status/1966306477976826180

We need to get the government to put pressure and debank these people to, like they did to us under Biden.

Hold them to account.

[ThePublius]

My favorite comment:

"The dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed."

[John F. Carr]

If you like that comment you might also like the novel Complicity by Iain Banks. If memory serves, it was a vibrator in the novel rather than a dildo.

[Michael P]

Good news for Ilya Somin and Alex Nowrasteh: While an illegal immigrant with a long record of both immigration and violent crime was released by the Biden administration in January and went on to decapitate a hotel manager in front of the manager's wife and child for not talking directly to the illegal immigrant ... this crime was merely yet another "random, personal" murder and won't have to count as a political killing or terrorist attack.

https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/dallas-beheading-motel-police-yordanis-cobos-martinez/

[Swede425]

So, a "Texas man" in MSM speak.

[LexAquilia]

A "White Texas Man" according to the crime data they will collect.

[Martinned]

O wow, you guys sure have one hell of a violent crime problem. Someone should do something about that.

[ThePublius]

No, we have a violent illegal immigrant problem, just like the U.K.

[Martinned]

Clearly not, because you have lots of home grown killers/violent criminals too. (As much of this open thread attests.)

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes we do, that's why we should not import any more.

[ThePublius]

Chuck Schumer
@SenSchumer

"We must work together to bring political violence and the scourge of gun violence in America to a swift end."

Matt Van Swol
@matt_vanswol

"Then please tell your party to stop shooting conservatives.

Start there.

Tell them Trump is not a fascist.

Tell them conservatives they disagree with are not a Nazis.

Go tell them that, then come back and tell us how that went."

[LexAquilia]

Yesterday we had Democrat Supremacists on this site telling us that if we didn't want to be shot by one of them, we should stop expressing our beliefs in public. That it's our fault for enraging them by having an opinion they have declared as illegal.

They will never look inward on their own. They must be forced to do so through accountability and the suffering that comes from it.

[jb]

This is dumb. When was the last time a "conservative" was shot by a Democrat and there wasn't an overwhelming denunciation of the use of violence in the political arena by Schumer and others?

For that matter, when was the last time a politically-motivated shooting was even carried out by a Democrat against a conservative? Hodgkinson in 2017?

[LexAquilia]

Just a couple of days ago.

And don't forget the spate of recent trannies shooting up Christian elementary schools.

[jb]

"Just a couple of days ago."

No evidence yet on this guy's motivations. Seems like he might be pro-furry, or anti-gay? Or anti-fascist? Or, most likely, maybe really just likes Helldivers? Pretty hard to read much meaning into this particular set of bullet casings.

[LexAquilia]

The one thing I noticed is that virtually all these Democrat Supremacists who are being held accountable for their social media celebrations have pronouns in their bios.

lmao, the result of the great "purge" is we may not have to see this pronoun nonsense anymore.

I wonder if you could even use that as your heuristic for identifying a vicious and evil Democrat Supremacist?

If you see a person using pronouns, assume first your life, your family, or your job is in danger.

[loki13]

So having had a night to reflect on it, and seeing the comment from ThePublius above, I will say this.

I am already on the record stating that the death of Charlie Kirk is a tragedy, and my heart goes out to his family. That is true.

With that said, I think the following is also true. The idea that people (like ThePublius) are .... somehow shocked that everyone isn't falling to the ground and prostrating themselves in grief over this or otherwise acting in a performative manner for his benefit? Yeah, no.

Look, let's be clear. Not very long ago, a person had a hitlist of a bunch of Democratic politicians and killed one of them (and their spouse) and wounded another (and their spouse). What did we see? Mocking ... from prominent members of the GOP. No calls for anything. No flags at half mast. Commenters here who (even yesterday) said it was a Democratic plot or something.

Or ... how about all of the school shootings? They happen so often (even on the same day that Charlie Kirk was killed) that we don't even bother registering them most of the time. As Charlie Kirk put it "I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational." Even more, when one happens to register because the body count can't be ignored, we are told that the deaths are "fake," or due to "crisis actors" or other nonsense.

We're also constantly told that the real problem with political violence is from the left. Despite, um, reality. And statistics. And every time ... every single time ... you get the Website formerly known as Twitter (and now known as NaziHell) spreading lies that a transgendered person committed a crime- protip- it's never true (even in Massachusetts, Dr. Ed).

In short, let me try and explain the problem to you succinctly. We've been asking for empathy for the victims of violence. Repeatedly. And we've been dismissed. Over and over and over again. We've been told that gun deaths are rational- heck, just a small price for freedom. We've been told that tragedies aren't real- they're fake, they're crisis actors, they're false flag operations, or that the Democrats are using hit lists against themselves. We are told that the only problem in America is left-wing violence (the BUT ANTIFA! argument) despite the fact that we repeatedly see right-wing violence. We keep getting lied to and gaslighted when we ask that our very real pain gets acknowledged.

So now you ask- well, what about our pain? Why won't you acknowledge our feels and our hurt over this gun death? Sure, he might be someone that spent his life making sure the person that you believe is ruining the country gets elected. He might have said terrible things that hurt people you know and love. He might have helped increase the very culture of violence and divisiveness that led to this moment. But he was a person!

Yeah, he was. You're right. But why not apply some of that new-found perspective to yourself.

...first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

[LexAquilia]

Remember when loki13 used to run around here and pretend to be the "common-sense middle"?

Nothing in that comment suggests he was ever in the center. Nothing in that comment even suggests he is grounded in reality.

The mask is off of these people.

"He might have helped increase the very culture of violence and divisiveness that led to this moment. But he was a person!"

Again blaming us for the violence they perpetuate on us.

Our very survival is at stake. The next step for all these excuse makers and victim blamers is to take guns into their own hands like these deranged trannies have been doing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Loki13. You need to get off the Koolaid.

[Swede425]

LOL!
That's a lot of words to say you've missed the point.
Nobody is saying anybody has to kiss Charlie Kirk's ass or anything like it.
Maybe just share with some of your fellow shitlibs that public dancing on the graves of murder victims isn't a good look.
Because for supposedly smart people, they sure do some awfully stupid, evil things. And, as they're discovering, there can be consequences for publicly displaying what retards they actually are. That's the shocking part. That they STILL haven't learned that. Once you get past the tragedy that they're celebrating, it is absolutely satisfying to see Lady Karma introduce herself to these people. Some of the groveling apologies that they've issued have been the pickle on the shit sandwich that they get to eat. Bon Appetit!

[bernard11]

public dancing on the graves of murder victims isn't a good look.

Better to call them "crisis actors," I suppose.

Loki is exactly right. Remember the comments when Paul Pelosi was attacked? Not a peep of sympathy from the right wingers here. A lot of you were gloating, making up lurid lies, etc.

And now, it's all "they" killed Kirk, etc. Just STFU.

[Swede425]

You know what?
I don't think I will stfu.
Now what?

[bernard11]

I guess you will continue to make an ass of yourself.

[Poxigah146]

Nobody ever said that gun deaths are rational. What we have said is that the cost to prevent them, disarming the entire population, is not an acceptable tradeoff.

I have always maintained that.

Not to mention that your comment about "school shootings happening so often" is patently false. Most of what the media counts as "school shootings" are gang bangers having a shootout near a school.

The actual school shootings to which you refer are extremely rare. You're falling victim to the fallacy of "misleading vividness." The ones that occur are shocking, so they seem more common than they actually are.

[LexAquilia]

He's even ignoring the growing epidemic of trannies shooting up Christian schools.

Another elevated and worshipped Democrat demographic with awful per capita crime statistics.

[jb]

The actual school shootings to which you refer are extremely rare.

Seriously? There was one the same day Kirk was shot.

[Poxigah146]

https://www.cnn.com/us/school-shootings-fast-facts-dg

Yes, seriously. Even by the overstated numbers for the reason I described up above, there were 47 so far in 2025. That is about 1 every 5 days. A quick Google search reveals that there are about 135,000 schools in America.

[jb]

1 school shooting every 5 days seems like a lot to me!

If we had a political shooting every 5 days I think everyone would agree that was a lot, and if we count mayors/council members, state elected officials, and federal elected officials it looks like there's roughly the same number of politicians as schools. (More if we count bodies like school boards.)

[Magister]

That doesn't seem extremely rare even accepting the narrow definition of school shooting that gives those numbers. A student throughout their K-12 years would have nearly a 1% chance of being at a school with a school shooting at some point if those were uniformly random.

[loki13]

It's not just the number of school shootings. Which is kind of crazy (it barely registers in the news it's so common).

It's the culture of fear in schools. If you have a school-age child in many places, you are familiar with the idea of "lockdowns" and "drills," and I would bet that you have had to deal with multiple multiple occasions of getting the call/text from the school (or find out through the parent grapvine) that the school has been locked down due to the possibility of a school shooter - which can be anything from a rumor, to a facebook post, to someone forgetting that they have a something that looks vaguely gun- or knife-like in their backpack, to a random bomb threat from a kid who doesn't want to take a test.

It's no wonder that we've created a culture of fear, anger, and mistrust in America. We start 'em young.

[Sarcastr0]

Evergreen:

"‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens."
https://theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527/

[Brett Bellmore]

The murder rate last year was 5/100K.
The average HS has a population of about 850.
Over 12 years, if the murder rate in a school was the same as the general population, the odds of a murder happening in your school would be about 40%, not 1%.

So, yeah, extremely rare compared to the general population murder rate. Schools are, by any objective standard, about the safest places for children, not particularly dangerous.

So, why the culture of fear in objectively the safest place to be?

Because a lot of work was put into stoking that fear, in a deliberate effort to help advance gun control.

Seriously, the fact that every school shooting started getting reported nation-wide was, literally, the result of a PR proposal by a gun control advocate.

And, if it resulted in the rate going up a bit from copycat crimes? All the better, I suppose...

[loki13]

Gee, Brett, do you think that there might be any issues comparing the murder rates of children and the murder rates of the general population?

I know, the Socratic method is hard for you. Let's make this more specific.

As a general rule, what is the age cohort of most murderers? Is it 18 and under?

Next question- if you remove child victims of domestic violence (children killed by their families, caregivers, and relatives), how do the statistics look when you compare actual like cohorts?

It's a little more interesting, isn't it?

Final question- once you've actually derived better statistics (and used the correct comparators), think about those numbers. Then look at the historical trends. Compare them over time.

Ask yourself, "How many do I, Brett, think it is acceptable to keep shrugging off these deaths? And why do I think that none of those is really a tragedy or worth my empathy. Why don't I care about those children, those families, and that pain? How is it that I can feel so bad about Charlie Kirk and his family, but not feel anything about all of those other lives and families ripped apart?"

You don't have to answer that, but I hope you think about it.

[jb]

Poxigah146 already backed out all of the "normal" murders in schools, though, so none of your math actually maths.

[Poxigah146]

No, I didn't.

[Mr. Bumble]

The problem is equating all violence to guns.
The problem is violent acting out in general (see Texas case of illegal alien decapitating a motel owner).

[Sarcastr0]

The demands I've seen have not been for empathy, they've been for *endorsement*.

I'm also seeing repeated over and over that this is the fault, directly AND indirectly, of the left. And now everything is different and it's no more mister nice guy.

Their rage-meter has been pegged since the Obama admin, so it's kind of ridiculous. Still, it's not a healthy dynamic to commit to that kind of righteous fury; makes people want to demonstrate their commitment somehow...

[loki13]

I know. How many times have we seen certain commenters here threaten violence. We all know. It's ... you know, their go-to thing.

And how many times have we seen actual violence just get ignored or excused or ... let's face it, sealioned or they attempt to gaslight us. "Yeah, (you know who I'm talking about), Tim Walz totally got that guy to try and kill Democrats. Makes total sense!"

It's rinse and repeat. And here's the thing- the vast majority of people, even people that despise Charlie Kirk's views ... they didn't want him to be killed. They genuinely feel for his family. But instead of taking even a second to self-reflect on any of the underlying issues or the rhetoric, the usual suspects are just using it to justify what they already want- more anger, more hate, and more violence. Look at the person currently occupying the Presidency- did he use the moment to bring us together? HA! Of course not. He made it about driving us further apart. Because of course he did.

Anyway, I am thankful that (apparently) the shooter's father turned him in. Because the Kash/Bongino FBI is incapable of anything. And we should know shortly more about whatever motivated this act, and the shooter will receive justice and all of us will receive answers. Hopefully.

[Poxigah146]

My guess is the father turned him in so that he wouldn't be killed while being taken into custody.

We all know the likelihood that he actually gets the death penalty is about 0.

[Frank Drackman]

You're leaving out a "1", a "0" and a "%"
100% he'll "Get" the Death Penalty, whether it'll be carried out, theoretically maybe, in 20-30 years.
Utah's got some "Pound-Me-in-the-Ass" Prisons, like Idaho, after a few Ass-poundings he'll be begging to get shot.
I'm guessing he'll "Hang Himself" like Epstein

Frank

[Poxigah146]

Ehh, I can see a likelihood that he gets a plea deal for life without parole to avoid the death penalty. That happens fairly frequently, especially with only one victim.

[ThePublius]

"The idea that people (like ThePublius) are .... somehow shocked that everyone isn't falling to the ground and prostrating themselves in grief over this or otherwise acting in a performative manner for his benefit? "

I neither said nor implied anything of the sort.

[Armchair]

Sounds like you're just justifying to yourself to be a dick.

[Martinned]

No, he's wondering why people like you describe perfectly reasonable comments as "being a dick".

[Armchair]

Charlie Kirk was just assassinated. And Loki up there is going right into "whataboutism" to effectively ignore it.

A more sensible person would think, "Gosh, maybe all this Hitler and end-of-democracy stuff is encouraging people to act out on what we're saying. Perhaps we...shouldn't do that"

But Loki and his comrades will go right on doing it in a week.

[Josh R]

There is plenty of over-the-top hyperbolic speech from all sides that might encourage people to act unlawfully. It should all stop? And if some people choose not to, what should be done about it?

[Armchair]

" It should all stop?"
Yes.

"And if some people choose not to, what should be done about it?"

Let's be perfectly clear here. This isn't what "should" happen. This is what "will" happen. This isn't a response. It's a consequence

One cannot expect a situation where one side continuously lethally demonizes and demeans one's ideological opponents, and then "suddenly" someone takes them up on that lethal demonization and acts out on it to continue ad infinitum, without the "other side" eventually responding.

Either that one side eventually realizes their mistake and backs off...or consequences, no matter how much I would prefer they don't happen...will occur.

[Josh R]

I don't think you answered my question or I did not understand your answer.

We have what you say is "lethally demoniz[ing]" political speech (speech that encourages others to act unlawfully up to the point of assassinating the political opposition targeted by the speech). Should we censor that speech, and if so how?

[Armchair]

"Should we censor that speech, and if so how?"

This may be difficult for you to understand. But let's put it this way. Not all actions that have consequences should necessarily be banned. But those consequences should be understood.

If I punch a wall with my hand, the consequence is that it will hurt my hand. But you may break the wall. However, if I punch enough walls, the hand will break. This does not mean that punching walls should be banned. But the consequences should be understood.

Likewise, demonizing speech to the point of violence may result in violence against the outgroup. However, enough violence will provoke a response. I don't approve of such a response. Anymore than I approve of someone breaking their hand when punching a wall. But it will happen, if there is no halt. One cannot expect a situation where just "liberals" continually attempt (or actually) assassinate conservatives, with no consequence.

[Josh R]

You still did not answer my question. I did not ask about the response to the violent act that was encouraged by the speech.

I only asked should we censor that speech, and if so how?

[Sarcastr0]

You accused me of blood libel.

GTFO out of here with your 'lets cool down the rhetoric' shit.

You're a terrible offender on that front.

And loki is not.

[Brett Bellmore]

GTFO of here with 'lets cool down the rhetoric' shit, and don't you dare point out my can of rhetorical gasoline, that's not cooling things down, now is it?

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, Brett, why not accuse me of indirectly fomenting murder? In defense of someone accusing me of blood libel, even.

You think this shooting can be used as a rhetorical weapon you can use to shame the left, or against me in particular?

No - it just shows you for someone who lashes out first and doesn't have the self-regard to see if they're being a self-refuting hypocrite.

You lately continue to disappoint me as you act more and more like Roger S or ThreeLetterBigot or the other unthinking bomb throwers.
MAGA takes even the smallest remaining dignities from those who go in for it.

[Armchair]

"You accused me of blood libel"
Because you engaged in blood libel.

"GTFO out of here with your 'lets cool down the rhetoric' shit."
I never called for killing anyone. I pointed out your blood libel against the Jews. You've got a history of antisemitism and blood libel. Perhaps you should stop your hatred.

[not guilty]

Armchair, when and how did Sarcastr0 engage in blood libel?

Some words and phrases convey vile concepts which should not be trivialized by casual use thereof. "Blood libel" is one such phrase.

[Roger S]

Charlie Kirk was a lot more popular than any of those other victims.

[Bwaaah]

Loki13: "The idea that [ThePublius is] somehow shocked that everyone isn't falling to the ground and prostrating themselves in grief over this [...]"

Why the carefully adjusted mischaracterization? (I know why.)

Et tu, Loki?

[loki13]

It's not. Look at what ThePublius posted directly above what I posted. Chuck Schumer calling for an end to political and gun violence, and being trashed on. Or, for that matter, his earlier comments.

Then go back to the Minnesota shooter threads. Please.

Look, I get it. Feelings are raw. But do you know what? Why is it that when all these other acts occurred, there was no sympathy at all? There was no questioning of charged rhetoric? There was no introspection about demonizing the left, or othering, or whether it made sense to constantly scream that school shootings (for example) were faked and used crisis actors?

Or, for that matter, that it was always improper to even talk about these issues or politicize them?

But now? The rules change. Now, we are all supposed to be empathetic. We are supposed to understand that it's okay to use this politically. We are supposed to be on-board with the idea that you either laud Charlie Kirk, or STFU.

If you don't understand, intuitively, the dynamics at work, then you're blind to the obvious.

I will repeat what I have said since it happened. Political violence is never the answer. I think Charlie Kirk was an opportunistic individual with some good views, but also some odious ones - but he was also a persuasive person who had every right to use his talents to speak his mind. And I am truly heartbroken for his family, who I am sure loved him and do not deserve the pain they are feeling and the loss they must bear. I can't even ... that's heartbreaking.

But I am not going to view him as an American hero, deserving of lying in state at the rotunda. And I don't view his shooting as more tragic than the shootings of high school students the very same day by Desmond Holly, who had been radicalized by right-wing white supremacists (allegedly, although when you post Nazi stuff right before you start shooting, it's usually a good indicator).

All of these senseless deaths make me sad. As it should. I just wonder why it took so long, and this one, to bring other on board.

[ThePublius]

"Look at what ThePublius posted directly above what I posted. Chuck Schumer calling for an end to political and gun violence, and being trashed on."

You missed the point. It is that Schumer has previously invoked violence, for example, saying that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would "reap the whirlwind," and similar things. He's called Trump a fascist. He's called conservatives Nazis. He's a hypocrite. That was the point of that post.

[loki13]

Thank you for clarifying!

So what you're saying is that using politically charged rhetoric against "the other side," is 100% bad. That it poisons the discourse.

For example, if a political figure demonizes the other side ... they are somehow responsible for violence afterwards? That using constantly charged rhetoric attacking your enemies is a bad thing, and not good for our country and civic (and civil) discourse?

Why, ThePublius, I agree with you completely! Thank you so much for clarifying that.

Now, about that mote and that eye....

[Roger S]

The Minnesota incident was a much smaller story. You cannot expect to comment on something when they know nothing about it.

[Armchair]

"Then go back to the Minnesota shooter threads. Please."

Whataboutism.

[Moderation4ever]

Wisconsin Democrats have introduced a bill to the Wisconsin legislature to allow individuals to sign onto a list that would prohibit them from purchasing a firearm. Guns are a common tool to commit suicide and it seems like a good idea to limit gun access to people who may want at some point use the gun for self harm. It also seems to me that it is a good ideas to allow an individual to make this decision when they are at a good state of mind. Wisconsin Republicans have yet to comment on the idea and I hope they find a way to support it. I will again say that while the Constitution gives an individual the right to own a fire arm, they Constitution does not tell you whether owning a gun is a good idea for you personally.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Very interesting idea. Do you have an article link or bill text link?

[Moderation4ever]

PYR - https://madison.com/eedition/page_d8fe54e7-82af-5b5b-940b-d1bd5ef2b04e.html

(My local newspaper. Hope it is not paywalled.)

[LawTalkingGuy]

It is. But thanks anyway. I'll do my own digging on this. It's a very intriguing idea.

[Moderation4ever]

If it helps:
AI Overview
On September 10, 2025, a new Wisconsin suicide prevention bill was introduced, spearheaded by state Senator Kelda Roys and Representative Lee Snodgrass, in honor of their former colleague Jonathan Brostoff. The legislation would create a voluntary "do not sell" list for handguns, allowing individuals who are experiencing suicidal ideation to temporarily block themselves from making a firearm purchase.

[LawTalkingGuy]

That does. Thanks. I figured there would have to be some kind of temporal limitation.

[Frank Drackman]

Does Life Insurance pay for Deaths by Suicide??? (stop cheering, I'm not planning on leaving this Moral Coil anytime soon)
Seems like cheating, like if I get full coverage on my Vette and drive it into a Lake (Like a certain MA Senator once did....)

[Mr. Bumble]

...and would they be allowed to rescind their decision as easily as they signed up?

[LawTalkingGuy]

That would be my question. I think this could work if it was time-limited in some way.

[Brett Bellmore]

Somebody doesn't understand the concept of "inalienable" rights?

[Moderation4ever]

Is this in conflict with inalienable rights? If so, how?

[Martinned]

Are you under the impression that constitutional rights cannot be waived?

[Sarcastr0]

BrettLaw is based more on vibes than text.

[Sarcastr0]

This seems a dumb thing to get mad at.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah, actually you can alienate your own rights if you do it knowingly voluntarily and intelligently, and you can be compelled by the government to stick to that waiver. You can sign an NDA and give up your free speech rights and the government can make you stick to that, for instance. Criminal defendants waive their "inalienable" rights all the time.

I'm not sure about the legality of this particular method, but if there is a reason it won't work, it's not because rights are "inalienable."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

An NDA against the government? That's not really a thing.

(Only a government can inhibit someone's 1st Amendment rights.)

[LawTalkingGuy]

Courts are part of the government and enforce private agreements like NDAs.

But you also obviously can voluntarily restrict your first amendment rights by being employed by the government or contracting with them.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You're oddly evading the point. You are a lawyer, so you must know that the 1st Amendment only restricts the government, and the government does not "enforce" NDAs. No one has a "1st Amendment" argument against the enforcement of an NDA they freely entered into.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You have a first amendment right to say many things.

You can enter a contract where you promise not to say certain things you otherwise could say.

If you say those things anyway you can be sued and face legal liability.

A court is a government entity exercising judicial power over the parties.

If it’s proven you said something in contradiction to your promise not to, the court will enter a judgment against you and has tools for enforcing that judgment.

You cannot escape enforcement of the judgment on the grounds you had a constitutional right to say what you said.

It follows then that the person signing the NDA has effectively waived their first amendment right in that specific context, and the government will enforce that waiver if asked to by the harmed party.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If I breach an NDA, I may owe someone money damages. But I still have a "1st Amendment right" to say the prohibited things, and the government cannot prosecute me for saying them or prevent me from saying them. Do you understand all that?

[David Nieporent]

and the government cannot … prevent me from saying them. Do you understand all that?

No. It's not correct. The court can in fact (in addition to awarding money damages) issue an injunction to prevent you from saying it. At least in some places; Prof. Volokh has written a lot about this.

(Unless you're just being pedantic and using "prevent" to mean that the govt can't actually physically gag you to keep the words from coming out of your mouth. In that case, true but sort of a pointless observation.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"prohibit them from purchasing a firearm."

Ohio has [or had 35 years ago when I had a case] a law that permits people to be on a "don't sell alcohol to me list"

[Moderation4ever]

I have noted in various reports over the last year a declining enthusiasm for tourism in places that have a lot of tourism. Tourism brings in a lot of money for those catering to the needs of the tourist, but it seems to be a growing annoyance for those with no or little financial benefit from tourism. One particular area where I have noted conflict is the use of short term rentals for companies like AirBNBs and Vrbo. Locals see these short term rentals reduce the number of long term rentals that locals needs. What is the feeling on local governments limiting short term leasing to improve housing for the locals. BTW - I am myself guility of using short term rentals when traveling.

[Poxigah146]

Tourism is ultimately low-quality economic activity.

The argument that we should let Canada and other "allies" abuse us with respect to trade so that we can get a few dollars from tourists is fallacious.

[bernard11]

Nobody is abusing us with trade. That's insane.

[Poxigah146]

They're not anymore. They were prior to Trump.

[bernard11]

No they weren't.

[David Nieporent]

It's just nonsensical; there's no such thing as abusing with trade. Voluntary trade is always and everywhere a benefit to both parties, by definition.

[loki13]

It's not a hard issue to parse at all if you think about it for even a second.

Here's the econ101 issue. Many tourist areas have a limit in terms of housing supply- because the reason that they are tourist areas is usually due to some local feature that often will limit development to some extent (if it gets too developed, it might harm tourism!).* Some of the constraints can be severe (on an island, eco-tourist places, "old Europe" places, etc.).

So traditionally, you have tourists staying in hotels/resorts, and locals in the housing. Tourism provides good, but not great, jobs (wages).

However, once you have AirBNB (and others) begin to move in, the following starts to happen-
1. The price of local housing options begins to rise as they get snapped up as investments to turn into short term rentals.
2. Locals sell and/or get priced out of the housing market.
3. Prices in the area begin to rise, as businesses increasingly need to compete for the tourist dollars and not for locals- leading to "gentrification."
4. Wages are pushed up as fewer people are available to work in the service industry, but not high enough to match the increased housing prices and living prices.

Eventually, this spiral begins to price out almost all the locals except for the few. Those who are already wealthy or work in positions that remain unaffected, or those who are in tourism-adjacent jobs and have positions subsidized by the industry (for example, housing built by the resorts).

In short, it's not good.

*Not all. Some places, like Las Vegas, don't fall in that category.

[Poxigah146]

This is ultimately a consequence of the worsening wealth stratification in America.

You wouldn't have to compete for the tourism dollars if so much spending wasn't due to the top few percent.

[bernard11]

Another aspect of the problem is the giant cruise ships.

They land and offload what, thousands of passengers. The tourists come in and crowd the towns, but don't actually spend much money. Remember, they sleep on the ship, and take some meals there as well, so even the local restaurants and hotels don't do well, and the crowds discourage independent tourists and make life difficult for local residents.

About the only businesses making money are those selling t-shirts and other chazzerai.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Son of a cop -- probably thought he would get away with it.

[hobie]

On my street alone, most of the houses are unoccupied. For whatever reason. They could long-term rent them or even Airbnb them. Yet they don't. The houses themselves sell outright for about $30,000 each. As far as Cleveland is concerned there is an enormous pool of available, affordable housing. One just needs to check their prejudices to avail themselves of it

[ThePublius]

Of U.S. cities, Cleveland is ranked:

#6 in total violent crime
#6 in murder and non-negligent homicide
#3 in rape
#4 in robbery
#10 in arson
#4 in burglary
#11 in motor vehicle theft

But how are the schools?

[Frank Drackman]

They have great Basketball teams

[Moderation4ever]

All that is interesting but the question for the average person is can you get employment in Cleveland. Employment tends to be the factor that drives people to move to a location.

[Bob from Ohio]

Cleveland proper has had a stagnant economy for decades. Declining population. Same with Cuyahoga County though scattered cities are doing well.

The surrounding counties are doing better, people moving there from Cleveland and most of its suburbs.

[Swede425]

CHECK YOUR PREJUDICES!!!

[Frank Drackman]

When they say "The Mistake by the Lake" they aren't talking about the Browns/Indians old Stadium.

[Bob from Ohio]

"But how are the schools?"

Terrible.

[LexAquilia]

And here hobie claims the lack of White gentrification in his hood is due to racism and not personal safety concerns.

[Swede425]

Lots of people don't understand how badly they need cultural enrichment.
Because of their selfishness.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Prejudice is rational.

If I were to rent/buy one of those houses and attempt to live there, I would put my wellbeing and life in imminent jeopardy from people who dislike me on the basis of my skin color. Would you live in a neighborhood of Klansmen, circa 1960?

Same thing and same reason.

Protect MY civil rights and I might think about it.

[Brett Bellmore]

The reason, as if you didn't understand it, is that the people who could afford them don't want to live there.

[Martinned]

Meanwhile, in the Middle East, the US is still losing decades of carefully build political capital hand over fist.

Israeli strike in Qatar shakes decades-long U.S. security pact with Gulf states

For years, Persian Gulf nations staked their defense on one thing above all: A U.S.-supplied security umbrella, paid for with tens of billions of their petrodollars and agreements that allowed the U.S. to dot the Middle East with some of its largest military facilities.

The thinking was that being users of U.S. weaponry and having a U.S. military presence was a virtual guarantee of protection if enemies came to call.

That thinking was upended on Tuesday, when Israel, arguably the U.S.’s top ally, dispatched warplanes and hurled 10 missiles at Hamas’ political office compound in the Qatari capital Doha.
(...)
Qatari officials were apoplectic after the strike, calling it cowardly and a violation of the country’s sovereignty.

Especially galling to Qatar — which houses the Al Udeid Air Base, the largest American military installation in the region — is that it allowed Hamas officials to openly live in a well-appointed district of its capital at Washington’s request, just as it had with the Taliban during the group’s negotiations to end America’s war in Afghanistan.

“Everything about that meeting [with Hamas] is very well known for the Israelis and for the Americans. It’s not something we’re hiding,” said Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, in an interview with CNN on Wednesday.

“I have no words to express how enraged we are from such an action [by Israel]. This is state terror,” he said.

Other Gulf leaders — even those harboring lingering reservations about Qatar and its regional policies — presented a united front on Qatar’s behalf.

Saudi Arabia called the strike a “brutal aggression” and said the kingdom would “stand with Qatar without limit.” Bahrain expressed its “full solidarity.”

Mohamed Bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, president of the United Arab Emirates, traveled to Doha the next day to meet the Qatari emir — a surprise given how assiduously the UAE has worked to improve ties with Israel as part of the Abraham Accords, the Trump-brokered agreements that saw a number of Arab and Gulf nations normalize relations with Israel in 2020.
(...)
This week’s strike also represents a setback for the anti-Iran coalition the U.S. has worked to forge with its Arab allies and Israel. But the feeling among many in the Gulf is that Israel is just as belligerent and destabilizing an actor as Iran.
(...)
At the same time, the more than 1,000-mile distance between Israel and Qatar means Israeli warplanes flew over multiple Arab countries, almost all of them with U.S. bases presumably able to detect incoming aircraft. (The U.S. has 19 bases across the region.) The building the Israelis struck is less than 20 miles away from Al Udeid.

Trump said he learned about the attack shortly before it began and instructed members of his administration to “immediately” inform the Qataris. But Al Thani said the call from the U.S. came 10 minutes after the planes lobbed their missiles on Doha.

In May, when Trump visited Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE, they feted him with grandiose events heavy on the pomp and circumstance and pledged trillions of dollars for investments in the U.S. The expectation was that this would buy some leverage, but Trump is reported to have done little more than scold Netanyahu over Tuesday’s strike, even while stopping short of condemning his actions. (Also in May, Qatar donated a luxury Boeing 747 aircraft for Trump to use as Air Force One.)
(...)
“America’s No.1 ally is now striking another American partner, and all they got from Trump is that they ‘felt badly.’ That it happened this way is not in America’s favor,” Al-Saif said.

He added that Gulf nations, especially Saudi Arabia, have been pushing for more formal — and well-defined — defense pacts, but that the relationship with the U.S. needed to reflect recent changes. “You’re here as a security guarantor,” he said of the U.S. “We cannot be cash dispensers if we feel that our basic security is not guaranteed.”

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2025-09-11/israeli-strike-on-qatar-undermines-u-s-persian-gulf-relations

[Sarcastr0]

The post-WW2 order of national sovereignty is going away.

So is trust in Israel's good faith, given Netanyahu was instrumental in working with Qatar on this, and in killing some of their citizens for it.

Just a ton of short-term, domestic-first thinking.

[Frank Drackman]

You're approaching Demented-Joe levels of Dementia (Frankie Health tip of the day: don't skip the PSA, especially if you're over 70) Every other A-rab Nation (and the Ear-Ronians) don't like the Palestinians either, Qatar's ecstatic, they just have to act irritated to placate the A-rab Rubes (HT Hobie-Stank) at home.

[Martinned]

The man literally blew up the peace negotiations. You have to wonder how far in advance Israel was planning this attack, and whether they spent time at a negotiating table talking to people they knew they were going to murder.

[ThePublius]

If you're at war with a terrorist organization and you kill members or leaders of that organization, that's not murder.

[Martinned]

It is if you kill people away from the battlefield, like in downtown Doha.

[ThePublius]

No.

"In a time of war, a state can legally kill an enemy in another country under the framework of international humanitarian law (IHL), but only if the person is a lawful military target. The legality depends on the specific context of the armed conflict, whether the territorial state consents, and the status of the individual being targeted."

[loki13]

Did you read and understand what you just quoted?

[ThePublius]

Yes, I'm assuming Qatar consented, and that the targeted Hamas leaders were lawful military targets.

But then, I don't care. Let them kill their enemies wherever they are.

[loki13]

So to be clear, you are assuming two facts that are not true, and that you know are not true. Okay, I might be giving you too much credit. You may not, in fact, understand that much about what you're quoting... but at a minimum, you knew that Qatar did not consent given that's been all over the news, and is in this thread.

But then you give it away, because you acknowledge that you actually don't care. That your purpose wasn't actually to inform or educate or argue in good-faith. Because you've already decided that you will unequivocally support them (in this case Israel) killing whomever they determine to be their enemies wherever they are.

Cool story, bruh.

[Frank Drackman]

That's why it's called the "GLOBAL War on Terror" oh Great Smegma Breath

[loki13]

Let's be 100% clear.

If America tells Qatar to host the negotiating team (which they did, just like they did with the Taliban)...

And Qatar does, because Qatar is our ally and also hosts a really important base (Al-Udeid Air Base, the forward HQ of CENTCOM and arguably our most important asset in the region) ...

And it just so happens that America had just endorsed the peace proposal that those negotiators were reviewing ...

And it also the case that everyone knew exactly where they were, since it wasn't a secret because Qatar and (by proxy) America were guaranteeing their safety ....

Then what Israel just did was the terrorist act. Full stop.

And regardless of what you are saying, what Israel just did absolutely destroyed America's work in the region for no good reason.

I will repeat- not only did Israel kill a Qatari colonel, not only did Israel manage to unite countries that had been working behind the scenes to support Israel ... against Israel ... but Israel UTTERLY FAILED in actually killing the targets, while actually succeeding in killing the son of the lead negotiator.

So this was an abysmal failure on all counts, and not only a moral stain, but a clusterf*** in realpolitik terms, and if we had any actual leadership in the White House, would never have happened.

Finally, I would note that Donald J. "Nobel Peace Prize" Trump is trying to cover his own posterior by lying, as usual, by claiming that he called Qatar to warn them as soon as possible when the jets were launched. Of course he didn't. They weren't told by America until 10 minutes after the bombs hit. Great job, Nobel Prize Seeker in Chief.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Just make sure the next peace talks are conducted on the US military base itself. Sorted!

[Bob from Ohio]

"that's not murder"

Of course not, but certain reasonable men here think its a "moral stain". Which says a lot about such "reasonable" man.

[Swede425]

STAAWWWWP!
You make it sound so devious!
I love it.

[Bob from Ohio]

Statements are just statements. Maybe they are really mad, maybe not.

What are the options for Gulf states? Cozy to the Shia in Iran, which just got whipped by Israel? China? Russia? EU?

They need us more than we need them.

[Commenter_XY]

Israel articulated their policy regarding hamas very clearly; no hamas member anywhere is safe. There is no safe harbor. Now Israel showed why. There are more hamas members in Turkey (NATO member), that present much more difficult questions.

It would appear that Israel lobbed ballistic missiles from F-35s into low earth orbit, and executed an attack from the exo-atmospheric vehicle to a point less than two meters wide in an apartment building in Doha. All through Qatari air defenses. Using precision munitions. Quite a technical achievement.

I hope they're paying attention in KSA, Jordan and Iran. It is a repeatable phenomenon.

[Sarcastr0]

An especially good Divided Argument dropped yesterday:

https://dividedargument.com/episodes/byzantine-wall

Will and Dan Epps discuss the legitimacy of the Court after it's seeming lopsided use of emergency stays for Trump vs. for Biden, and the drama after Gorsuch and Kavanaugh got mad at district courts.

[loki13]

I read a good and telling account of the oral arguments of en banc Fourth Circuit yesterday.

Bascially, the judges were trying to figure out what they should be doing with the Supreme Court's order.

You can watch here-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioskch_etcU

It's kind of insane. Again, this is the en banc 4th Circuit. It pretty much tells you how WTF things are right now with the state of the law.

You have judges saying that they would love to follow the Supreme Court's instructions, but they have no idea what it is. Another judge suggesting that they just issue a one-line opinion to lift the injunction to send it back to the Supreme Court to resolve so that SCOTUS will bother explaining something, and so on.

It's ... impressive. Not in a good way, but impressive.

[LawTalkingGuy]

SCOTUS is bad at its job. And I don't mean that because "they always rule for Trump and ignore the law because they are partisan hacks etc."

They are bad at articulating uniform and workable legal rules and expectations after careful consideration that lower courts, other branches, states, and lawyers can actually follow and use. And while I reject the idea that they are the "boss" of the legal system, they do share some traits with other crappy bosses that most people have experienced. They give vague and contradictory expectations, refuse to give actual good reasons for things, and then get mad when their "employees" don't do what they want immediately in the way they expected. I mean Gorsuch was complaining that lower courts didn't follow the "reasoning" of a two paragraph order in a procedural posture that the Court had insisted for decades was not a binding determination of the merits. That's such a terrible boss move: blaming everyone else for their shitty communication skills and contradictory expectations.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Also this is true outside the emergency order context too. Look at Bruen and Rahimi. In Bruen they articulated a cumbersome and unworkable framework that they clearly didn't think through and it immediately frustrated lower courts and resulted in bad decisions.

And then when Rahimi came, they placed the blame on the lower courts for "misunderstanding" its "methodology." No they didn't. The Court came up with a dumb and rigid framework that lower courts tried to apply correctly.

Only Thomas (who wrote Bruen) had the sense to be like: the lower courts got it right because I really did want this terrible rule.

[Sarcastr0]

While Thomas wrote Bruen, it's been Gorsuch whose been advocating for the tabula rasa 'lets start over and do rights the originalist way' project.

That's dumb, but something the system can handle - lower courts are meant to extend the law to new things and fill in blanks. It takes time for cases to work their way up, but the system is made for that kind of slow common law style consensus building arrival at wisdom and clarity.

The Court jumping into the process via the shadow docket and leaving terrible unclear precedent is bad.

Inferring bad faith in the lower courts because they're not mind readers is worse.

Worse for the judiciary as an institution, worse of the judiciary politically, worse for it's legitimacy...honestly hardly any upside I can see.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The whininess is what I can't stand the most. Especially Gorsuch. Gorsuch pretends to be so committed to history and tradition and will be like "according to Bracton..." But like many originalists he misses the big picture. There is a 700+ year Anglo-American legal tradition of courts working through things and pushing back on each other even when one claims to have superior jurisdiction and authority. To be sure, there is also a long tradition of some courts simply making stuff up and forcing other courts to just accept it. "Emergency orders are totally precedent" is like "it's called an asummpsit and now the Kings Bench has jurisdiction over contract cases."

But I just wish there was some self-awareness from the "history and tradition" court about the actual legal tradition they are a part of and cut the whining and blame games.

[Brett Bellmore]

I can't entirely argue about that. I mean, I will argue with Bruen being "unworkable", which is NOT the same thing as "A lot of judges, and, oh, look, 8 members of the Court when push came to shove, don't WANT to follow it."

And you kind of acknowledge that with your remark about Thomas: You don't LIKE the Bruen rule. Well, that's not the same as being "unworkable".

It IS difficult to follow, because,
1. You've got a flat command in the Constitution, that the right shall not be infringed. Facially, that bars pretty much any gun law AT ALL.
2. But the Court is never going to go there. And historical precedent from the time doesn't even support going there.
So,
3. You have to come up with exceptions to that flat command, and if they're not going to be based on the text, and they're not going to just eviscerate the command by saying, "Never mind, anything goes.", what ARE they going to be based on, except that historical practice revealing what the people who put that command in the Constitution thought it meant?

I mean, sure, if you're a living constitutionalist you won't do that. That's because you're either going to be pulling it out of your ass or saying that anything goes. But if you're going to be an originalist, or even making an effort to look like one, you're stuck with exceptions based on historical practice.

Which means, unavoidably, looking at that practice, and then applying it to present day circumstances.

That's the process the 1st amendment went though, and it was very difficult, and took many decades to be reasonably complete. The 2nd amendment is just far behind the 1st in this process because the Court blew it off for so long.

But it's unavoidable unless you're just going to deep six 10% of the Bill of Rights.

***

But, yeah, it's a terrible Court.

I'd argue that it's unavoidably a terrible Court, because it is not, and has not for a very long time, been in the business of just upholding the law as originated by others.

It has to pretend to be, in order to maintain a gloss of legitimacy.

But it can ONLY pretend to be, because we have a federal government that is, at this point, grown vastly beyond what any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution would authorize.

And nobody who would honestly uphold the Constitution is going to be put on the Court, because nobody who has a say in picking them WANTS it honestly upheld. No President and damned few Senators are that kind of bomb thrower.

So, you have to staff the judiciary with people who will reliably NOT uphold the Constitution, while having sworn an oath to do so, and rationalizing what they do instead of upholding it well enough that the public doesn't figure out that it's all a sham.

You're not going to build a stellar Court out of that kind of material.

It would be very different if the Constitution actually authorized the sort of government we have. If THAT were the case, you could have a much better Court, because it wouldn't have to be staffed with people who were fundamentally dishonest bullshitters.

[Randal]

3. You have to come up with exceptions to that flat command, and if they're not going to be based on the text... what ARE they going to be based on...?

The answer is staring you in the face. It's... drum roll... the text! The text you forgot about, which is there for precisely this reason. It tells you what the right is for, so that the right can be aligned with its purpose.

Happily, that's how we circumscribe all the other rights. The right to free speech in the First Amendment has a purpose, and speech that doesn't further that purpose -- like defamation -- doesn't get protected.

We're able to do it with those other rights without the purpose even being spelled out for us in the Constitution! But somehow for the Second Amendment, we can't figure out how to do it, even though the FFs had the amazing foresight to include the purpose explicitly for us. It couldn't be easier, and yet we refuse, and instead -- in Bruen -- choose to make it as freakishly hard as possible. Not even possible, as we've found.

[Bwaaah]

It is surreal, not in a good way.

The Fourth Circuit should reiterate the Supreme Court's grant of a stay of the lower court's order, citing the Supreme Court's order, but without any further explanation.

Would that be absurd? Yes. Is this what a disintegrating legal system looks like? Yes. Does that portend well for any notion of law and order in the future? No.

[loki13]

I mean, yeah. I think I agree with you on all counts, Bwaaah.

I've actually been trying to decide what I would do if I was a judge on the 4th. As much as I might like to just lift the stay without explanation and stick it to SCOTUS (okay, you tell us what you mean), I think the only appropriate thing to do is exactly what you said.

But the fact that I can't even fully make up my mind is kind of the problem, and the fact that I think that probably is the only appropriate decision is definitely a problem. And also a real waste of an en banc oral argument.

Also also? It might be nice if the Supreme Court clarifies which of their statements on the emergency order is correct- is it true that they are not precedent*, as has always been the case, or is it true that they are, as was just announced, but only by two justices?

*Obviously, they are the law of the case, but are they precedent?

[Bwaaah]

With a record so thin as that, how can it be precedent? As distinguished by what, reason-wise, other than the docket number?

Though my position is more restrained than yours, I think I share the bulk of your fears.

[Poxigah146]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-appeals-court-largely-upholds-new-jersey-gun-restrictions/ar-AA1MhIDC?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=68c22d1db58a47eaae153dea1938328b&ei=16

They're not even trying to pretend.

""As we look through our history, a pattern emerges: our Nation has permitted restriction of firearms in discrete locations set aside for particular civic functions and where the presence of firearms was historically regulated as jeopardizing the peace or posing a physical danger to others," she wrote."

"Discrete locations" to this filthy cunt, means "basically everywhere."

[Sarcastr0]

Nepal is doing a meme-based explicitly Gen-Z revolution. They're burning relatives of politicians to death and voting on Discord like it's their parlament.

Their flag comes from an anime I watched for a bit.

The weirdness is so wrapped up in horror and violence...I wish HST were here to analyze it.

[loki13]

Thanks for the information, Sarcasto. I had seen a few updates about Nepal (just the PM resigning and the Parliament being burned down) but I hadn't been really following it.

I'll have to do a deep dive into this at some point, maybe this weekend. This sounds ... truly bizarre.

You know, I was thinking of the movie by the Succession guy- The Mountainhead. It's not a perfect movie by any means, but it ... it really captures something essential about our times. And your description of the events felt very ... similar to the themes in the movies, somehow.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Profile on the Kirk Killer:

"“In this case, it’s likely that there has been, for some time, a building frustration, and anger and rage and an inability to feel that is addressed. And so they wanted to make a big — a very big — public statement. [The suspect] probably has a very poor self-image and wanted to do something big to feel better about themselves.

“And they probably, again, don’t have the skills to address these issues in a calm, rational, interpersonal way. And that’s why they lashed out in this very violent and extreme manner,

In other words, a trannie....

[loki13]

As always, Dr. Ed can't let facts get in the way of what he already believes.

Anyway, as funny as I found Dr. Ed's completely and totally believable stories to be (....uh huh) in the past, I think my tolerance for him has ended with the constant repetition of slurs.

It's one thing to make up stuff about Maine in the 1960s, Dr. Ed, it's another to blame people (and use slurs) for actual murders. Bye.

[Mr. Bumble]

Morphing into Capt Dan the muting man.
Why don't you just absent yourself to a better site?

[LexAquilia]

He's a thin skinned radical who lives in an echo chamber. He will blame you and cheer if some Democrat happened to kill you.

Fuck him and fuck all Democrat Supremacists.

[jb]

WTactualF?

In your eagerness to make sure the shooter was trans, we're just going to redefine the term to "people who are frustrated and bad at expressing themselves"?

[LexAquilia]

Just a gentle reminder that the same Democrat Supremacists who today are upset over cancel culture were in the recent past silencing your criticisms of cancel culture by saying "Just be a decent person".

Hypocrites. It's part of the DS DNA.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/christopher-landau-charlie-kirk-foreigners

US officials plan to punish people trying to come to the US for ‘making light of’ Charlie Kirk death.

This administration is petty, arbitrary, has contempt for the concept of free speech, and it's shameful.

[Armchair]

Just can't avoid selective quotations, can you...

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't quote anything, weirdo

[Don Nico]

No you cited a specific. Yes, it is not a quote per se. How you love to distort .

[hobie]

Good old UK-style speech suppression, eh? I thought we didn't like that kinda stuff

[Martinned]

In the UK you can criticise the government as much as you like. (And people do, with gusto.)

[LexAquilia]

Can you criticize their immigration policies?

lmao no.

You can't even silently pray in public. SILENTLY pray.

[Mr. Bumble]

From jail?

[Frank Drackman]

Great Idea for 2 new "Reality Shows"
1: "Riding in Buses with Decarlo Dejuan Brown Jr"
Premise: Nation's top "Progressives" have to ride an entire circuit on a Charlotte Metro Transit Bus, sitting in front of Decarlo
2: "Target Practice with Tyler Robinson" Premise: Nation's top "Progressives" have to debate wearing a Charlie Kirk mask while Tyler lurks 120 yards away with a 30:06 rifle

I'd watch!

Frank

[LawTalkingGuy]

Okay. So when DOJ announced they were seeking the death penalty against Luigi Mangione I was highly skeptical because the death specification they are using. The hook appears to be 18 USC 924(j) which is using a firearm in an offense that involves a homicide. This seems incredibly weak and seemed to me to poise second amendment and equal protection problems.

That also appears to me to be the capital specification DOJ would use for the Kirk shooter. Again it seems weak. When it comes to aggravators that the jury would likely consider they would be 18 USC 3592(5): grave risk of death to others (since he shot into a crowd) and 3592(9) substantial planning and pre-meditation.

[hobie]

Culture of life

[Michael P]

As I read it, 18 USC 924(j) is an aggravating factor for a violation of 924(c), which requires (in relevant part) using or carrying a firearm while committing a "crime of violence or drug trafficking crime [...] for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States". In Mangione's case, what is that underlying crime?

I'd love to see Mangione face the death penalty, but I think the critics of applying it have the better argument. (And NY State abolished it circa 2004.)

[Frank Drackman]

He's going to get the Death Penalty but it'll be carried out by a fellow Prisoner/Prisoners or by Mangione himself when he "Slips" on a Shank or "Swallows his Tongue"(hard to do if it's still attached, easier if it's cut out, Cicero style)

[Randal]

Usually I can discern some sort of... concept... from your rantings but not here. Are prisoners particularly sympathetic to evil CEOs in your mind?

[not guilty]

In the case of the Kirk shooting, where is the jurisdictional hook that would make the homicide a federal crime to begin with?

Luigi Mangione crossed state lines. Tyler Robinson did not.

There is no indication that Mr. Robinson targeted Mr. Kirk because of because of his actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

The killing did not occur within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

He embarrassed Ka$h Patel twice?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I check back in on occasion just to see if this site has magically become any better than the average Facebook/Reddit/etc. social media shithole. So far, it hasn't.

[Both Sides]

It's genuinely sad, given how much better it used to be.

[LexAquilia]

The comment quality mirrors the disintegration in social cohesion.

[John 4]

They’re talking about you, knucklehead.

[Frank Drackman]

How are John 3: and John :16 doing?

[Keldonric]

I started reading here not long after the site began in 2002. Even on contentious posts back then, the comments felt more substantive. You can still find some of that if you dig, but the Facebook/Twitter heat has definitely seeped in. Good luck.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yeah, thanks for checking in. Is there a better place?

[Life of Brian]

I think the Utah governor's words at this morning's press conference perfectly captured where this unbelievably tragic and heartbreaking situation really needs to land -- and can if we collectively make it so. Well worth 10 minutes of your life to hear in full imo.

[ThePublius]

I watched, and was very impressed with Governor Spencer Cox. He could legitimately run for president.

[jb]

He's moved a bit more MAGA over the past couple of years, but is probably too moderate to make it through the Republican primary process. (See also: John Huntsman Jr.)

Thanks for posting, Life of Brian. I really hope that we can use this moment to step back the rage that permeates so much of our political engagement today. As Brett pointed out the other day, some of this may stem from spending too much time in our own filter bubbles. So I think Cox's and Kirk's suggestion to sometimes step away from the Internet and engage more in real life is good, and also it's probably useful for all of us to try to diversify what we look at when we do get back on the Internet.

[loki13]

1. Spend time in your local community- volunteering, helping out with local groups, teaching/mentoring/coaching local kids.

2. Spend time outdoors. Walk, hike, sports... just do something outdoors. Heck, lawn work.

3. I recommend meditation, but that's probably too spiritual for a lot of the people here. But seriously, try it.

4. Try to enforce phone-free (screen-free) time. Whether it's a matter of minutes, or hopefully hours, devote some time to being unplugged completely.

5. Get a hobby that requires you to be present in the moment and that rewards process.

All of these don't give you the dopamine rush of pwning people on the intertubez, but that's the point.

ETA- oh, and mangoes. If you can get 'em fresh. Always recommend mangoes.

[Magister]

ETA- oh, and mangoes. If you can get 'em fresh. Always recommend mangoes.

Mango only pawn in game of life.

[hobie]

I watched both the governor and Patel. After opening with thanks to Trump and himself for solving the case, Patel actually made a decent speech about everyone coming together.

Also, it should be clarified that Trump or law enforcement had nothing to with catching the killer...it was just a dad making a phone call

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I heard his words. Very reasonable.

Therefore, he must be primaried.

[ThePublius]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOdr2UliFvG/

אם העולם מחולק לטוב ורע, אז איבדנו היום בן אדם חשוב מאוד בצד של הטובים.. אני עדיין לא מאמין שהצליחו לסתום לך את הפה.
מי יתן ונמשיך את הדרכו של צ׳רלי ולעולם לא נוותר לאנרכיסטים מטורפים להשתמש באלימות כדי להשתיק ולהעלים אותנו מהמפה.
אנחנו אשכרה צריכים שתמשיך לשמור עלינו מלמעלה.
יהיה זכרו ברוך

[hobie]

A known antisemite feted in Hebrew. The mind boggles

[ThePublius]

He was not an antisemite, dope, he was a strong supported of Jews and Israel, they loved him, too.

[hobie]

He was a strong supporter of Israel, yes. Which we all know is a political calculation for biblical reasons. But like Trump, he savaged American Jews.

[ThePublius]

Citation for that?

[John F. Carr]

Jair Bolsonaro has been convicted of attempting a coup and sentenced to 27 years in prison. Getting to a conviction took less than three years from the main events. He was convicted by a panel of five Supreme Court judges. His lawyer can ask the full 11 member court to review the case. Review is discretionary. He is under house arrest while waiting for the judgment to become final.

https://apnews.com/article/jair-bolsonaro-coup-trial-convicted-what-to-know-ed1667f26c809b1cfa01aa0f791ba824

The full list of charges is "attempting a coup after losing the 2022 race to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, participating in an armed criminal organization, attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, damage qualified by violence, and deterioration of listed heritage."

[loki13]

THAT'S A TARIFF!

[Frank Drackman]

He'll win when he runs again

[John F. Carr]

Two Massachusetts teachers are on leave for their reactions to the killing of Charlie Kirk. One posted "Just a reminder, We’re NOT offering sympathy" on a personal social media page and the post got picked up by Libs of TikTok.

I think this is protected First Amendment activity, an extracurricular comment on a matter of public interest. There is a vague exception if people get upset enough, e.g. taking the wrong side of the trans wars is a career-ending mistake. I think the system will ultimately side with the teachers on this issue.

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/09/11/2-mass-teachers-reportedly-on-leave-for-reactions-to-charlie-kirks-death/

[loki13]

...what better way to honor Charlie Kirk, who was (despite the other issues I might have with him) a champion of the power of free speech, than making sure that the government uses all its power to silence and punish any who dare speak ill of him?

This truly is the dumbest timeline.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It's almost like there's a qualitative difference between "speaking ill of" someone and cheering on murder.

[Randal]

Who was cheering on murder?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Anyone who didn't give an appropriate "harrumph", obviously.

[Frank Drackman]

You're so full of Shit, you know if it was 2 teachers in Bum-Fuck Ali-baba in 2020, saying the same thing about (Wife Beater Drug Addict) Floyd George's Fent-a-nol OD you'd be the first one demanding their Heads on a Virtual Cancellation Platter.
Like the NFL, most Government Jobs have "Morals" Clauses that lets them fire you for pretty much anything they want.

Frank

[Don Nico]

The line may show that poster to be an Masshole. But that does not justify suspension.

[Zarniwoop]

If - and that's a big, BIG IF - it turns out Kirk's shooter (white, Mormon, conservative gun-friendly household, who reportedly-but-unverified dressed as Trump and Pepe the Frog for Halloween 2016 and 2018 respectively) is a Groyper, will anyone have the decency to admit their "Blame the libz!" and "Must be trannies!" bloviation was ... not correct? (Not holding my breath about Grampa Ed, but maybe some others would surprise me.)

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

Relatedly, having read a bit in that internet rabbit hole, I need to go wash my brain out with soap.

[Estragon]

As I said upthread, shamelessness is a core MAGA value at this point. My guess is that we will get some version of Scott Adams’ bon mot from last year: admittedly false but “directionally true.”

[Sarcastr0]

They still think Trump was shot by a leftist.

They believe what the wanna.

[Don Nico]

As do you, as do you.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

There is no reality?

How trans!

[Randal]

Whether or not a Groyper, he doesn't fit the right's narrative. I'm guessing they'll try to squeeze it in by claiming he was a good MAGA white boy who got corrupted by Soros or something.

[Estragon]

I’d hesitate to draw any conclusions from the alleged bullet messages other than this gentleman was extremely online.

[Randal]

Oops, I edited out from under you. But yes I agree. The messages seem pretty scattershot.

[loki13]

Yeah. I think it would be great if everyone would cool it on leaping to conclusions (especially the ones that you already know to be true!) until some time and a full picture emerges.

In the end, it doesn't really matter if he was radicalized on the left, or radicalized on the right. Why? Because ... there's a whole lot of radicalization going on. Aided and abetted by ... being extremely online.

It's almost like there's a slightly more important issue on the radicalization that the direction of the radicalization.

[Randal]

I'm going to go ahead and, disagree with you there. I mean yes, once we're all jerking off in heaven we can theorize about how great an earthly utopia would be. But here in 2025, there's a strange president with 3.5 years to go who's promoting the radicalization of his side against the other. There are imminent dangers.

In that context, it matters a lot which side the highly publicized radicalized violence is coming from. The opposition needs to remain credible, and high-profile violence coming from its side would undermine it hugely. We need to present Americans with a clear choice, not just "well, everyone's radicalized so, better to just throw in with the side I think's more likely to win because they have more guns or whatever."

[loki13]

Hey- I think I am calling out the fast descent into authoritarianism as much as anyone else.

But do you know what? I can't open the eyes of people that refuse to see. What I can do, hopefully, is try and persuade people that might already be open to what I am saying that violence isn't the answer.

I've already stated that I've seen (personally) that the same radicalization I saw with the right occur over the last 15+ years (and really accelerating with MAGA and QAnon and COVID) has been happening on the left. That's just anecdotal, and my opinion, but I find it really worrying.

I'm not saying, "Everyone is radicalized, bruh, no worries." I am saying, "Radicalization is a problem, a HUGE problem, and it's occurring in both directions. Let's stop worrying so much about the direction, and start worrying a lot about the causes of the radicalization."

I happen to think that being "extremely on-line" is a cause (not the only one, but ... the biggest one). To be honest, I don't have a solution. But I think it helps to start with identifying the problem.

But you don't have to agree with me. That's cool too.

[Sarcastr0]

Radicalization isn’t necessarily left or right.

[loki13]

True. I'm using it as a shorthand.

[Randal]

There's an extent to which radicalization on one side begets radicalization on the other. Radicalization in self-defense, if you want. And yes, it can create a doom spiral. I think stopping that spiral before it accelerates is really the most leveraged action we can take right now.

As you pointed out, the right has been radicalizing for some time. As hobie points out below, they've been responsible for almost all of the high-profile non-protest political violence over the past few years. (I would say decades, going all the way back to our very own Kaz's namesake, Timothy McVeigh, etc. etc. The only exception I can even think of is Steve Scalise until you get all the way back to Reagan in '81.)

It's really important for the left not to respond with violence of its own. In fact, if a civil war is gonna happen, hopefully the left can step back and let it happen between MAGA factions. Not that I want that, but it's better than a left vs. right conflagration.

[Commenter_XY]

Loki, do social media platforms like Tik Tok act as an accelerant in radicalization, in your opinion? If so, we would agree.

The problem is the remedy, isn't it?

[hobie]

Yeah, he's definitely MAGA, but the 4chan variety. Which puts him in the company of Flynn and MTG. And as we've seen lately, MTG has been a little disloyal to the cult. So MAGA-4chaners can definitely misbehave

[Kazinski]

So what explains the scrawling of "hey fascist, catch" on the cartridge?

A lot of left wingers come from conservative political households.

Nice try.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe governor Walz put him up to it!

[Don Nico]

Even more lame than usual.

[Zarniwoop]

"False flag" is a glaringly obvious solution to that deep, deep conundrum.

The Q is posed as a hypothetical ("a big, BIG IF"). Since all you've done is dodged, I'll add a specific one for you:

If it turns out the shooter is a Groyper (or some other flavor of committed, right-wing-fringe), will you acknowledge that the purported shell casings could be a "shift blame to those gwarsh-dang Libz" false flag worthy of 4-chan/8-chan?

[Kazinski]

Are you really that desperate?

Just come to terms with it, the Guardian has:

"Cox told reporters that a family member of Robinson who was interrogated by investigators said Robinson had “become more political in recent years”.

The family member, Cox said, recounted how Robinson had gone over for dinner and mentioned that Kirk was scheduled to speak at UVU. The family member recalled Robinson talking about not liking Kirk and his viewpoints.

In a phone interview Friday, someone who said they were friends with Robinson in high school– who asked to remain anonymous – said that Robinson was “pretty left on everything” and was “the only member of his family that was, like, really leftist”.

“The rest of his family was very hard Republican – like gun-loving, everything,” the friend said. “He was really the only one that was on the left.”

The friend said he was stunned when he saw the news on Friday that Robinson was the suspect in the Kirk case. “I knew he had strong political views,” the friend remarked, “but I never thought it would even go near that far.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/12/suspect-charlie-kirk-shooting

[jb]

What does "if you read this, you are gay, LMAO" mean? Do you think this was actually an act of anti-gay violence?

One of his bullets was inscribed with the sequence of controller moves for Helldivers. In Helldivers, the protagonist is trying to kill a bunch of fascists. A reasonable inference about the anti-fascist inscriptions might be that he really likes playing Helldiver.

I have no idea if he was conservative or liberal or even cared very much about politics. You don't either. The attempts to try to ascribe the violence to the other team seems really desperate.

[Randal]

So what explains the scrawling of "hey fascist, catch" on the cartridge?

It's a quote from Helldivers 2. The sort of thing a pseudo-violent white kid would think was a clever reference to put on a bullet.

[ThePublius]

You guys are twisting yourselves into a pretzel to try to convince people that Robinson is a conservative Trump support. Geez. Yea, a conservative Trump supporter assassinates conservative friend of J.D. Vance, a guy who supported Trump's campaign and was handing out Trump hats just before he was shot.

That's believable. Dopes.

[Estragon]

“Skye Valadez”

Where does this individual go for their apology?

[ThePublius]

To the "internet sleuths" who surfaced it, I guess. I don't really care.

[Estragon]

That is an impressive level of personal responsibility for the baseless things you posted here mere hours ago! As I said— shamelessness is a core MAGA value.

[Sarcastr0]

All Democrats are responsible for anything anyone on the left ever said.

People on the right aren't even responsible for things they themselves say.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No one has a lower opinion of the right than the right itself.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You don’t care that you falsely accused someone of murder?

[ThePublius]

It was a mistake, based on early reporting. It happens. And I didn't say he did it, I asked. Here's exactly what I posted:

Could it be?

Skye Valadez

https://x.com/SpikeDiet/status/1966478881470243181/photo/1

And, I provided a link.

Get over it.

What a bunch of dicks.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So the thing is: you said you don’t care that it was wrong! Thats the issue more than it being a mistake!

Also “get over it” where the “it” is falsely accusing someone of murder is very dickish behavior. So you calling OTHER people dicks for not “getting over” is some wild ass projection. Other people noticing you did a shitty thing isn’t them being dicks!

[Zarniwoop]

Didn't read the Groyper link, eh?

You guys are twisting yourselves into a pretzel to try to convince people that Robinson is a conservative Trump support. Geez. Yea, a conservative Trump supporter assassinates [Charlie Kirk]

In the internecine wars of the fringey-fringe right wing, the "Groyper" sub-fringe is a group that apparently thinks Charlie Kirk was too liberal. Radicalized Groyper is a completely plausible (if still low-odds) explanation for a self-identified "right winger" to shoot Kirk.

And you can stop pretending the right never calls the left "fascist"; it's so overused across the political spectrum that it's hardly diagnostic of anything at this point.

But if your answer is some flavor of "No true Scotsmanconservative", I can live with that.

[Zarniwoop]

FWIW my leading contender for a solutionthat fits the available evidence looks sort like this:
1) raised conservative, Mormon, knows how to handle guns. Not unusual, not bad in itself.
2) Dropped out of college, entered apprenticeship, apparently immersed in video games and surrounding culture. This is, sadly, 100% compatible with late-puberty/early-adulthood onset mental issues.
3) internet radicalization combined with mental instability. In other words, perfect for stochastic terrorism.
4) Kirk was famous, and Kirk was there, and a fixation happened. He had access to a bolt-action .30-06 (not bad itself, either) and knew how to use it, and plan an escape. Not too different than Sirhan Sirhan ...

No "but Libz!", no "trannies!", no "he was raised fascist!". Far-right fringey-fringe (i.e. Groyper or similar) is not the best & most likely explanation ... though still non-zero odds. We'll see, esp. if he tries an insanity defense in a year or two.

There doesn't have to be a tribal politics reason for this at all.

But that won't stop Grampa Ed, or his fellow travelers.

[Estragon]

“See you in Valhalla”? Can one of the MAGAs explain?

[hobie]

They don't know which mythologies they're supposed to believe in. With all the white supremacy flexing this year, perhaps Valhalla is the whitest afterlife they can find.

[ThePublius]

You racist ass. Do you know that what prompted the question was Kash Patel saying "see you in Valhalla." Kash is hardly white.

"In Norse Mythology
Definition: In Norse mythology, Valhalla is the hall where the god Odin houses the dead who died valiantly in battle.
Life in Valhalla: The slain warriors, known as the einherjar, live an idealized life of feasting, fighting, and healing, awaiting Ragnarök."

'died valiantly in battle'

[Bwaaah]

You failed to explain it in a way that makes it morally reprehensible, and therefore, your explanation can't possibly be correct.

[ThePublius]

You don't have to be 'a MAGA' to explain this, you ignorant dope. You've never heard of Valhalla? Not a student of history, I guess.

[Estragon]

No need for insults. You seem a bit prickly. I have heard of Valhalla, yes, of course, but it seems like a curious place for a Jesus-loving guy to end up…? I suppose the afterlife contains multitudes. I’ve never heard anyone say that before but perhaps I run in the wrong circles. Just wondering if this has some special significance to the more MAGA minded among us

[ThePublius]

"Just wondering if this has some special significance to the more MAGA minded among us"

I'm not an orthodox MAGAn, but I've never heard that reference in this context before. I think it's because Kash is probably not Christian, but believes in something of a universal afterlife, and wanted to invoke 'died valiantly in battle.'

As far as being prickly, I'm sorry, I'm just perturbed at the leftists here trying to pin this entirely on the right. We don't know enough yet, and it doesn't at all comport with Occam's razor.

[Estragon]

“I'm just perturbed at the leftists here trying to pin this entirely on the right”

But you were just trying to pin this on a trans person, and when you found out it wasn’t, you said “I don’t care.”

Does this strike you as contradictory in any way?

See also Nancy Mace:

“enough is enough[…] it sounds like the shooter was a tranny, or pro-tranny.” (9/11)

“We know Charlie Kirk would want us to pray for such an evil, and lost individual like Tyler Robinson to find Jesus
Christ.” (9/12)

[ThePublius]

"But you were just trying to pin this on a trans person, and when you found out it wasn’t, you said “I don’t care.”"

Excuse me? When did I try to pin this on a trans person?

[Estragon]

Could it be?

[ThePublius]

Show me where I did that, or apologize.

[Estragon]

Could it be?

Skye Valadez

https://x.com/SpikeDiet/status/1966478881470243181/photo/1

You also admitted it was a mistake. Maybe YOU should apologize?

[ThePublius]

You know, I'm honestly not following you. Is Valadez a trans person?

[Estragon]

Shameless! By your deeds you will be known.

At least be a man about it— you’re never getting to Valhalla with Charlie and Kash with this beta “who, me?” rountine.

[hobie]

Nancy Mace: "And a message of peace to our friends in the Middle East. Whether you're Jewish or Muslim, y'all need Jesus!"

[Zarniwoop]

I'm sorry, I'm just perturbed at the leftists here trying to pin this entirely on the right. We don't know enough yet, and it doesn't at all comport with Occam's razor.

And how did you feel about the drumbeats of "it's time go to war with Libz and Trannies" from Trump on down, and across all flavors of news media, influencers, pundits, social media, etc. before any facts were in?

Did you experience any prickles there, or invoke Occam's razor? Matthew 7:3-5 springs to mind.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No need for insults.

LOL!

[Estragon]

“I check back in on occasion just to see if this site has magically become any better than the average Facebook/Reddit/etc. social media shithole. So far, it hasn't.”

Be the change you want to see!

[ThePublius]

You guys are too much, really.

[Both Sides]

Looks like groyper/Fuentes/Pepe right vs. Kirk/TPUSA right, with some incel internet craziness thrown in (apparently the messages on the bullets are from a video game called "Helldivers2," about which I know nothing).

Really, the folks who do these tragic shootings are typically very messed up mentally, and neither side should be rushing to accuse the other of fomenting it.

[ThePublius]

Where did Charlie Kirk's murderer learn to call conservatives "fascists"?

Anderson Cooper: "Do you think Donald Trump is a fascist?"

Kamala Harris: "Yes, I do. YES, I DO!"

[jb]

https://x.com/HelldiversAlert/status/1761273560683700512
https://www.polygon.com/charlie-kirk-shooter-helldivers-2-meme-tyler-robinson/

[Both Sides]

Yep. Publius, all the etchings were quotes from a video game. And I doubt Mr. Pepe was an Anderson Cooper or Kamala Harris fan.

Let me stress that independent of that, the Kirk shooting was a very bad thing. It's also a bad thing to assume one's political opponents are behind all/most of the very bad things that happen.

[Randal]

Where did Charlie Kirk's murderer learn to hit an artery from 200 yards with a bolt rifle? When he was 4 from his conservative, gun-loving dad.

Which is fine. Speech is fine, and teaching 4 year olds how to kill is, I guess fine.

[ThePublius]

1. how do you know he was aiming at the artery?
2. how do you know he learned to shoot when he was 4?

[Mr. Bumble]

He doesn't which is why he's a douche.
Obviously he doesn't know much about rifles either (bolt rifle indeed).

[Life of Brian]

bolt rifle

Imagine the tumble on that puppy....

[Randal]

I don't get it... are you sad that I left out the "-action" part? Sorry I didn't know it was so important to you.

how do you know he learned to shoot when he was 4?

His family's FB posts.

[Mr. Bumble]

Leaving it out made you sound dumb or dumber actually, since you have a pretty good handle on dumb.

[LexAquilia]

He learned at 4 years old how to hit a man in the artery at 200 yards and you confirmed by this FB posts?

Look at how completely different this Randal is from yesterday's Randal.

This guy had Democrat Supremacists carvings on his bullets. Nothing about his parents will overcome the clear fact he was your typical Antifa deranged Democrat.

[Randal]

I think you're behind in the news cycle a little bit. The bullet carvings fall into two categories: anti(?)-LGBT stuff and references to Helldivers 2.

Sorry Lex, your preferred narrative is falling apart.

[hobie]

Lex has been taking today's news very hard. He was all primed for tranny/lib persecution. Now he's just the sad-faced emoji

[Sarcastr0]

Today’s civil war against the libs has been cancelled due to the shooter being demographically uncooperative.

[Both Sides]

Lex and Dr. Ed are the real victims here.

[not guilty]

LexAquilia, I asked you yesterday, whereupon you turned tail and ran like a scalded dog. What on earth are "Democrat Supremacists carvings"?

An ipse dixit assertion doesn't feed the bulldog.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, LexAquilia.

[Frank Drackman]

Here are the Arteries you can normally feel a pulse in,
Superficial Temporal (in front of the ear) Carotids, Axillary (tough one, Upper inner arm, Brachial inch or two in from the elbow, Radial (outside wrist) Ulnar (Inside wrist, harder to find, it's often under a Tendon) Femoral (Groin) Popliteal (hollow area behind Knee) Dorsalis Pedis (on top of foot) Posterior Tibial (inside rear ankle)

Frank

[hobie]

Recent acts of political violence | likely perpetrator political affiliation (since Jan6)

Rep. Charlie Kirk murdered | Likely MAGA
Dem. Melissa Hortman and husband murdered | MAGA
Dem. Josh Shapiro house firebombed | MAGA
New Mexico Republican Party headquarters set on fire | likely LIB
Rep. Trump Assassination attempt | still undetermined (though perp registered Republican)
Dem Paul Pelosi head cracked open | MAGA
Jan 6 | MAGA

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks for your work for the Ministry of Truth.

[hobie]

Always happy to help.

[Randal]

Grok figured it out.

https://x.com/brucewilson/status/1966533940044288345

[hobie]

I didn't know Nick Fuentes was a leader of the 4chan sect. Yikes! The 4chan MAGA sect are the absolute crazies. They make regular MAGA's homophobia and racism seem quaint. The shit they post is just revolting; dismembered black corpses; shots of actual rape; snuff. Maybe we're seeing hints of inter-MAGA warfare beginning. I know I got my popcorn!

[Life of Brian]

A screenshot that doesn't show the priming questions (and there had to be at least one, given the wording of the final question shown) isn't particularly helpful. Here's the entire exchange I just tried (maintaining the exact language of the question in your post, despite its awkwardness):

what symbols were found on the bullet casings in Tyler Robinson's rifle?

The engravings found on the bullet casings and unfired cartridges associated with Tyler Robinson's rifle included a combination of symbols and messages:
- Arrow symbols: ↑ → ↓ ↓ ↓
- "Hey fascist! Catch!"
- "o bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao, ciao, ciao" (or variations referencing the antifascist song "Bella Ciao")
- "Notices bulges OwO what’s this?" (or slight punctuation variations)
- "If you read this, you are gay LMAO"

in your opinion grok what do these symbols track his political beliefs in?

Based on the symbols and messages engraved on the bullet casings and cartridges—"Hey fascist! Catch!", "o bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao, ciao, ciao" (a direct nod to the iconic Italian antifascist resistance song from WWII), the arrow sequence (↑ → ↓ ↓ ↓, which matches a stratagem code for deploying bombs in the video game Helldivers 2, a title with satirical themes around fighting authoritarian threats in the name of "democracy"), "Notices bulges OwO what’s this?" (a playful, trolly meme from online furry and role-play communities), and "If you read this, you are gay LMAO" (classic internet bait humor)—I'd say they collectively point to a mix of far-left anti-fascist ideology blended with heavy immersion in chaotic, meme-driven online subcultures.

The explicitly political elements, like calling out "fascist" and referencing "Bella Ciao," suggest strong opposition to perceived authoritarianism or right-wing figures (in this case, targeting someone like Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative). This aligns with antifa-style sentiments—resistance against fascism, often from anarchist or radical leftist perspectives—without necessarily tying to a formal group. The gaming and meme references add a layer of youthful, digital-native irreverence, common in online spaces where political radicalization can happen through humor and in-jokes, sometimes overlapping with LGBTQ+-friendly communities that skew progressive. It's not purely ideological; there's a trollish, nihilistic edge that could indicate someone more influenced by Discord chats or forums than traditional politics.

That said, without a manifesto or deeper public insight into his background (he was an unaffiliated voter from a Republican family who reportedly grew "more political" lately and viewed Kirk as "spreading hate"), this is interpretive. It doesn't scream organized extremism so much as a personal, online-fueled grudge against conservatism framed as anti-fascism.

Setting aside the dramatic difference between this answer and the purported one, I'll also say that as a day-1 Grok user that the response in your post is written in a style that just doesn't sound like Grok.

[Randal]

MAGA Rep. Nancy Mace went from "Death penalty!" to "We must pray for poor, lost Tyler to find Jesus" in a very short amount of time, about how long it takes to see a photo of a white kid I reckon.

[Zarniwoop]

Or how long it takes to have a dawning realization that spinning a "white conservative Mormon raised in a gun-friendly home" as a "liberal, Soros-funded 'tranny'" might be an uphill battle.

[Bob from Ohio]

Parents and children always share political views? Interesting.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I just saw Trump’s most recent statement on Charlie Kirk, and I hope for Charlie’s sake he cared more about the movement than Trump the man, or at least had some awareness of the profound limitations of Trump the man. And don’t give me any of the “we grieve in different ways” bullshit. For anyone else that would be fair, but not Donald “now that the twin towers fell my building is the tallest in NYC” Trump.

[Mr. Bumble]

A link might have been nice.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-79-ignores-charlie-kirk-question-to-hype-wh-ballroom/

[Roger S]

The link shows that Trump politely answered a rude question.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“How are you holding up” is like the opposite of a rude question.

[Bwaaah]

I see how troubled you are by that report about Trump.

Are you OK? If you have family, they can be comforting at a time like this.

Hang in there.

[Roger S]

No, it is a rude question. Trump is the President. A psychotherapist might ask a question like that, but Trump is not getting psychotherapy from some stupid reporter.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“A psychotherapist might ask a question like that.”

Oh. Dude…

[John 4]

Therapy is rude

[LawTalkingGuy]

I was more struck by the belief that “how are you holding up” is only the kind of question a therapist would ask and not something people often ask when someone is grieving or going through a difficult time.

It’s remarkable that someone could go through life and not understand such a basic human interaction.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Come on. He's old. He just forgot he was supposed to have been a great friend of Charlie Kirk.

[ThePublius]

Lies.

[LawTalkingGuy]

1) what’s the lie
2) do you really think you’re in a position to call out lies when you literally said “I don’t care” and “get over it” about falsely accusing someone of murder??!

[ThePublius]

"2) do you really think you’re in a position to call out lies when you literally said “I don’t care” and “get over it” about falsely accusing someone of murder??!"

Are you kidding me? Why the outrage about me repeating something seen online when the manhunt was underway? Holy shit. Get a grip.

And, as I said, I didn't accuse, I asked "could it be?," or some such thing.

Don't be such a dick.

[Randal]

I mean, you were literally peddling lies.

I'm still curious what from LTG's post you think was a lie. I don't see anything in there that's even capable of being a lie.

* I just saw Trump’s most recent statement on Charlie Kirk
I guess this is at least factual, but doesn't seem like a meaningful thing to lie about.

* I hope for Charlie’s sake he cared more about the movement than Trump the man
Opinion

* at least had some awareness of the profound limitations of Trump the man
Maybe you think it's a lie to point out that Trump has limitations? I suppose you might think that if you held Trump up as your cult leader / godhead.

* And don’t give me any of the “we grieve in different ways” bullshit.
Maybe you think "we grieve in different ways" isn't bullshit? I feel like you're objectively wrong on that count.

* For anyone else that would be fair, but not Donald
Opinion

* “now that the twin towers fell my building is the tallest in NYC” Trump.
Trump on 9/11 -- day of! "when they built the World Trade Center [40 Wall Street] became known as the second-tallest, and now it's the tallest..."

[ThePublius]

You and LTG may need professional help. You're both taking this thread way too seriously, and getting way to wound up about it. Why do you care so much what I say? Just ignore me, and move along.

[Sarcastr0]

TP of all people telling people to calm down and not take things seriously is how you know he’s aware he fucked up.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If I’ve learned anything over the last few years, and this assassination is a stark example, online often is real life. So I tend to assume the feelings and opinions are real to some extent.

[LawTalkingGuy]

LOL the most cliched online loser talk possible. Now I actually feel bad for you.

[LexAquilia]

Dude you made a similar remark to me the other day.

lmao wtf

[LawTalkingGuy]

I should have clarified that I meant this part: “You're both taking this thread way too seriously, and getting way too wound up about it. Why do you care so much what I say? Just ignore me, and move along.”

Getting caught saying something stupid and then pivoting to everyone is crazy for reading your own words is cliche.

By contrast I DO think you need professional help to the extent you genuinely believe that everyone slightly to the left of you is a potential murderer threatening you. To the extent you don’t believe that and are just a troll, I don’t know how much good therapy would do for your personality disorder but it’s worth a shot.

[hobie]

Publius, you should probably stop all this impotent flailing about how we should all stop talking about this now. Very Epstein Files. Just say this is all a lib hoax and call it a day.

[Estragon]

“They applaud his death, mock him at his passing. That's downright despicable and evil. And now I know who you are, you've been driven from the woodwork by this tragic event. God help you.”

But also!

“You're both taking this thread way too seriously, and getting way too wound up about it. Why do you care so much what I say? Just ignore me, and move along.”

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

LOFL.

[ThePublius]

Contrasting two comments from two different contexts is disingenuous.

[Estragon]

Just ignore me and move along

[John 4]

"You and LTG may need professional help. You're both taking this thread way too seriously, and getting way to wound up about it. Why do you care so much what I say? Just ignore me, and move along."

Oof!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Interestingly enough, grand jury indictments are essentially based on the “could it be” standard.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks,
"Trump, 79, Ignores Charlie Kirk Question to Hype WH Ballroom" (headline)

"The president was asked about how his “last three and a half days” have been on a personal level in the aftermath of Kirk’s death, as the conservative activist had been close to the Trump family. Trump replied that he was holding up, “I think very good,”
(from the story)

Obviously he answered the question.

[LexAquilia]

Just take a moment to pause and reflect upon how Randal and hobie are just giddy with their new, false narrative. These are the kind of people who cheered yesterday and they probably did on their boomer FB accounts.

MAGA kids aren't furries or ANTIFA.

That OwO quote? This is where that's from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlkSMp7iz6c

Gay furry Democrat shit. Further, there are plenty of pictures floating around of "him" dressed as a tranny furry.

Totally MAGA kid!

[Randal]

What are you smoking? I never said I think this was a MAGA kid.

What I see is that you were giddy two days ago and now you're sad that this is a white kid from a conservative American family that enjoys gun culture. Not the storyline you were drooling over on Wednesday, is it!

I don't know what tranny furry pictures you're talking about. His Pepe the Frog costume maybe? That's a Halloween costume of an alt-right meme. Try not to lose your mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepe_the_Frog#Use_by_the_alt-right

[LexAquilia]

Hey fascist! Catch!

Sincerely,

Totally a Real MAGA Kid!

P.S. For Reals

[Randal]

"Hey fascist, catch" is a Helldivers 2 quote. If you don't know what that is, it's a videogame about conquering the galaxy in order to impose authoritarian democracy on everyone (the Great Democratization) as cover for mining the dead bodies (and captive-bred live bodies) of the indigenous inhabitants for rare minerals.

Maybe it's secretly a Soros-funded left-wing indoctrination vehicle. Probably.

[LexAquilia]

Totes MAGA, Helldivers is a totally MAGA capitalist simulation where MAGAns FLOCKED!!!

Right up there with the furry pics.
And the caio bella antifa song.

MAGA!!!

[Randal]

The ciao bella song is also from Helldivers 2. Your ignorance is showing.

[Estragon]

Hahaha. So, still a “tranny”— but not this tranny?

“leading suspect is a tranny who recently published a song titled "Charlie Kirk Dead At 31" and recently got schooled in a viral debate with Charlie.”

Nancy Mace says Charlie would want you to pray for this guy, btw.

[LexAquilia]

Correct, not that tranny. That's a different violent Democrat Supremacist.

Christians are taught to pray for everyone. Even deranged violent Democrat Supremacist.

What's weird is how you toss that out as if it's garlic for some vampire. It just furthers how utterly immoral and gross you people are. As if the public behavior of you demons over the past week or so hasn't been enough.

[Randal]

Um, if the Democrat Supremacist ever goes from "Kill him!" to "Let us pray for this lost boy to find Jesus Christ" in a matter of hours, I hereby bequeath unto you permission to call it out.

[LexAquilia]

You are pouncing on a belief that every Christian holds as some proof of shift in reality?

Are you delusional? Where was that metered, moderate unity Randal from yesterday? lmao

Have you ever challenged a narrative by your braintenders? Or always just clothed yourself in it blindly?

[Randal]

Estragon and I are talking about Nancy Mace. It's there in his comment. "Nancy Mace."

Are you drunk? You seem a little off-kilter.

[Randal]

Even assuming this kid was a proto-leftist, I'm on the one had relieved but on the other hand disturbed by the fact that the foamy right -- which two days ago had been touting civil war -- has calmed down.

Disturbed because it implies that the right has a particular enemy in mind which doesn't include white kids. White kids get a pass from MAGA, even when they're assassinating Republican figureheads.

[hobie]

We cannot endanger the Mormon vote by labeling their kids as troubled trannies. Best just to Maxwell-style wish the shooter well, send him to a camp if the bribes are favorable, and hope he lands in the arms of Jesus. As for Kirk, he served his purpose for the Trump family, so now it's time to get back to the billionaire ballroom.

[Roger S]

This kid is not getting a pass. The maga folks may want him to get the death penalty.

[Randal]

I think they're pot-committed to seek the death penalty at this point. But they've lost their enthusiasm for it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If we're going to have the death penalty, political assassination is probably one of the crimes it should be used for.

[Kazinski]

We've calmed down?

I haven't, but I hope the anger on the conservative side is totally focused on crushing the Democrats in the 2026 midterms, and then crushing the remains of the bureaucratic state that sustains them with the rejuvenated majority.

We've always know its the white liberals that are the most radical, just look at the pro-carjacking crowds demonstrating in Washington that are overwhelmingly white in a minority majority city.

[hobie]

And there it is folks. A tidy quiet-part-out-loud white nationalist rant brought about by frustration. I've been to DC several times. It is the richest, most expensive city I've ever been in (and I've lived in Angola). No black person could afford to patron there...much less live there. So where's the crime coming from? Unless, of course, we're talking the black boroughs out in the swamps. But we're not talking about blacks...are we.

[Poxigah146]

What the fuck are you talking about? DC is more than 40% black. If you only hang out in Georgetown, then yes, it'll appear that there are no blacks.

[Poxigah146]

It's not just crushing the Democrats, but we have to crush everything they care about. That means a federal ban on abortion, a federal ban on homosexual sodomy, preempt state plastic bag laws, hell, make it illegal to eat avocado toast.

[LexAquilia]

He was a proto-leftist you loon.

We are watching in real-time a mental illness. In real-time.

These people actually believe a furry who carved ANTIFA tropes on bullets and assassinated a popular, yet milquetoast conservative, is a "right-winger" because his family appears to be conservative.

In order to believe this, one must believe that no conservative parents have ever raised a faggot, tranny, or antifa freak. They must also ignore the bullet evidence and motive and all the reports of friends and family asserting he was a far-left whacko.

Their braintenders said "parents = conservative, ergo child = conservative" and these people are lapping it up. They got their cognitive out. Now it's time to pretend nothing else exists in reality but the narrative.

It's laughable. But these nuts don't care about reality, evidence, or facts, only their narrative. We saw this in 2020. We see this with child grooming and transing, and GlObAL WaRmING, and black on white crime, we see this constantly with these Democrat Supremacists.

[Estragon]

“ANTIFA tropes”

Dude.

[Randal]

There were no antifa tropes. You've completely lost the plot on this one.

Also you've still never backed up your furry claims. Are you having wet dreams about this case and confusing them with reality?

Also, no one that I'm aware of has been promulgating your strawman that he's a right-winger because he comes from a conservative family. We've been pointing out the fact that his white-bred conservative gun-friendly background appears to be generating sympathy with the rabid right-wing culture warriors who only two days ago were calling for civil war, death penalties, etc. etc. and who've shifted their tone considerably all the way over to thoughts and prayers. That's pretty sick by itself. Imagine if he had been an illegal Mexican trans furry. He'd probably already be dead. This thing exposed a real blood-lust on the right that's pretty broad-based, including members of Congress and even the President.

Any speculation that he's a right-winger himself that I've seen has been pretty flimsy but also called out clearly as speculation.

[ThePublius]

Three of the cartridges found had these messages on them:

The fired case:
"Notices, bulges, OwO what's this?"

Unfired cases:
"Hey fascist! Catch!" followed by an up arrow symbol, a right arrow symbol, and three down arrow symbols
"Oh bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao, ciao, ciao"
"If you read this, you are gay LMAO"

The one on the fired case is a furry reference.
"Oh bella..." is an anti-fascist Italian song adopted by ANTIFA.

So, there you have it. A furry reference and an ANTIFA reference.

[Sarcastr0]

You’re embarrassing yourself.

Read the news. It’s a video game.

[ThePublius]

In all sincerity and seriousness, I reply that, as far as I have been able to determine via online search is that the only Helldivers video game reference is the ""Hey fascist! Catch!" followed by an up arrow symbol, a right arrow symbol, and three down arrow symbols" inscribed on one of the casings. The other inscriptions, on the other casings, don't seem to have any connection to the (or any) video game. Does that comport with your understanding? I'd really like to know the truth.

[ThePublius]

Ah, I found the song is used in a video game:

"The song, “Bella Ciao,” was popularized as an antifascist anthem in Italy after World War II, but in recent years it has become known worldwide thanks to its inclusion in the hit Netflix series “Money Heist” and in video games, including in the first-person shooter game Far Cry 6."

That, of course, doesn't mean that Robinson didn't share the sentiment, and think Kirk a fascist (why, I do not know).

[Sarcastr0]

10 seconds Googling. Far Cry 6.
https://farcry.fandom.com/wiki/Bella_Ciao_de_Libertad

How did you miss this.

[SRG2]

Take the loss and move on.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and just in case you missed it:

"The justices lifted a lower-court order that kept humanitarian parole protections in place for more than 500,000 migrants from four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The decision comes after the court allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal status from about 350,000 Venezuelan migrants in another case."

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2025-09-12/appeals-court-rules-trump-administration-can-end-legal-protections-for-more-than-400-000-migrants

[Sarcastr0]

Fed Governor Cook declared her Atlanta property as “vacation home,” documents show
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fed-governor-cook-declared-her-atlanta-property-vacation-home-documents-show-2025-09-12/

[Roger S]

So maybe she is a financial genius after all.

[Kazinski]

[Keldonric]

If true, Mr. Pulte didn’t just damage Ms. Cook — he damaged institutional credibility. As head of a regulatory agency, he’s expected to act with care and neutrality, not as a political pundit on X.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Nah, he's good. No one expects a Trump Administration official to act with care or neutrality.

[Kazinski]

I hate to tell you this but it actually makes it worse for Cook.

That she would declare it a vacation home in the weeks before she actually took out the mortgage makes it plain that she changed her declaration on the home to get a better rate.

When someone does a preliminary estimate on a loan to find out what the current projected cost is, there is no legal obligation to be accurate, you can lie about your credit rating, the value of the property, your income, etc. Because the lender is making no commitment to loan, and you are making no commitment to buy.

When you actually complete the loan application things get more serious, they check your credit, your income, get an independent appraisal, and when you actually sign the documents and get the money and the property any misrepresentations are material.

Getting a loan estimate for a vacation home makes it even more apparent there was fraudulent intent.

[Sarcastr0]

Yiu seem to be assuming there is any evidence other than the vacation home declaration.

We haven’t seen one.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

From the article linked above:

"The documents cited by Pulte include standardized federal mortgage paperwork which stipulates that each loan obtained by Cook for the Atlanta and Michigan properties is meant for a “primary residence.” But documentation reviewed by Reuters for the Atlanta home, filed with a court in Georgia’s Fulton County, clearly says the stipulation exists “unless Lender otherwise agrees in writing.” The loan estimate, a document prepared by the credit union, states “Property Use: Vacation Home.”"

On its face, the evidence cited above suggests that the lender was aware of her intended use of the Atlanta property as a "Vacation Home" and issued the mortgage on that basis.

[Keldonric]

Does the stipulation mentioned in the filing make a difference? It says the property must be a primary residence “unless the lender otherwise agrees in writing,” and Cook’s loan estimate listed it as a vacation home — so the lender had that in hand. And she never filed a Georgia homestead exemption.

[David Nieporent]

Very little about MAGA shamelessness can astonish me any more, but taking the position that lying to a bank to get a lower interest rate is bad just a few weeks after having a tantrum and calling it "lawfare" for Trump to be partially held accountable for that, manages to qualify.

But if — unlike Trump — you actually already told them the truth, it's going to be a bit hard to prove that you tried to deceive them to get a lower rate. (BTW, your facts are wrong: it was not loan applications that she's accused of lying on, but the mortgage agreement itself. By the time that was signed, the rate would already have been set.)

My best guess as to what happened, informed by the fact that a couple of decades ago I did real estate closings: she told them it was a vacation home, but when finalizing the transaction, someone at the bank prepared the form incorrectly. And then, at the closing, they handed her the form among a stack of other documents to sign, and like every single other person on the planet besides me, she didn't read each form at the time, but just looked for the post-it flag telling her to sign at specific places and signed there.

[Keldonric]

This is interesting.

Exclusive: Bill Pulte accused Fed Governor Lisa Cook of fraud. His relatives filed housing claims similar to hers

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bill-pulte-accused-fed-governor-lisa-cook-fraud-his-relatives-filed-housing-2025-09-05/

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, not exactly the same (claiming a homestead rebate vs. misrepresentation on a mortgage application) and Pulte's parents aren't members of the federal reserve.

[Keldonric]

Here’s what I’ve seen in the reporting:
– Mr. Pulte looked at some record and used it as the basis for a claim.
– He then posted that claim on Twitter/X.
– Reporters who reviewed Ms. Cook’s mortgage documents found a loan estimate marked “Vacation Home” and a stipulation in the filed mortgage application in Fulton County, Georgia saying the property would be a primary residence unless otherwise agreed to by the lender.
– Ms. Cook never claimed a homestead exemption for the property.
– As a result of these events, more scrutiny is being directed at others.
– And I do find it interesting that Mr. Pulte’s own parents were caught out in a similar situation.
– If the language “unless the lender otherwise agrees in writing” is in the filed application, I don’t see how that can be construed as misrepresentation — especially when the loan estimate itself listed the property as a vacation home.

Things don’t seem to be adding up here.

P.S.
The fact that his parents aren’t Federal Reserve governors doesn’t make it uninteresting. What’s striking is that the very issue he used to attack Ms. Cook turned up in his own family’s filings. That speaks to integrity, not just official titles.

[John F. Carr]

A few observations on the just-decided Doe v. Noem, allowing DHS to revoke humanitarian parole for nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.

1. Jude Gelpí is one of those who can't bear to write "alien." Unlike some lawyers and judges he is willing to quote statutes containing the a-word. In other Trump era writing I've seen direct quotations from statutes and caselaw defaced with bracketed substitutions in place of the a-word.

2. Plaintiffs and DHS disagree on the use of expedited removal. Expedited removal is not available for aliens who have been present for two years. DHS wants to revoke parole before aliens reach the two year limit. Plaintiffs say expedited removal is unavailable if they have ever been paroled, even for a moment. The panel found the statute ambiguous. A party seeking a preliminary injunction needs to make a "strong showing." Plaintiffs can not do that if the law is ambiguous.

3. Humanitarian parole is supposed to be granted on a case-by-case basis but may be revoked in bulk.

4. The Trump administration does not need to show that its policy is better than the Biden administration's. It is sufficient for the agency to show that the change in policy was intentional, there are reasons for it, and the agency thinks the reasons are good.

5. Hardship on its own does not justify an injunction.

https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1384P-01A.pdf